TPW Commission
Commission Meeting, March 26, 2026
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
March 26, 2026
COMMISSION HEARING ROOM
4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744
COMMISSION MEETING
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Good morning, everyone.
Got a nice crowd today.
Before we begin, I’ll take roll call.
I’ll take roll.
I’m Chairman Paul Foster.
Vice-Chairman Bell?
VICE-CHAIRMAN OLIVER BELL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Doggett?
COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER JOHN A. McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Here.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER BLAKE ROWLING: Here.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott?
COMMISSIONER DICK SCOTT: Here.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Here.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
This meeting is called to order March 26, 2026, at 9:04 a.m.
And before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to read.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: A public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code, referred to as The Open Meetings Act.
I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
First order of business is the Approval of Minutes from the Commission meeting held January 22, 2026.
These have already been distributed.
Do I hear a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That motion passes.
Next is Acknowledgment of the List of Donations, which have been distributed.
I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Timmerman, moved.
Moves approval.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Timmerman and Scott.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
Thank you.
And next is Consideration of Contracts, which have also been distributed.
Again, I would entertain a motion.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Second, Patton.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second by Patton.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
That passes.
Now for Special Recognitions, Retirements, and Service Award presentations.
Dr. Yoskowitz will make the presentations.
Oh, and welcome Commissioner Galo.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
You know, five times a year we get together and we’re able to share the outstanding work and service of some of our 3,200 employees who are passionate about the mission of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
And it’s only a small portion that you get to interact with here in the room.
But that passion that you see in the room today, and at the other four Commission meetings, carries over into the field and around the state in every 254 counties that we serve.
So, I’m happy to be here today, happy to have families and friends to share the great work that our team has done.
And so, I’ll just jump right into it.
First off, we’d like to recognize the 2025 Shikar-Safari Officer of the Year, Dustyn Jansky.
Dustin grew up in Sweet Home, Texas.
And can stop right there.
That’s a great name.
Everything else, follows is equally great.
Located in Lavaca County, Ward Jansky’s family owned a construction company building foundations and roadways.
His character, hard work ethic, and competitive nature manifested itself on working with his family, doing mechanical work, operating heavy machinery, and driving 18-wheelers.
Ward Jansky has been married for 13 years, and has two children.
He attended Texas A&M Kingsville, where he received a Bachelor’s of Wildlife Management Science. After college, Ward Jansky began his law enforcement career as a police officer for College Station, where he excelled and joined the SWAT team.
Ward Jansky fulfilled his dream of becoming a Texas Game Warden, and began his career in Starr County. He has also been stationed in Aransas County, and is currently stationed in Guadalupe County. He continues to enhance his career by volunteering as Unmanned Aircraft System Pilot, and was selected to be a member of TPWD’s Rural Operations Group.
He has received commendations this year for both the Guadalupe County SWAT team and the Kaufman County Sheriff for his assistance in high-risk cases, and from a local hunter for his professionalism during a dove hunting contact. He continues to uphold the highest enforcement standards, filing multiple hunt without landowner consent cases, and one involving a felony-controlled substance.
Dusty’s leadership, innovation, and commitment to service embody the true meaning of excellence.
Whether serving as point man on a high-risk warrant, piling in a drone during a search and rescue, or navigating a complex field situation, Ward Jansky maintains the highest standards without losing his approachable demeanor.
He not only reflects the best of what it means to be a Texas Game Warden, he inspires others to rise to that same level.
His ability to convey his experience makes him an excellent leader to his peers.
Please join me in congratulating Game Warden Dustyn Jansky as the 2025 Shikar-Safari Officer of the Year.
[ applause ]
DUSTYN JANSKY: Thank you very much, Sir.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: You’ve got a lot of hardware here.
MR. JANSKY: Thank you so much.
I appreciate it.
Over here?
CHASE FOUNTAIN: Perfect.
All right.
Look right here, please.
On there.
One.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: You brought the truck, right?
[ laughter ]
[ applause ]
Next, we’d like to recognize the National Wild Turkey Federation Officer of the Year, Game Warden Josh Sakos.
Game Warden Sakos is the recipient of the 2025 National Wild Turkey Federation Wildlife Officer of the Year for Texas. Josh graduated from the 63rd Texas Game Warden Academy in 2020, and was assigned to the Upper Coast in Jefferson County. He has since relocated to the Hill Country, and is currently stationed in Kendall County.
Josh exemplifies the ideals of the National Wild Turkey Federation, not only through his dedication to conservation, but through his commitment to outreach and education related to the outdoors. He is a model of the tenets of community policing, and takes great pride in being part of the communities he serves.
In addition to his contribution to conservation law enforcement, he is very active in other aspects of Game Warden’s job related to public safety. His status as a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department drone operator and as an instructor for Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training and Simunitions Training, along with his work with the Texas Game Warden Search and Rescue Team, combine to make him an invaluable asset to his peers, other law enforcement agencies, and the public he serves with great distinction.
We are proud that the National Wild Turkey Federation has recognized Warden Sakos exceptional service as their 2025 Texas Officer of the Year for Texas.
Please join me in congratulating Game Warden Josh Sakos.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: All right, are we good?
Two clicks.
One…
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Next, we have a couple of life-saving awards that we would like to recognize the great work of our team.
On July 11, 2025, while on patrol in Garner State Park, Officer Gary Carter responded to a life-threatening medical emergency at Campsite 83 in the Pecan Grove camping loop.
Upon arrival, Officer Carter found a park visitor unresponsive inside his vehicle. Demonstrating calm under pressure, Officer Carter worked to safely remove the visitor from the vehicle and immediately began administering CPR. Within moments, Sergeant Lynn Kuenstler arrived with oxygen and an AED, allowing both officers to continue life-saving measures as a coordinated team.
Together, they provided oxygen and delivered an AED shock that ultimately restored the responsiveness to the park visitor.
The officer later learned that the visitor had slowly lost vision, complained of chest pain, and became unresponsive for approximately two minutes before help arrived. Officer Carter and Sergeant Kuenstler’s swift actions gave this visitor the critical chance he needed to live. Because of their decisive response, teamwork, and dedication to public safety, a life was saved that day.
Their actions exemplified the highest standards of Texas State Park Police and service to the community they serve.
Please help me recognize and honor Officer Carter and Sergeant Kuenstler.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: We’re going to step back just a little bit.
MR. FOUNTAIN: Yeah, just a little bit more.
I’m going to… this is for social media first, so I’m going to do two more.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Oh, okay.
MR. FOUNTAIN:A little bit different.
On three.
One.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
[ camera clicks ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Congratulations.
[ applause ]
Next, we have another Life-Saving Award.
Excuse me.
On October 31, 2025, Officer Blalock was traveling along Garrett Road on the boundary of Sheldon Lake State Park when he noticed a heavy black smoke rising ahead. Recognizing the seriousness of the situation, Officer Blalock immediately notified Sergeant Kocurek, who was nearby at the Region 4 headquarters, and reported what he believed to be a vehicle fire.
Sergeant Kocurek responded immediately and found a wrecked-out vehicle engulfed in flames, with thick smoke pouring from the passenger compartment. The driver, who was unconscious at the time… or was conscious at the time, but pinned beneath a mangled dashboard and paled by a vehicle’s emergency brake lever.
Sergeant Kocurek joined Officer Blalock in their attempt to free the driver as the flames continued to spread from the engine compartment into the passenger areas. Realizing the urgency, Sergeant Kocurek returned to his patrol vehicle to retrieve the fire extinguisher.
At the same time, Officer Blalock took possession of another extinguisher provided by a bystander and began suppressing the flames inside the passenger and driver’s compartment. Sergeant Kocurek returned and worked along Officer Blalock to suppress that.
Local fire departments soon arrived and began full suppression. Once the flames were extinguished, firefighters began the difficult process of removing the driver from the wreckage. He was ultimately extricated and airlifted to a trauma center, remarkably with no burns.
Throughout the rescue, Officer Blalock and Sergeant Kocurek were exposed to heavy smoke, burning chemicals, extinguisher powder, and exploding vehicle components, all without protection of traditional firefighting gear. Both officers required decontamination, and Officer Blalock was transported to a hospital for treatment of smoke inhalation.
The quick, courageous, and strategic actions of Officer Blalock and Sergeant Kocurek saved a young person’s life that day. Their work and action reflects the highest standards of Texas State Park police officers, and exemplifies the mission of service, protection, and unwavering dedication to the public.
Please help me recognize and honor both Officer Blalock and Sergeant Kocurek.
[ applause ]
Congratulations.
Congratulations.
MR. FOUNTAIN: Scoot back just a little bit more.
Same thing.
There we go.
On three…
One, two…
[ camera clicks ]
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chief Wes Masur was recently recognized by the Park Law Enforcement Association for a Lifetime Achievement Award for three decades of exceptional service, visionary leadership, and unwavering dedication to the mission of Texas State Park Police. Serving over 20 years as Chief, Wes leads a statewide force of 150 officers responsible for serving 90 Texas State Parks and approximately 10 million annual State Park visitors.
Following a proud family legacy of State Park Police service – his father was a retired State Park Police Officer and Park Superintendent at Lockhart State Park – Chief Masur has shaped the program into a model that other states strive to emulate.
His leadership has transformed the Texas State Parks Police Program through a comprehensive organizational restructure, modernization of equipment and technology, and the creation of innovative recruitment and training pathways.
Chief Masur’s tireless advocacy has secured public support, strengthened emergency response capabilities, and ensured the officers are equipped, trained, and empowered to serve the people and natural resources of Texas.
His emphasis on relationship, mentorship, and respect has fostered a culture of trust and teamwork that defines the program today.
Please help me recognize and honor Chief Wes Masur.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Last one, I promise.
Once again.
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
[ camera clicks ]
Thank you.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Next, we have a few Service Awards that we’d like to present.
Lieutenant Dwayne Havis has faithfully flown for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as a Lieutenant Game Warden for over 30 years, with a career totaling almost 19,000 hours on fixed-wing and helicopters with an impeccable safety record. Lieutenant Havis has flown innumerable law enforcement missions, wildlife survey flights all over the state and into the Gulf.
He has assisted other state and local agencies with environmental and crimes patrol and search and rescue operations. Dwayne has also been involved with natural disaster responses, including Hurricanes; Katrina, and Rita, and Ike, the Bastrop wildfires, and the Central Texas flooding, among others.
Additionally, Dwayne is recognized by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement as a Master Peace Officer.
In 2015, Dwayne was selected as the Airborne Public Safety Association’s (APSA)Fixed Wing Operator of the Year.
The APSA is an international association of 3,000 law enforcement pilots from around the world.
With 30 years of service and still flying, Lieutenant Dwayne Havis.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Perfect.
On three…
One, two, and…
[ camera clicks ]
Thank you.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Captain Lacy Loudermilk began his career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department on January 1, 1996, when he started with the 44th Game Warden Academy.
He was assigned to Dickens and Kent Counties, where he worked from September of 1996 to April of 2009. In May of 2009, Lacy was promoted to Captain of Region 6 in Abilene, where he has been the district supervisor for over 16 years.
During his tenure, he completed the FBI’s National Academy in 2012. And Lacy says, “There has been many great accomplishments and failures over the years, but growth was achieved in all accounts.” Lacy’s intentions are to retire at the end of June.
He will be sorely missed.
With 30 years of service, Captain Lacy Loudermilk.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: All right.
Here we go.
On three…
[ camera clicks ]
One more.
[ applause ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: And finally, we’d like to recognize David Forrester, who began his career with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department in June of 2001.
He was hired as a Private Lands Biologist from Wharton and Fort Bend counties– some of the best days of his career, he says.
And in the fall of 2005, David became the District 7 leader and moved to La Grange, where he served until August of 2023.
In September of 2023, he became the Region 4 Director over Districts 8 and 9 in the Upper Coast and Central Coastal ecosystem wetlands projects. During his tenure, he has had a blast participating in Bobwhite Quail Relocation Project and helping to organize the Ranching and Wildlife Expo.
Also, he’s played a major role in helping young biologists thrive in their careers by learning the inner workings of two of our major wildlife management areas along the coast. And he is also an avid water/land firefighter.
With 25 years of service, David Forrester.
[ applause ]
MR. FOUNTAIN: Perfect.
One more.
One, two…
Thank you.
[ camera clicks ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Mr. Chairman, that concludes my presentation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
It’s always gratifying to see all the hard work that people have done, and congratulate incredible achievements that you’ve achieved.
So, congratulations to all of you.
At this time, I’d like to inform the audience that everyone is more than welcome to stay for the remainder of the meeting. But if you wish to leave, now would be a good time to do it, just so we’re not interrupting too much.
Thank you.
[ pause in meeting ]
[ gavel pounds ]
Action Item No. 1: Proposed Amendments to Rules on Proof of Residency Requirements– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Mr. James Murphy.
MR. JAMES MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners
I’m James Murphy, for the record, General Counsel to the department.
I’m here today to present proposed changes to our rules on the proof of residency requirements for issuance of hunting and fishing licenses. I’d like to begin by describing the reasons for the proposal. Current rule does not require identification at the point of sale.
The Parks and Wildlife Code 12.114 requires persons age 17 or older to have in their immediate possession a driver’s license, personal ID card, or equivalent identification, when engaging in an activity that requires that license or permit from TPWD.
So, requiring ID at the point of sale provides three benefits listed here on the presentation. The first is it prevents fraud and misrepresentation of Texas residency status by ensuring individuals do not unlawfully obtain resident price licenses or benefits that are reserved for Texans. It enhances deterrence of intentional fraud. And it will improve accountability at the point of sale, which will then reduce the need for law enforcement in the field.
So, what are the required documents?
You’re going to have several different options.
The first is coming from any state in the country, driver’s license or personal ID certificate issued in compliance with REAL ID.
The second option is going to be a driver’s license or personal ID certificate issued by DPS, so for Texans, or certain states that verify immigration or citizenship or immigration status.
So that’s going to be 31 states that have that verification would not need to show any supplemental identification.
The third option is if you’re from one of those 19 other states, or for some reason you’re not clearing the initial check of your license from those other states, you can provide secondary identification. That would be a U.S. passport, a birth certificate, a military ID card, or a Texas license to carry a handgun.
And then for foreign residents, we would have your passport from your country of origin, and then immigration-related documents showing that you have a right to have lawful presence here in the United States.
So just real quick on this slide, if I could, I just want to talk a little bit about implementation. We had some good discussion yesterday in Work Session.
So, we do intend to implement this for the next license year.
That’s going to begin on August 1, just wanted to clarify that.
We want to get this in place as soon as possible in August, before the real peak occurs later in August.
The second thing is we are going to provide instructions to our licensed deputies, our law enforcement offices, and our state park staff who do issue hunting and fishing licenses out of our state parks.
This is our instructions manual that we have, that we issue to all of those licensed deputies and to staff. And we’re going to try to make this as simple as possible with graphic images, flow charts that show that, so it can be quite easy for those working at our licensed deputies across the state. We have roughly 1,700 of those across the state.
Our online sales system will have a verification step upon sales online.
For non-Texas residents, you’d be looking at uploading a photo.
There would be a visual check of that photo you would clear, and then you would be able to purchase.
For Texas residents, we talked a little bit about photo upload.
We’re also exploring the possibility of just direct connection to DPS data. That would streamline that even more, and would mean that you may not need to ultimately upload a photo as a Texas resident.
So, we’re still working that out and making sure that that’s a secure method without a photo ID for Texas residents. We do have access to DPS data there.
So, I do have a few changes to announce from the published proposal. This was published back in January, in the Texas Register.
The first is we’re going to implement recommendations from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office. We received our assessment from TREO after we had published in the Texas Register.
They made some good recommendations that we’re going to move forward with if you approve.
The first is electronic documentation to demonstrate proof of Texas residency.
So, if for some reason you’re not just automatically cleared through having your driver’s license and you needed to show secondary proof of Texas residency, you could do that through utility bills, paycheck receipts, tax documents, either in paper or electronic form. Just make that a little easier on folks.
The second is we’re going to substitute our current notarization requirement for the student dependency statement. This is what parents certify to. They get it notarized. They send it in so that their child is, in fact, a student in that state to seek residency. We’re just going to do a self-declaration under penalty of perjury to save folks a little bit of money in having to get that notary.
We’re also going to add a couple of additional licenses to the list. Unintentional omission. We have lifetime hunting licenses that you can then switch to a combination upgrade. So, we’ve added both these upgrades, the lifetime hunting and the lifetime fishing, to a combo upgrade to that list.
We noted a duplicate identification requirement for foreign residents in the proposal. The key here is that you have your country of origin passport as well as any related immigration documents. But we don’t necessarily need the driver’s license from your country of origin. So just made that a little easier there.
And then we did a little reorganization to improve clarity, make it a little easier to understand. And in doing so, we’ve made it clear that Texas residents with a driver’s license or ID card that’s unexpired do not need to have a REAL ID.
We have been verifying immigration status to issue driver’s license and ID cards really since 2011, even before that with some emergency rulemaking at DPS. So, they’re really… With an eight-year term, there are no licenses left in Texas that are unexpired that have not proven citizenship or appropriate immigration status. So that’ll just make things a little bit easier on Texans not having to show REAL ID.
Public comments: no additional comments this morning.
We have 71 online– about nearly 80 percent agreement, and roughly 21 percent disagreement.
We did receive three letters from elected officials, one from the House Democratic Caucus, which was signed by 29 representatives, one from Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins, and one from Representative John Bryant.
Those are similar letters, and they express some concerns related to decreased tourism and participation, potential loss of revenue to the department from these rules, increased administrative costs to the department due to enforcement issues. And there’s a general request to delay implementation of this rule until the legislature has an opportunity to look at legislation next session to address this.
So, with this, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 55.1, as listed in Exhibit A” — with the changes that we discussed today on the prior slide– and other “changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the January 23, 2026, issue of the Texas Register.”
Certainly, available for any questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Comments or questions?
Commissioner Bell.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: This is Commissioner Bell.
My question largely is because, unfortunately, I was not able to attend yesterday.
But I don’t understand… I don’t necessarily see any adverse impact on the revenue side.
Can you tell me what comments were made in regard to that, and what…
Otherwise I don’t… I’m not quite tracking that.
MR. MURPHY: Sure, Vice-Chairman.
I think the concern is that there may be some folks that currently don’t have to show identification that might be deterred by just the extra step. You know, they’re used to it a certain way. We’re trying to minimize those impacts as much as possible.
Of course, we’re going to keep a careful eye on this, and review it periodically to see if we’re seeing any trends or declines in perhaps non-resident sales or something like that. We’re also going to, you know, take all that customer feedback, right?
And if we need to pivot, we’re seeing problems with the proposed rule, we certainly can make changes to address that.
But at this time, we really can’t predict any, you know, potential revenue impacts from this, but certainly we’ll keep an eye on it. If anything does occur, we’ll pivot as needed.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Yeah, because I was trying to make some kind of extension of that, and I couldn’t necessarily see that.
So, I was just wondering, you know, in terms of that commentary what information was provided.
So, I’m good.
Thank you.
MR. MURPHY: You’re very welcome.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think you could actually make an argument that it could have a positive impact on revenue. Since people claiming to be residents, if they can’t prove they’re a resident they’re going to have to buy a non-resident license, and that’s a lot more expensive.
MR. MURPHY: It’s an excellent point, Chairman.
But there is a real need here to get some control over people seeking resident licenses at that lower price that really aren’t Texans and shouldn’t get that discount.
And so, it’s quite possible we may see some increased revenue from that.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments, questions, concerns?
All right.
We do not have anybody signed up to speak on this topic, correct?
Okay.
And so, I would entertain a motion to approve.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Commissioner Bell so moved.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Doggett, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
This motion passes.
Thank you.
All right.
Action Item No. 2: Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants– Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes. And Mr. Michael Tennant is back with us.
MICHAEL TENNANT: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
I’m Michael Tennant, Regulations and Policy Manager for the Inland Fisheries Division.
Today’s presentation reviews the request to establish a new permitting program for commercial culture of dotted duckweed in Texas, summarizes risk and benefits, outlines proposed containment provisions, and provides an overview of public comments.
On March 14, 2025, Plantible Foods submitted a petition requesting authorization for dotted duckweed aquaculture. The Commission is considering whether to establish a new statewide permitting program, not a single facility permit. Dotted duckweed is currently listed as a controlled exotic aquatic plant and cannot be possessed without authorization.
Controlled exotic species are strictly regulated by the department to avoid detrimental impacts to natural resources. The Commission has previously approved four existing permit programs for culture of exotic aquatic species, Pacific whiteleg shrimp, tilapia, triploid grass carp, and water spinach.
In Fiscal Year 2025, a total of 70 exotic species culture permits were issued to facilities that met escapement prevention requirements. Some permits authorized culture of a single species, and others were for multiple species. Those permits enabled culture of tilapia at 32 facilities, water spinach at 31 facilities, triploid grass carp at 21 facilities, and Pacific whiteleg shrimp at 6 facilities. All existing programs include baseline biosecurity requirements and species-specific rules that further minimize the risk of escapement.
All exotic aquaculture facilities must meet strict containment standards, including placement above the 100-year floodplain, screened wastewater systems, restricted access, emergency plans, and training of facility staff. Facilities undergo scheduled and unannounced inspections, and escapes must be reported within 24 hours. The department may halt activities, require disposition, and suspend or revoke permits when violations occur.
Issues have included damaged greenhouses, unauthorized propagation, and missing discharge screens. Most permittees correct issues promptly. Repeat violations may result in non-renewal. Oversight is proven effective in the case of water spinach, with no escapement observed by the department during inspections and surveys.
Now that I’ve profiled the department’s existing permitting programs for culture of exotic species, I’ll again briefly describe exotic floating plant dotted duckweed. As previously discussed, the species has characteristics that promote potential invasiveness.
Listed as a controlled exotic aquatic plant since the 1990s, dotted duckweed is rarely reported in Texas public waters, suggesting regulations have reduced introduction pathways. Without controls, there is potential for introduction through aquarium release.
As I shared at the November and January meetings, the department conducted a detailed risk/benefit analysis for permitting dotted duckweed aquaculture. This analysis was prepared at the direction of the Commission following the August meeting.
The department’s assessment concludes that dotted duckweed has a strong potential to establish broadly in Texas, and could pose risks to small ponds and community fishing lakes if it escapes cultivation.
Its rapid growth, drought-tolerant seeds, and ease of transport by waterfall create ecological, recreational, and economic concerns, even though documented impacts to date are limited.
On the benefits side, dotted duckweed can provide higher product yields and potential economic gains for commercial aquaculture operations. The analysis also found that the department’s proposed containment and emergency response provision would substantially minimize the risk of escape. However, permitting this exotic species would still require careful rulemaking, strong oversight, and clearly defined corrective measures to safeguard Texas public waters and private ponds.
Permitting dotted duckweed aquaculture would substantially increase inspection demands and workloads of regional biologists and game wardens due to the strict containment requirements and need for routine inspections.
At the department’s request, Texas A&M AgriLife subject matter experts reviewed both the risk/benefit analysis and proposed special containment provisions.
While AgriLife initially raised significant concerns about the potential for escapement and the possibility of negative impacts on agricultural and recreational uses of private waters, they ultimately concurred with the department’s containment provisions.
Following further discussions with the petitioner, AgriLife reported gaining a better understanding of the petitioner’s facility to implement emergency plans and of the unique nature of the protein being harvested, specifically the substantially higher production of this protein in dotted duckweed compared to native duckweeds.
The proposed rules would establish a new permitting program and a regulatory framework for authorizing the commercial aquaculture of dotted duckweed at any approved facility in the state, not solely the petitioner’s facility.
Commission adoption of the proposed rule change would authorize the department to issue commercial aquaculture facility permits for dotted duckweed subject to compliance with both the standard provisions applicable to all prohibited species, as well as the added special provisions for dotted duckweed that further attempt to address its unique escapement risk and pathways.
As profiled earlier in this presentation, existing facilities that have applied for and been issued an exotic species aquaculture facility permit are all required to follow strict containment measures.
Again, the department issued 70 such permits during Fiscal Year 2025. These same containment measures would form the baseline standards for dotted duckweed aquaculture should the Commission authorize creation of this new permit program.
In addition to those minimum facility requirements placed on all commercial exotic species aquaculture facilities, the department proposes these additional stringent containment rules for dotted duckweed due to its tiny size and high risk of dispersal, especially by waterfowl
These include full enclosure of all culture ponds, harvesting and processing equipment within closed greenhouses, mandatory destruction of all plant material before draining ponds, and routing all wastewater and byproducts through maceration devices that render plants and seeds non-viable. Texas A&M AgriLife subject matter experts generally agree these measures are feasible and effective.
Additional restrictions prohibit any discharge into waterways; require all processing to occur on site to minimize escape pathways. Because natural forces like hurricanes pose significant risk to containment structures, facilities would be barred from operating in designated hurricane wind and rain risk zones.
Although hail is a statewide concern, inspections and rapid emergency response requirements are considered sufficient to address it.
Staff recommends establishing an inspection frequency of once per year, matching requirements for water spinach to enhance biosecurity. Overall, the department believes these measures, when consistently applied, would minimize the risk of escapement into Texas public waters.
An added special provision recommended by staff is establishment of a geographic exclusion zone where no permits would be issued. As you will recall from my previous presentations, earlier versions of a proposed exclusion zone focused on avoiding risk from most hurricane events. In response to stakeholder feedback, this new version also takes into account density of community fishing lakes, private ponds, and other public waters.
The left map shows the proposed dotted duckweed exclusion zone in yellow, east of US Highway 83. Blue dots represent 901 high-risk community fishing lakes statewide.
The exclusion zone includes 791 of these, or 88 percent of the total, and an estimated 88 percent of private waters. The right map shows the relative density of private waters, or where private waters are most concentrated, with yellow indicating the highest density, followed by orange, red, purple, gray, and then blue being the lowest density.
Within this proposed exclusion zone, the landscape has many public and private waters, and lies within the central flyway for waterfowl. These conditions create high vulnerability and transport risk. Invaded ponds near culture facilities can act as invasion hubs and stepping stones supplying propagules, reproductively viable plant parts that spread to new sites. High densities of suitable waters increase propagule pressure, a key driver of establishment risk.
Establishing the exclusion zone east of US Highway 83 addresses hurricane and rainfall exposure and the abundance of vulnerable waters, providing the most environmentally sound approach.
A total of 42 public comments were received for the January and March public comment notices, with 23 agreeing and 19 disagreeing with the proposed rules.
The department received letters of support for permitting commercial cultivation of dotted duckweed in a regulated and enclosed facility. These letters were submitted by a state representative for House District 53, the Texas Agriculture Commissioner, the Schleicher County Judge, the President of Angelo State University, three out-of-state researchers, and the CEO of a nonprofit investor focused on scaling innovative technologies with environmental and local impact.
The petitioner also provided clarifying details on their product and the anticipated economic impact to the local community in the form of presentation slides, and a potential expansion overview including a meeting summary between Plantible Foods and Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Services regarding cultivation of dotted duckweed, which were included in your Commission Book.
Texas A&M AgriLife initially raised significant concerns about potential escapement of dotted duckweed and associated impacts, but ultimately agreed that the department’s special containment provisions were adequate.
After further discussions with the petitioner, AgriLife gained confidence in emergency response capacity and understanding of the species’ unique protein production benefits, leading them to formally withdraw their opposition and take a neutral position on the proposed rules through a letter sent from AgriLife to the department. After further discussion with the petitioner, the Texas Wildlife Association has withdrawn its opposition and now takes a neutral position on the proposed rules.
On January 5, this topic was presented and discussed with the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, which unanimously asserted that the risk to public and private waters were too high to permit cultivation of dotted duckweed in aquaculture facilities. The department also received a letter of opposition from backcountry hunters and anglers.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, section 57.114 and new section 57.129 as listed in Exhibit A with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the December 19, 2025, issue of the Texas Register.
That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Tennant.
Comments or questions from the Commission?
Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman.
Yes, Sir.
I apologize for not being here last meeting. I had… was here for the workshop before that, and had three meetings in three different cities and two different states. And that’s a little hard to pull off.
Actually, I’m glad I was not here because I was able to watch the video and see exactly what was presented.
And had I been here, it was a very compelling presentation.
Let me start off by saying, I’m a former mayor of Crockett, Texas. That’s 7,000 people, county of 22,000.
It’s not very big.
I can appreciate the fact of when economic development comes into that town, because that’s what I did for about ten years.
I also understand the value and appreciate what Plantible Foods has done for the communities out in West Texas. They, according to my research, were formed in 2016 in California, profitable enough, moved to Texas, and I believe they opened in August of ‘25. At least that’s what I could find.
But I’m not Mayor of Crockett anymore, and I’m not mayor of that community. And most of these people, I don’t blame the communities for being in strong support of this.
However, as a Commissioner on Texas Parks and Wildlife, my responsibility goes beyond just one community, one county, one area. It now goes to the State of Texas.
As I get into some of my research– and I’ll be happy to take, anybody can challenge anything I say because I’m pretty confident of what I found.
First of all, is just in talking to one of my fellow Commissioners, it was mentioned to me that this is West Texas.
There’s no water out in West Texas. You know, if it got out, where would it go?
Well, on your report, Michael, the waterfowl is one of the main ways that these can travel. And waterfowl, just don’t think of ducks. Think of all the waterfowl that’s out there.
When I flood my pond, we’ve got all kinds of shorebirds that show up. The ducks are the last to come. I mean, so there’s a lot of migration. We think of migration being north to south, and then eventually south back to north. Well, in general, that is true. But they follow a front down, and then it stalls out, and then they disseminate. And they don’t move until something moves them or they run out of food or water or it freezes over, something like that.
So, what I’m saying is there could be some waterfowl in West Texas having breakfast, and they could be on my pond in East Texas following a West Texas strong front that comes through.
They like to ride the wind. They’re like me. I’m a pilot.
If you can find a tailwind, ride that puppy because that’s what’s going to get you there a lot faster. They can travel from West Texas to East Texas in one day and be on my pond. So, the fact that we’re in West Texas does not isolate Texas as a whole from being able to do that.
Now, the… when I did watch the last meeting video, I thought it was very convincing. I thought, “Well, boy, I guess I didn’t think about everything.” Now, I guess my epiphany moment was my duck pond.
And I have several duck ponds, as I do a lot of duck hunting my whole life.
So, duckweed became an issue.
When it first gets in a pond, it’s an asset.
It’s called duckweed for a reason.
You know, the ducks will feed off of this.
It’s high in protein.
But then it gets thicker and then it gets thicker, and then finally you can’t even get a duck on your pond.
Now, this is native duckweed.
This is not dotted duckweed.
We’ll talk about that in a minute.
And so, when I finally tried to get rid of it, I had to go in there and till my entire duck pond, plant a competitive food, something else that the ducks may like that doesn’t regerminate quite like this does, and do that over and over and over. It took a period of about three years to finally rid the duckweed.
Now, it’ll probably be back this year.
But still… because it’s carried by waterfowl. But that’ll show you how resilient this is.
And I got to thinking, you know what?
After I drain my duck pond, it goes totally dry. It freezes. I’ve hunted ducks when I had to break ice to get to the blind. But every year it comes back.
And I clearly… we’re looking at some of these pictures that’s showing the growth rate was the same as native duckweed species in all of my research.
And I went to the Texas A&M website. I read something about Dr. Lamb, I think was his name, Ed Rutgers University. And everybody agrees that this is two times the rate of regular, competitive… native duckweed. The only one that says it’s not is Plantible Foods.
So, it does grow faster.
It does have higher protein.
But how does this come back every year?
If it’s killed by drought, which we were shown pictures; that it’s dried out. And here it is six days later still dried out.
It’s not a viable product. And here it is after a freeze.
Six days later, still frozen, nothing there. And I said, “Well, what am I missing?”
So unfortunately, with Plantible Foods, I did a lot of research.
And this is what really happens. You have a frond– think a pond with an “FR,” frond– and that floats. And we were talking about this. During hot, cold, or drought, that frond turns into turions. And turions are small, dark green, and they’re heavy.
And they get heavy and they change by converting sugar into high-density starch molecules, which increases their weight and causes them to sink to the bottom. And they get away from the freezing surface.
This is nature’s way of preserving a vegetative life so it will not be eradicated. It remains dormant until stable temperatures make them… wake them up. And they won’t wake up quickly, so they’re not faked out. Nature’s strong. They go down, they stay dormant, and they wait until the water warms up or the water returns in the case of a drought. This ensures they don’t prematurely wake up. The water warms up in the spring.
The metabolic change that occurs is that starch becomes lighter.
They float back to the surface, and new active, leafy structures are there again.
So, what you read in the packet, “this is going to be dead in six days.” Yeah, the surface is dead. And I also noticed that it said that a “desiccation study…”
Well, I’ve been involved in a lot of medical studies. I’ve read thousands of them, but I’ve been involved in quite a bit. A medical study, or any study, not just a medical study, any study will have a p-value. A p-value is a probability factor.
Probability is: is this study real or is it not real?
And a probability factor has to have a probability, take into account all the parameters.
Anything… if a probability factor is less than .001 percent, it’s a valid study. And you can take that to the bank.
0.1 percent, eh, maybe.
If it’s 1 percent or 2 percent, just throw it out. It’s not worth the papers it’s written on because too many things can be altered. When you show the growth rate, there’s an optimal temperature that duckweed grows at, especially dotted duckweed.
You get outside that temperature, then you can alter the study to make it come out wherever you want to. Therefore, it’s not a study. It’s just… it’s data that you could bring to us. So, in my opinion, it was disingenuous data that was brought to us because it doesn’t die. It doesn’t die like this.
You might be able to control it here, but we’re not talking about controlling it in a controlled environment in Eldorado, Texas.
We’re talking about what if it gets out into Texas waterways?
What’s going to happen then? It’s going to sink to the bottom, and everything I just described is going to happen.
Now, dotted duckweed has two mechanisms of survival.
It’s an invasive species for a reason.
It’s not in… not supposed to be over here.
It has… it has turions.
Again, fronds turn into turions.
Sugar turns into starch.
They get heavy.
They sink. And they’re like a solid little rock. And there’s nothing you can do until they germinate and turn back again.
Dotted duckweed has those as well as seeds. The seed is a resilient seed. Sometimes it’ll produce a flower and rapidly make a seed.
Those seeds are very resilient. They sink to the bottom, do the same thing. And they’re activated again like any seed with water and warmth.
So, the fronds– and this part was true– are highly sensitive to desecration and die within 30 minutes to two and a half hours.
However, the species persist in drying ponds via dormant stages.
So, what we were showed, yeah, that part of the plant is dead.
That part of the plant doesn’t matter because it’s going to come back and it’s going to sink to the bottom. Then when it comes back, you have rapid colonization.
While conditions improve, the plant can regenerate quickly, with the population doubling in 16 hours to three days, which is roughly double what native can do.
So, think of it this way.
If it gets into a pond, and half of that pond is covered, and under optimal conditions, which we’ve already said, and you stated this, that Texas mirrors Australia and Southeast Asia where this came from, our temperature mirrors that– not North Carolina, not New Jersey, where a lot of this research is done, although I’m sure they do research all over the world.
I care about Texas. That’s what we’re supposed to be looking at here. And it can regenerate very, very, very quickly.
And so, if it covers half of a pond under optimal conditions, the other half can be covered in a thick mat in 16 hours.
Now you’ve got a problem. Texas has got a problem because waterfowl is going to get there. It’s going to spread.
So, the pictures that were called “study” — and I’d like to tell my fellow Commissioners, don’t think of that as a study. Those are pictures taken six days apart.
That’s not a study.
A study takes longer.
As a matter of fact, you couldn’t create a study in the period of time from when I got on this Commission right now. It’s not even possible. So, they’re pictures to support a position.
And they’ve done some very effective lobbying.
With these pictures, they’ve got A&M to go neutral and they’ve got Texas Wildlife Association to go neutral. That’s fine.
I just doubt if everybody’s looked at it quite like I am, and maybe Texas A&M don’t duck hunt as much as I do. But this is going to be a problem. It’s going to be a statewide problem.
And you mentioned when we started off, Michael, this was not a single-use permit. This was a statewide permit.
So, they already talked about another facility, and I hope you’ll go ahead with this. But I’d like to reiterate that when the plant was opened here in Texas, it was not opened under the condition that an invasive species become available for cultivation.
If that was the plan, probably they got the cart in front of the horse. Probably should have come here first.
But I don’t believe that was the plan.
I think this will enhance our plan.
And I think Plantible Foods is a wonderful industry.
I think it’ll do fine.
It will make profits.
It will create jobs.
It will just make… their profits can’t come at the expense of the Texas waterways.
We are Texas Parks and Wildlife.
And that includes fisheries and that includes ponds.
And it’s invasive for a reason.
It’s not from here.
This would be like saying the striped mussels that have choked out the waterways coming out of the Great Lakes, you know, “It’s not a big deal, let’s let a few mussels in.” Well, look at what that’s done.
And I said this my very first meeting, because I was just reading into this. But I glanced over this, almost humorous, but I’m going to say it slower now. The Wuhan Lab over in China gave the same probability that you’ve given this, and that is: very little, but not impossible chance to escape.
Well, coronavirus did escape, and it choked down the world for two years.
So, if this is a statewide permit, which is not this one single-use permit for one facility. And I do appreciate they’ve stepped their game up a lot when they’ve come here. The question is, why didn’t you step it up in the beginning? And now you’re close to the finish line. You’re kind of calling a new offense here.
I have to tell you, if you’re going to come to me with pictures that are not a study, that are disingenuous at best, it makes me, you know, concerned on whether or not the response mechanism will be real also. I mean, are we just trying to get this through, or are we really going to try to protect Texas waterways? I think we have to protect Texas waterways.
One of the proposals that the Parks and Wildlife Committee looked at was an irrefutable impossible. Think of it like a swimming pool in your house, you know, with solid walls all the way around. It’s not going to get out of there. That’s not what this is. This is a structure with plastic so light can get in, which I’m sure it has to have. And that could blow down.
It could get out.
And when you have two plants, you have twice the chance of this to get out. But this is not just a single use.
I’m sure this is very profitable.
And if we allow dotted duckweed to be cultivated in Texas, I would assume other plants. I’m sure this is not the only competition in this space. I’m sure other plants will come in.
It’s going to get out.
That’s my opinion as just one Commissioner.
So, I would strongly, under all the factors that I’ve looked at, I would strongly recommend that the Commissioners put the state of Texas over the economy of this area, which I know is important, and I know it’s hard to do.
But, again, we’re Texas Parks and Wildlife.
We’re not Texas Chamber of Commerce.
We’re here to protect parks, wildlife, and we’re here also to protect the ponds and the fish. And I believe that this could be devastating if it got out.
So, I would strongly recommend the Commission to deny the permit.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Commissioner.
Other comments?
Bobby?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right, Patton.
Briefly, I’ll try to be brief, echo what Dr. McCall said.
For me, it’s a very simple concern.
It’s a prohibited invasive species.
There’s been a lot of effort to try and go through the process to get it.
In a way, I wish the same effort had been used to get it removed from that list. But it didn’t remove from the list.
It’s on the list.
I hear you say, Michael, you know, that we’re going to minimize risk, but not eliminate risk. I hear a lot of emphasis of it, you know, being outside a hurricane.
Well, it isn’t outside of tornado risk.
And I do think they did a good job.
I’m curious… would love to hear the argument to get A&M to go from negative to neutral, and TWA.
And when TWA went neutral, did they submit a letter to you, Michael, or was that a verbal?
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: No, that was verbal.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Verbal.
Okay.
Well, you know, so I’m glad it’s part of the record because, you know, this may end up being something we look at with the benefit of hindsight. But even though they went, you know, from negative to neutral, they didn’t go to positive. That also has… you know, raises a question with me.
But in any way, I’m strictly for the reason that I’m not interested in taking something that someone thought was a prohibited invasive species, I’m not comfortable saying it’s okay to use.
So, in my opinion, I’m a no.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Other comments or questions?
Commissioner Galo.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I’d like to just echo both Commissioners’ comments.
And I’m strongly opposed to bringing in an invasive species into our Texas waterways.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Commissioner Rowling.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That’s how you make a brief statement.
[ laughter ]
COMMISSIONER McCALL: If you divide it over two days, it wasn’t that bad.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Michael, not that it’s 100 percent relevant because they’re all different.
But the other four permits we’ve issued for aquatic invasive species, how long ago were those issued?
And we’ve received a letter or two saying that that’s been a disaster and they’ve gotten out.
Can you elaborate on that and tell us how those have gone?
MR. TENNANT: I’m going to let our aquatic invasive species expert, Monica, address that.
MONICA McGARRITY: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record my name is Monica McGarrity. I’m a Senior Scientist for Aquatic Invasive Species in the Inland Fisheries Division.
I believe that your question, Sir, was regarding the permits that have had violations, and how long ago those were issued.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Not necessarily violations, just the other four– the tilapia, the grass carp, the water spinach.
MS. McGARRITY: The four types.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Yes.
MS. McGARRITY: Those date back to the initiation of the regulations. Many of these facilities predate our archival records, particularly the cultivation of the fish and the shrimp. We do have the water spinach more recently.
These vary. We have permits that have been around for decades and permits that have been around for only a couple of years.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: More important than the timing, what have the results been?
It’s been suggested that they’ve gotten out.
MS. McGARRITY: So, we have noted with the exotic shrimp, there have been some records of shrimp, these exotic shrimp, in public waters in Texas observed by our Coastal Fisheries Division. These do require screening at the exits of the pond, at various transition points as the waters move through the facility, and then at the exit into the public water. These are not foolproof, as has been alluded to. With the tilapia, we have observed facilities where a screen was removed and the tilapia were found outside in a creek or a ditch that was adjacent that could have transferred them into public waters.
Tilapia have been introduced into our waters through other means. And so, identifying that this would be a source of that introduction would not be possible. We do know that, you know, for reasons of a screen becoming clogged or inconvenienced, these have at times been removed.
Water spinach permits are the one that we offer for the plants.
With those, we have not observed escapement. They do require greenhouse enclosures.
They also require maintenance of a weed-free buffer around the entire greenhouse.
Because this, while an aquatic plant, it’s essentially a morning glory, swamp morning glory. It’s required to be grown in the soil. And it could grow under the barrier and out. And so, through that measure, it’s been protective. Surveys that our agency has done in surrounding areas did not find the species outside of cultivation. We do on occasion find it growing out.
There are violations with seeds being present, things of that nature. But we have not observed escapement of the water spinach.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question.
Does dotted duckweed exist in the United States now, currently?
MS. McGARRITY: Yes, Sir.
There are quite a number of records of dotted duckweed in the United States.
In Texas, we have had, I believe it’s 17 records across all of the past years. Many of those were in locations that are not very conducive to its establishment; large water bodies where we’ve highlighted that some of the smaller water bodies are, you know, at the greatest risk. You know, the observed impacts that have been seen are overgrowth in Florida canals, for example.
It is one of those species that the foundational work was done by Dr. Elias Landolt, who this was eventually named for. And he found that USDA Zone 7, roughly, which is coming down kind of your Washington coast– Western Washington, Oregon, California, across the tip of Nevada, New Mexico, throughout Texas, around the east, and then up the narrow eastern seaboard towards Virginia, Maryland– is where it is able to persist, potentially down to temperatures absolute minimum of -4 Fahrenheit. There are records throughout that area.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Like Louisiana or Mississippi or other Gulf Coast states, is there existence of dotted duckweed?
MS. McGARRITY:Yes, Sir.
There are certainly records throughout the southeast.
We do not have a lot of information about the original listing of this. But there was an explosion, you know, during the 1980s, in Louisiana. So, starting in the ‘70s, it really began to have more and more records.
And Louisiana, just before this was regulated here in Texas, there was kind of an explosion in Louisiana. A lot of these are backwater swamps and not public waters where it’s problematic, or where it’s not as likely to be problematic.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: When you say “explosion,” you mean an increase or you mean there was an incident that led to a release that led to an increase?
MS. McGARRITY: There was an increase in the number of locations where there were documented detections. So, this could be that there was an increase in sampling, so there were just more detections. Or it could be that it was being transported more.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I know we have some people that are going to comment. But just beyond that, has there been any place where, I guess you say, if this is out in the open, the wild, the nature, that it’s created an issue for people?
MS. McGARRITY: I did consult with my counterparts across the southeastern United States, and none noted any current problems with the dotted duckweed significantly. It has been noted as problematic in some Florida canals in the past.
Some of the areas that maybe aren’t the focus of vegetation surveys, such as a study in a Florida swamp, have shown that it was the most abundant by percent cover of the species there, which included native nuisance fern and invasive common salvinia, and kind of filled in all of the gaps in that area.
But the research really hasn’t delved further into impacts.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I guess what I’m getting at is, is it a problem in Louisiana right now, and Mississippi, and some of these other places?
I’m trying to understand, does it exist currently right now in close proximity to Texas?
MS. McGARRITY: It does exist in close proximity to Texas, as well as some records in East Texas.
As noted, there haven’t been significant impacts associated, significant problems associated with this one species. A lot of that is due to the fact that the duckweeds are very small. They’re often in mixed cultures. They’re treated overall as duckweeds from a management perspective, and not identified individually. So, little is known about this particular species for that reason.
Overall, there aren’t major duckweed problems noted.
As Michael did allude to, we do have a very high proportion of small, private ponds in Texas, which, you know, leads us to some extra concern here.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: One last comment.
Commissioner Timmerman, you mentioned, you know, what the risk of it is. I think you would agree to it.
If we had some ponds in Texas, still ponds, not movable water, those got choked down with this, that’s going to increase the risk quite a bit. In germinology, and plants germinate a little different than we do. But I spent a lot of time when we were back during the COVID days.
And there was a lot of transmission there. There’s a difference between secondary transmission and somebody sneezing right in your face.
You get an influx of a whole lot, and you’re pretty well sunk at that point.
Okay?
My fear is we have too many ponds in Texas, too many still water, that this will get out.
If this is a problem in a canal in Florida, that’s moving water.
In still water, I think it’s a time bomb.
I just believe it is.
MS. McGARRITY: In terms of what you’re discussing, in invasive species science we call that propagule pressure. The more fronds that are introduced into a pond, the more likely it is to take hold.
You’ve alluded to the waterfowl being a concern. The fronds, it was shown by Dr. Landolt long ago that the half-hour to two-and-a-half-hour desiccation rate is correct.
Other researchers from Ireland actually looked at higher humidity levels, and did some very interesting tests with mallards and found that there’s potential for the high humidity to allow it to be transferred further.
So, there is potential for it to be transported to a pond where it then grows, and then that acts as a hub for transport to nearby areas or stepping stones.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, let’s just set up a hypothetical.
Let’s say that we have this facility.
It’s in West Texas.
It’s a very well-designed facility.
And it gets smashed by a tornado.
The duckweed that’s in there, what would happen at that point?
I assume some of it would get blown out and about, might get in a pond, might get in a canal or a ditch. Possibly waterfowl or birds would... what is the scenario?
What’s the worst-case scenario that might happen in that instance?
MS. McGARRITY: Worst case.
So, worst case would be that, you know, if it is a sudden tornado without warning where we don’t have this emergency plan that kicks in and it’s rapidly killed.
If it were to blow out of the greenhouses into some of these water bodies, not dry out sufficiently so that it was able to recover, then there is potential that it could become established.
If you’d like, I can get into details of growth, competition, desiccation, seeds, but I don’t want to take up too much of your time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I’m just trying to understand, you know, is there a risk?
I mean...
I don’t quite… I don’t have a great feel for what dotted duckweed is or does.
But I think it’s important for us to understand, you know, if there’s a real risk.
If there is, we’re probably going to turn this down.
MS. McGARRITY: Sure.
So, as I mentioned, a lot of the original research comes from some of this foundational work by Dr. Landolt.
A lot of the more recent research has been laboratory-focused, not necessarily representative of real-world conditions, even as noted by some of the researchers.
There are studies by German researchers, Ziegler, who’ve examined a number of species, Jansantia in Thailand, who examined several, and found that it doesn’t necessarily grow faster than the other species.
There are studies, the study in the Florida swamp that I noted, however, in real-world conditions, that looked at some competition between the duckweed and the common salvinia.
While it wasn’t a strong competitor, again, we saw that during the cooler months it wasn’t as affected by flooding, by freezing, and it did kind of begin to fill in the open space within this area.
There is an example in Europe of a duckweed that has become invasive, one of our natives, actually.
And they’ve noted there some different things, such as different species, including that one, vary in their response to temperature, to the amount of sunlight, to the day length, to nutrients in the water. It’s very difficult to predict.
But they did note when they had this invasive duckweed take over the surface of the water, often acting in concert with the native nuisance species that were there, it did cause shading, reduce the oxygen, and have some really significant impacts on the invertebrates, which can form kind of the basis of the food web.
Some of these impacts are fairly common for the floating invasive plants in general.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And I think we all understand that if it does take root somewhere, that there’s negative consequences. What we’re trying to understand is how likely is it that that would happen in this instance.
MS. McGARRITY: This is a case where having limited information about the species, specifically, is difficult. We know that it’s not as big a problem as, say, our giant salvinia. This would have been widely observed, given it’s been introduced.
We cannot say that it’s not… that’s it without potential to become established and survive. Even based on the comparative growth studies, the species of our duckweed in Europe that became invasive there seems to be possibly replacing the native without detection. A researcher looked back and said, “This is invasive, is it likely to have a higher growth rate?” And they found that it did not. So, it’s that unique combination of the environmental characteristics that would determine, and it may be site-specific.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett.
I think I agree a lot with our Chairman.
For me, it’s… I don’t want to use the word “simple,” but it breaks down to the economic benefit versus the risk, right?
And it would be very easy for the Commission to say, “No, no more permits.”
But to understand that what we’re saying for these communities, this could be a saving grace for these communities, putting a lot of people to work.
And I suspect that if it grows, it could be a really substantial impact economically for these rural communities, which is a big deal, a really big deal.
So, for me, it is: what is the risk?
What is the risk of the species escapes and its massive contamination?
That’s what we’re scared of, right?
We really don’t know the impact of all that.
But, I mean, intuitively, you know you don’t want that to happen.
But isn’t… couldn’t the state establish a protocol for these farms that gets the risk at an acceptable level? And then you have this great economic benefit. It probably is going to cost the farm a lot more money if you build, you know, you build it not like a nuclear facility, but you build it so the risk is so low that it escapes that that’s acceptable.
You’re never going to get zero risk, right?
But if you get it, if we establish… we decide on what that level is and we can establish the physical facility in a place, and geographically and physically design it to where the risk of escape is minimal. I think that’s the win-win for the state.
And I know we’re not the Chamber of Commerce. We’re Parks and Wildlife.
But really, are we not part of the Chamber of Commerce?
I mean, don’t we want really the best for the state and people that live in the rural communities?
I think this could be a game… If it wasn’t a game changer, I wouldn’t… we probably wouldn’t be getting into it.
We’d just say no. But the fact that it could be, you would think that we’re smart enough– I mean, we’ve got some brilliant people here at the state– to come up with a protocol that says you’ve got to build this facility.
And there’s no plastic over the… it’s all wind-resistant greenhouses. And geographically where it’s very unlikely a tornado is going to hit, but it might. But the risk of that is at a level that’s, yes, that’s acceptable.
I would think we could study, work through that so everybody wins here. The farmer, the Plantible Foods, they win.
Their costs are higher probably because these facilities are going to be almost risk-free. So, their cost is probably a lot higher.
But I think, at the end of the day, if we can make it reasonable, that we get the economic benefit and we dramatically reduce the risk of.
You know, there’s tankers… There’s trucks delivering really caustic, really dangerous chemicals up and down our highway, okay?
Is the risk zero that a tornado is going to hit one of those and kill, if it goes through a municipal area, kill a lot of people?
Probably not.
But it’s at a level where it’s acceptable, right?
And so, I think with some study, I think maybe the answer is “no” now, but with some study we can figure out a facility protocol, a specification that would be acceptable that we could then allow this great economic benefit for rural communities.
MS. McGARRITY: The facility measures that we did present, that Michael has presented to you, were based in that rationale.
This is a species that is non-native. We don’t want it in the wild. It could have impacts on our ponds. The risk is uncertain.
But we’d like to prevent it and evaluate whether there is a way that it can be biosecure to reduce the risk as much as possible.
We did visit the Plantible facility and reviewed there. And essentially sealing it almost hermetically from start through processing was the basis for the measures that we identified.
So, having this in an enclosed greenhouse. The route for all transport where conveyor belts, things like that that they didn’t have enclosed at the time, would be completely enclosed, transporting to a facility that then processes it on site. Any drainage from the pond goes through a grinder, a macerator that is small enough size to macerate the fronds and the seeds. And to be extra cautionary, it’s killed with an herbicide or other approved chemical before it’s even drained through that macerator. Also not allowing any plants to be moved off site.
Any byproducts that might be used for, say, agricultural feed, also need to go through that macerator.
This eliminates risks of things like waterfowl having access to those conveyor belts moving it, the greenhouse doors being closed, preventing them from gaining entry, the macerators not allowing it into containment ponds that the waterfowl could then enter and transport from, and also just making sure that all of that drain water…
The processing being required to be on site reduces the risk that it’s being transported in a way where it could blow out or otherwise escape along the way.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, so, this plant is already in operation in this community, and it’s already creating jobs for people in this particular community.
So, my question is, having… introducing this new invasive dotted duckweed into their operations of their existing plant, how many new jobs is it going to create, I’d like to know. And I’d also like to know how much are these new jobs going to pay?
MS. McGARRITY: We have representatives from Plantible here with us…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Uh-huh.
MS. McGARRITY: …who I believe are signed up for public comment.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.
MS. McGARRITY: And they can best address those questions at that time.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, actually, since you mentioned that, what I’d like to do…
We do have three people signed up to speak from the public, one, or maybe two, being from Plantible Foods.
So, why don’t we go ahead and do that?
We still have an opportunity for the Commission to voice…
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Great.
100 percent.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …further thoughts after we hear from the public.
Can we do that?
Thank you.
So, we’re going to go ahead and do that now.
Is that good?
All right.
Our first speaker is Tony Martens.
Welcome back, Mr. Martens.
TONY MARTENS: Good, thank you.
Dear Chairman Foster, Vice-Chairman Bell, and all of the Commissioners, thank you so much for having me again today and giving me the opportunity to speak.
My name is Tony Martens, Co-founder and CEO of Plantible out of Eldorado.
We grow duckweed in fully enclosed greenhouses and extract high-value proteins that we sell to food, personal care, and animal feed companies. We do this at our Ranchito in Eldorado, Texas.
We came to Schleicher County about three years ago, and have been operating there for three years.
We have never had one single outbreak. What we have done is we’ve invested over $30 million and created more than 35 local jobs.
The median household income in the county since we’ve been there grew by 62 percent, lifting the whole community above the national poverty line. Looking ahead, we’re preparing to invest an additional $200 million in rural Texas, and create over 150 new jobs. But those expansion plans depend on the approval of the strain on the docket today: dotted duckweed.
The reason why dotted duckweed matters to us is because it contains 40 percent higher rubisco content, which is the protein that we’re trying to extract.
This is what makes our business model viable. And without it, the jobs in Schleicher County will go to zero and we’ll have to look for a new state to build out our company.
Following the last hearing, we took the Commission’s feedback seriously and we went to all of the stakeholders that expressed concerns.
First, we met with A&M AgriLife.
We walked them through the complete data package that we compiled, but also external researchers have provided, including the data comparing dotted duckweed to native Texas strains, the facility design, and the emergency response plans.
Once they’ve reviewed the complete data package, which once again both included our data as well as external literature, AgriLife withdrew their objection immediately, concluding that dotted duckweed is not more invasive and not faster growing than native strains, and therefore does not pose a significant ecological risk. You can find that memo of our meeting in the package that we submitted to you as a Commission.
After that meeting, AgriLife actually met personally with staff, the Texas Wildlife Association, and the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society to formally communicate their change of stance.
Following the meeting with AgriLife, we also had the opportunity to meet with TWA.
And after reviewing the same data package, they also formally withdrew their opposition.
However, we also made multiple efforts to get in touch with the Fishery Advisory Committee as well as the Texas Chapter… or the Texas Wildlife Society, and both declined our invitation to review the science and the data.
However, what is very clear is that every organization and every party that we met with, once they’ve reviewed the science, they all changed their conclusion and actually concluded that dotted duckweed does not pose an ecological risk. We also reached out to three of the world-leading duckweed scientists. All three reached the same independent conclusion. There is no scientific basis to single out dotted duckweed as a greater ecological risk than native duckweed species. In fact, all of them found that native strains are faster growing than dotted duckweed.
So, where does that leave us today?
We’ve reviewed all of the data and science with AgriLife, three independent researchers, and Texas Parks and Wildlife staff.
All of them reached the same conclusion that dotted duckweed does not pose a significant ecological risk.
The recommended safeguards are robust.
AgriLife actually called it appropriate industry standards.
And lastly, rural Texan communities want this, as you’ve seen from the letters of support from our landlord, the landowner, and the county judge that all claim that rural communities need these type of innovations.
So, the question today is not whether dotted duckweed can be grown safely.
Your staff, AgriLife, all have concluded that it can be.
The question is whether Texas will lead the way and is willing to develop new agricultural systems that can provide farmers and landowners with stability and rural communities with long-lasting economic opportunity.
Thank you very much for your time, and I’m here to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Is it appropriate for us to ask him questions?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Go ahead.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
You heard Commissioner McCall’s comments.
And I’d like you to disregard the red light for a minute.
I’d like you to just comment on that, and sort of… what is your response to his concerns?
Because he raises valid concerns, and he actually researched it pretty thoroughly. I’d like to just hear your response.
MR. MARTENS: Yeah, sure.
And I’m glad that I have the opportunity to speak with you today again, Commissioner McCall.
It’s hard for me to directly opine because I’m not sure what data you’ve seen.
The only data that we can find, which is supported by researchers around the world, is that if you can see at the package that we sent…
And I heard your comment about our data.
But if you look at page Number 12 of the package that we sent, it’s a third-party research group that has done the largest duckweed study out there.
And it shows that dotted duckweed is not even in the top 12 of fastest-growing duckweeds, all right?
It’s out there.
It’s not more invasive.
It doesn’t grow faster.
And it doesn’t even produce turions. I understand that you looked into this matter, but it’s known that dotted duckweed doesn’t produce turions.
This is actually what AgriLife recommended us to look into.
And because it doesn’t produce turions, it will not survive frost.
That is what we know from the science.
And the dislocation studies.
There’s only so much study that we can do because given what Ms. McGarrity already elaborated on, not a lot of data is always available. So, we’re the world’s leading institute when it comes to researching duckweed for commercial purposes.
We have connections with the leading global research scientists in the duckweed space.
And once again, as you can see in the letters of support– and I recognize that they are out-of-state researchers. I understand that– but all of them came to the same conclusion: that there’s no reason to believe that dotted duckweed needs to be singled out for being more invasive or faster-growing than native duckweeds.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And in the maybe silly scenario that I raised about, let’s say, a tornado hits your plant and just literally blows it up and blows this stuff out across the pasture.
What do you foresee happening at that point?
MR. MARTENS: It’s a good question.
So, first and foremost, we’ve developed a carefully crafted emergency response plan.
That is, if there is a tornado warning, within a matter of hours we can collect all of the biomass and kill it.
So, that even if the tornado comes and it destroys our greenhouses and all of the duckweed spreads, it will be dead biomass by using a pH that will destroy the integrity of the plant.
However, let’s say if there is a tornado, there’s a couple of things that need to happen, right?
First and foremost, it needs to be able to survive without water, right, which is capped at three hours, as studies have shown.
There might be humidity issues.
But in West Texas, I can tell you from my own perspective, the humidity is quite low in the area.
So, it needs to survive within… for three hours without water.
And it needs to be transported with a substantial mass in a private pond. Because even if it’s like a couple of leaves, the likelihood of that to survive and grow a thick mass is very low.
I understand the reference to a 16-hours doubling rate.
That’s in the most optimal petri dish conditions that you can think of, and it’s definitely not going to happen in an outside pond, we know from experience.
But I think the likelihood of it transporting from a greenhouse after it’s been killed, miraculously surviving the kill step, and then being transported for three hours without having exposure to water, being with a substantial enough mass to come into a private pond that is very nutrient-rich and has the opportunity to then proliferate and take over that pond, I don’t see that likelihood to be very high.
There’s also a reason why we have, let’s say, enclosed greenhouses, is because, A, we want to optimize the cultivation of the plant, we want to prevent other strains from coming in, but we also want to block wind from moving the biomass.
Because what happens if there’s even a little bit of wind, and there’s always a little bit of wind in West Texas, all of the mat gets pushed to a certain side and your mat density gets too thick.
And if the mat density gets too thick, the lower layers of the mat don’t get sunlight and they start to die off. And that’s why, eventually, if there is a wind and it pushes the duckweed to a certain side, the mat gets too thick, and because of the heat the duckweed will die because it just gets too warm and it will die off.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Any questions for Mr. Martens?
All right.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Chris Phillips.
Welcome.
DR. CHRIS PHILLIPS: All right.
Good morning, everybody.
My name is Dr. Chris Phillips.
I’m Vice President of Research at Plantible Foods.
I have a PhD in biochemistry from UC Berkeley, a bachelor’s of science in biology– I’m from Indiana originally–
and over 20 years of experience in plant biochemistry and protein production for food and other industries. I currently lead Plantible’s research efforts across strain selection, protein extraction, and environmental safety. So, thanks for giving me a platform here today.
Today, I’d just like to discuss a clear and science-based perspective on dotted duckweed, and in particular hit three different points.
One, dotted duckweed is unique in that it creates lots of rubisco.
It’s the protein that we extract.
It’s our product.
That’s why we really care about it.
It’s easy to extract from the strain, much more so than many of the other species out there.
The growth characteristics of dotted duckweed are similar or less aggressive than native duckweed species.
And then, three, dotted duckweed is, you know, unlikely to survive in West Texas outside of the controlled conditions we provide it.
As you’ve heard, dotted duckweed is unique.
It contains a lot more rubisco protein.
This is critical for our extraction process.
From a biological perspective, looking at peer-reviewed studies, you know, we included the work by Ziegler, which is the most comprehensive study and probably the best figure.
You know, the growth rate of dotted duckweed is equal or lower than native duckweed species.
This came up, actually, in the conversation with AgriLife.
It was noted independently in the support letters from the other duckweed experts. And that’s consistent with what all the peer-reviewed literature says.
So, this, I think, indicates that dotted duckweed does not possess a competitive advantage that would allow it to displace native species in an open environment.
In addition, its survivability under controlled conditions is limited. Duckweed requires water. It’s highly sensitive to environmental stressors, including overnight frost. In a dry climate like West Texas, this creates substantial constraints for survival.
And yet, contrary to native duckweeds, you know, dotted duckweed does not form turions.
It’s very difficult to form seeds.
And that was actually, again, noted in those support letters as a reason why it is less likely to survive than some of the other native strains out there.
So, it’s for this reason we actually grow dotted duckweed in enclosed systems where we can control the environment, and therefore optimize the growth conditions.
So, in conclusion, just based off published literature, our discussions with AgriLife, and feedback from other independent researchers, the cultivation of dotted duckweed represents a system with low environmental risk when operated under the TPWD recommended and proposed safeguards.
As a scientist, I really appreciate your focus on rigor and environmental stewardship.
Thank you for your time.
Happy to answer any questions.
And we really just urge you to approve this permit pathway today.
Thank you so much.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Questions or comments?
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: I have one comment.
On the scientific side, I appreciate you trying to put that into plain English.
Because some of the other letters out there it’s almost like people write letters so that they have an option to say, “Well, what I really meant when I said this was this.”
DR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So, it always gives them a chance to backtrack or back out or move in.
So, your talk was, whether I agree with you or not, your talk was pretty plain.
So, I appreciate that.
That’s what I’m trying to say.
Thank you.
DR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
You’re welcome.
I think it’s important to be clear and concise.
It’s also important to have scientific references and I think experts behind it.
And so that’s why I think you want to say, yes, it’s difficult to survive in certain conditions, but there’s plenty of references there to explain that to back it up.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
I guess the thoughts that occurred to me, did you or anyone with your company try to have this removed from the invasive species list, from the prohibited list?
I don’t actually even know how it got on there, but again, it is on there and still on there.
And did you all try to get it off the list?
DR. PHILLIPS: Yeah.
I don’t know why it’s there either.
That’s been a good question I’ve had with a lot of people,
But maybe Tony knows.
MR. MARTENS: So, we’ve been in touch with staff for over the past two years after we found out that this strain was on the exotic species list.
And we had our first in-person meeting with the staff last year.
They explained to us why this is on the exotic species list, and which has to do with the general way of duckweed growth. When we asked them, like, “Hey, we would like to grow this strain in the state… or species in the state of Texas,” this is the path that they recommended us to take.
So, we followed staff’s instructions on how to get an opportunity to grow this strain in the state of Texas.
And this is why we’re here today.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, this list, I don’t know if I’m asking you or Bobby or what, but this list of invasive species that you’re talking about, is that a list put out by our department, or…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, Chairman, can I ask our team to come back up and explain some of the comments and address some of those?
MS. McGARRITY: Yes, Sir.
So, under…
Again, Monica McGarrity for the record, Senior Scientist for Aquatic Invasive Species and Inland Fisheries Division.
Under statutory authority, the Commission, by rule, may establish a list of species that cannot be possessed, cultured, propagated, sold, et cetera, except under conditions established by the Commission’s approval.
This includes some of these culture permits, which allows us to have biosecurity measures to prevent introduction of some of these species. This can include species of concern, such as the dotted duckweed. There was a lot of uncertainty around this species, its potential invasiveness.
It is well established across the scientific community that duckweeds are some of the fastest-growing flowering plants that there are, that they do form dense mats, that dense mats can form that can result in ecological impacts, recreational impacts. We do have a lot of small waters.
There is also another potential pathway.
You know, we’ve talked about aquaculture.
We’ve talked about the waterfowl, which could transport them between sites.
But there’s also the aquarium trade.
If this were not on the prohibited list and this became commercialized in the aquarium trade, the ornamental pond trade, this could allow it to, you know, be released intentionally with aquarium releases, escape from ponds, give a lot more risk.
The option of having a permit with biosecurity gives some sidebars to try to prevent that escapement.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, I have a question.
So, this is state-by-state.
This is not federal, correct?
MS. McGARRITY: Yes, Sir.
So, there is a federal prohibited species list under the Lacey Act, the Injurious Species List, and that refers to animals.
The plants, there are noxious weed lists at federal and state level.
But with these aquatics, they’re often regulated at the state level.
This is a prohibited species in Texas.
It’s also a prohibited species in Louisiana, where it’s actually very strictly regulated. They only allow permits for research or education, which could be in a university.
Florida does have a high presence of this, and they’ve had some documented instances in stagnant canals of it becoming problematic. They don’t regulate it as an exotic species.
But their Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, TDA equivalent, actually regulates cultivation of any aquatic plant.
And so, for any aquatic plant, native or non-native, to be cultured, a permit’s required that has some security requirements, inspection, and so forth.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So is this, I guess my question is, you said Florida’s I guess a little bit of a different animal here.
But is this considered a non-invasive species in any state?
MS. McGARRITY: So, we’ll go back to the terminology of “nuisance” and “invasive.”
So, nuisance species are native species that under certain conditions, like your duckweed in your pond, you have low flow, you have high nutrients, manure inputs, dry down, low water, they can become problematic. That’s usually an ecosystem imbalance. It’s often temporary.
Non-native species are not part of this ecosystem. They aren’t part of the ecosystem balance. They’re a separate, a new addition. Non-native species are not always invasive, and it can be situationally so.
Our agriculture crops, for example, they’re non-native, they’re not invasive. So, invasive is causing, or has potential to cause, impacts.
Duckweed, dotted duckweed, is widely recognized as having that potential.
Because there’s limited information on the severity of that potential, it hasn’t been documented as being severe.
There’s a bit of a patchwork of regulation.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I guess that’s my biggest concern is, as you stated, there’s a lot of unknowns about this plant because it hasn’t been around here.
It is problematic in Florida.
I do like the fact that Louisiana, very, very similar to East Texas.
I mean, they… where they drew the line.
There’s only a difference between us and them.
They are highly regulated over there.
So, I just… you said only in research.
No, they’re not allowing it to be grown outside of research, correct?
MS. McGARRITY: Research and education.
Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And education.
Okay.
Just my concerns.
It’s an invasive species in Texas, and, you know, our temperature mirrors where it came from.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anybody else?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman?
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: What we’re talking about today is West Texas.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right, yeah, you saw the map.
And so, it’s kind of a split, right, north to south.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I totally understand that.
I’m just saying, if it were to get out.
Nobody knows how the pine trees got in Bastrop. But that might have been some tornado that went a long time along with it. It can get out and it can be spread. And it’s a gamble.
And are you willing to gamble the ponds of Texas over this?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Dr. Yoskowitz?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I just want to remember, we do have one more individual signed up for comment.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Yeah, why don’t we go ahead and do that.
Mary Pearl Meuth.
Muth or Mewth?
MARY PEARL MEUTH: Moit.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Moit?
Wow, I wasn’t even close.
MS. MEUTH: It’s okay, we’ll get it at some point.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
MS. MEUTH: It’s all right.
Chairman Hildebrand almost had it right before he left.
[ laughter ]
But I do really appreciate the open and deep discussions that you guys are having here today.
As mentioned, my name is Mary Pearl Meuth.
I’m here as past president for Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
We respectfully oppose the proposed provision to allow commercial aquaculture production of dotted duckweed in Texas.
While the proposal includes specific biosecurity measures addressed at the minimum standards needed, critical ecological and long-term risk factors remain unsolved, as you guys are discussing here today.
Based on the information presented and what we know about the biology of the species, which does seem limited in its breadth and width, our chapter stands opposed to permitting its cultivation. Dotted duckweed, as you’ve heard, is fast-growing, easily transported, and capable of forming these dense surface mats. And as you mentioned to Commissioner McCall, like many invasive aquatic species, once established it is extremely difficult and costly to manage.
And I think the most important factor here is that these costs are not theoretical, and they are borne by the private landowners of Texas, local communities and public agencies tasked with managing the spread of invasive species. The financial and operational burden of invasive species management does not fall on the producers. It falls on Texans.
The stakes for Texas waters, our fisheries, our habitats, and our recreational resources are simply too high to risk another introduced invasive species.
While the potential for aquaculture production has been described in the economic terms that you’ve heard this morning, it’s important to remember that the Commission’s mission, as you’ve mentioned again, Commissioner McCall, is to protect and prioritize the natural resources of Texas, not to necessarily advance commerce when it may come at the risk of the cost to the ecosystem’s health.
Approving a species with known invasive potential, even under the controlled conditions set forward, does set a precedent that could undermine long-term conservation efforts.
Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society remains consistent in its position opposing the commercial propagation of non-native, invasive, or exotic species with the potential to become harmful in our waterways, regardless of the proposed containment strategies.
This position does align with our parent society and guidance from the Wildlife Society at the national level.
Thank you all so much for your time and your deep consideration of this factor today.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All right.
Any more comments or questions?
I will...
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I’ll make a comment.
Sorry.
It’ll be brief.
[ laughter ]
I guess this is a big struggle for me because I certainly see the benefits to the community. And it’s huge for that community out there, and potentially other communities.
And I think no one wants this dotted duckweed in any of our ponds and rivers, or anything of the sort. But it seems to me like it’s... and it’s been testified that this is already in existence in Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana; in some cases, I’ve heard some possibly Texas already.
So, are we... It seems to me like we’re much... there’s a much bigger risk that we have… that we get dotted duckweed from those locations, as opposed to this very controlled facility in far west Texas. So, I can... I think that’s a much bigger risk.
And, of course, as Dr. McCall explained, waterfowl can move that stuff around pretty easily.
So, to me, I think that’s a much bigger risk than this very controlled situation out in far West Texas that has the potential for a lot of economic development and jobs, well-paying jobs for that community.
So, I think I can get comfortable with the situation that’s presented here, given the fact that the bigger risk is it coming over naturally from other states where it already exists.
So, I’ll just leave it at that.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Well, I won’t guarantee it’s the last comment, but I think it is.
Just to address my good friend, Commissioner Timmerman there.
It is in Florida, and it’s a problem in Florida.
It’s out, it’s in the waterways and the canals.
That’s a different water.
That’s a different flyway.
We don’t have duck coming over here from Florida.
I wish we did.
I’d take ducks from anywhere right now.
But we don’t have ducks coming this way from Florida.
It is in these others.
But remember, in Louisiana, which would be the closest place we’d get it from, it’s only in controlled facilities for research, and it’s not necessarily out in the wild that much.
So, last thing is, it’s… this is a permit for Texas.
This is a permit not for this facility, but this is a…
Once you open this can of worms, the worms are out.
And the next facility, there’s already a permitted way they can get in.
Even if this was hermetically sealed, the next plant may not be.
And if this gets out, we’ve lost control of these private ponds.
And as the lady just very succinctly testified, that cost will be borne by the landowners, not us. Not Plantible Foods, but us.
When I say, “us” I mean me, the landowner, is the one that’s going to have to do that. I’m wearing too many hats here.
So, again, my position hasn’t changed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Commissioner Scott.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Okay.
So, Commissioner Scott, for the record.
What I’m trying to understand, and maybe this is a question for you, David, why are we making it statewide?
Why are we not doing a specific area permit for this particular project?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: We are.
If the Commission decides to move forward, it would be limited to west of 83.
Yes.
I don’t know if we can pull that… I don’t know if we can pull that up.
Yeah.
MR. MURPHY: And Chairman, for the record, James Murphy.
As you consider a motion and a roll call vote on this item, I just want to make sure to clarify that there were a couple different exclusion zones that have been proposed on this item, and just want to confirm that the Commission’s desire is the map that is up here, as opposed to one of the prior exclusion zones that had been discussed that was a smaller area of Texas.
So, just as you consider a motion, just some clarity on the exclusion zone that y’all would be approving or not.
CRAIG BONDS: And the inspection frequency.
MR. MURPHY: Oh, and I apologize.
Also, the inspection frequency changed to annually from five years.
So, those are two new additions from the last proposal that we just want clarity if, in fact, those additional controls are desired.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Commissioner Doggett.
So, Dave, maybe a question for you.
I’ve heard from Plantible that the integrity of the facility is pretty exceptional.
I’d like to hear what your thoughts on that might be.
The structure and the preventability of the invasive species getting out.
So, if we believe in the integrity of the facility and we approve this for West Texas, when a new applicant comes and is permitted, what protocol do we go through to inspect and approve the integrity of the additional new facilities?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Commissioner.
I’m not pawning this off, but I want to rely on the expertise that we have.
And then I can chime in after that.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: In terms of permitting additional facilities, if they were to ask for that, if a permit program was put in place.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yeah, really curious about the process.
When a new group seeks a permit and we give it to them, what’s that process look like?
Do we have inspectors, or do we have to certify that the facility meets the integrity that we require?
What’s the process there?
MS. McGARRITY: For the record, Monica McGarrity, Senior Scientist for Aquatic Invasive Species.
Our permitting process.
As noted, this is a statewide permit program. High tech facilities, including Plantible, that I visited myself, could be hermetically sealed, ranging to very small backyard culture.
Any of these facilities would have to submit a permit application with information on the species to be cultured.
They would need to submit an emergency plan. That would describe what measures they would take in order to prevent escapement, and when.
So, within 24 to 48 hours of a predicted hurricane or major storm in this zone, we’re going to take this action. They would also provide a map of the facility, its structure, its drainage, so we would know how to inspect.
The permit coordinator would review all of this, check for past violations that might affect the permit issuance, evaluate whether this was in a floodplain zone. And then the inspector would go to visit with a specific checklist of things that they need to look for as far as biosecurity.
Prior to that inspection, those measures would need to be in place. The inspector is either our permits coordinator, who has years of experience across all of these culture facilities, or local law enforcement officers, who are also, you know, used to working with these facilities and have this checklist as guidance.
If the facility did not meet the standards, then there would be a decision to either offer them the ability to remediate or potentially to consider denial of that permit.
And I would also note, for facilities such as Plantible which are growing, or any facilities that might be growing over time, each time they add a new greenhouse, add any new structure that’s going to hold, or if they modify in some way, they decide to try a new harvest structure, when that’s modified we go out and we inspect again.
And we have to verify that that is biosecure and up to our standards before it’s approved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I think what the Commission would like assurances for are if we pass the ability for the permitting in West Texas, that I think we have a certain comfort level with Plantible’s facilities.
We just need assurances that the state rigorously will force any new applicant to meet or exceed the Plantible’s facility in terms of integrity and security and biosecurity. And that we monitor… and as a state, we very consistently monitor and measure all that to make sure they’re still compliant with the high standards we’ve set. So, that would be a concern of mine.
MS. GARRITY: That is also a concern for us.
And, you know, looking at the tilapia, we saw an explosion in niche aquaculture, or aquaponics, backyard aquaponics, high variety of, you know, systems in which the species was being cultured.
By stipulating these special provisions, these special biosecurity measures in regulations versus in policy or permitting procedure, this essentially sets the guidelines by which our permit program operates to ensure that this is consistently applied.
And I will note that the department also has under the current regulations the ability, as Michael noted, to require other measures as needed.
So, if we were to go to a facility and it’s similar, the greenhouse is rated 80 miles per hour wind, it’s fully enclosed from beginning to end, the drains, the macerators, everything is up to our standards.
But there’s something that is unique about the facility that causes extra concern.
We can identify what measures would be appropriate and include those as a permit condition.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, adding on to…
Thank you, Monica, for that great explanation.
They would have to meet or exceed the standards that we’re setting forth for the permit program that Plantible would be the first one to enjoy.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: How many people do we have in that department that will monitor and measure the security of these facilities?
MS. McGARRITY: We have one permit coordinator.
We also have fisheries districts all around the state that sometimes assist with permit inspections that have their own staff, multiple biologists and technicians.
And then we, of course, have game wardens all around the state.
Those game wardens are integral in conducting our inspections for our aquaculture facilities, as well as particularly our water spinach, the other plant species that is grown.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: So, Parks and Wildlife will be tasked with that?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Good.
Good.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you.
Okay.
I will entertain a motion, whatever that motion may be.
[ laughter ]
MR. MURPHY: And Chairman, just to clarify, is that a motion that includes the movement from five year to one-year annual inspection regime and the expanded exclusion zone on the map before you?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I assume so.
That’s why I said whatever that motion may be.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Because this is an open book…
MR. MURPHY: We’ll let them decide how to move.
Yes, Sir.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: So, this is Commissioner Bell.
I propose a motion on this issue, as presented, to include the adjustments discussed.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, you’re clear on what that zone is?
Okay.
And it’s one-year inspection?
Okay.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I like that.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Do I hear a second?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I’ll second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
We have a motion and a second.
I don’t know how this is going to turn out.
I will…
All in favor?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, can we just… given, I think, the maybe tightness in the vote, can we just do a roll call down and grab that?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think we can.
I’ll start with Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I vote for nay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Yay.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Yay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Commissioner Scott?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Yay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I’m opposed.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, nay.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Yay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, “nay” and “yay” sound alike.
But it’s “yes,” “no,” “no,” “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” “no,”
VICE CHAIRMAN BELL: It’s 5-3.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
And I vote yes.
So, the motion passes.
Needless to say, we will want to keep an eye on this and expect it…
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Where’s our biologist again?
We’re going to be checking in with you.
[ laughter ]
We’re going to be checking in with you to make sure this all goes well.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, final comment.
Plantible Foods, congratulations.
I wish you success and I wish you safety.
MR. MARTENS: Thank you, Mr. McCall.
And please come by if you’re ever in West Texas.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: If I may make one final comment is: a year is a long time.
We might want to do the initial, do it more frequently, say every six months, if possible.
MS. McGARRITY: Our law enforcement has also expressed that they feel there may need to be frequent, spontaneous inspections as are permitted under the regulations, particularly while this is new to us.
As has been noted, Plantible serves as our model that allowed us an example from which to develop our security measures.
They are a growing facility. And as they grow, as they expand, additional inspections will be required at that time.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: All right.
Okay.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you for your time today, and all the explanation.
We appreciate it.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: We’re going to move on.
Action Item No. 3: 2026-2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Welcome back, Shaun Oldenburger.
SHAUN OLDENBURGER: All right.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Shaun Oldenburger.
I’m the Small Game Program Director for the Wildlife Division.
Myself and Mr. Blaise Korzekwa, who will follow me in this presentation, will present proposed changes to the 2026-2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamations.
At the conclusion of our presentations, Mr. Korzekwa will request adoption of the proposed changes for the hunting seasons for next year by this Commission.
We will begin the presentation on proposed changes to the 2026-2027 Statewide Hunting Proclamation for Upland Game Birds.
As a reminder, the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee did unanimously support all proposed changes on Upland Game Birds for this next hunting season.
As you recall, last year the Commission changed the statewide quail hunting dates to November 1 to February 28.
Prior to this hunting season, both chachalaca and quail hunting seasons aligned to simplify regulations for our hunters, instead of disjunct but similar hunting seasons. Once again, we are requesting to align these hunting seasons.
For public comments, we received 407 comments– 96.3 percent were agreed completely, with the rest disagreeing. And no comments were germane to the proposal.
Moving on to wild turkey hunting proposals. Mandatory harvest reporting has been in place for both Matagorda and Wharton counties since 2022.
In one gobbler county, policy has been to close the season if one or fewer turkeys are reported harvested over a three-year hunting period.
Both counties now meet that threshold. No wild turkeys have been reported in Matagorda County, and only one bird has been reported in Wharton County in the last three hunting seasons.
As presented yesterday, recent two-minute wild turkey distribution maps indicate that Matagorda County has no, or minimal, wild turkeys as represented there in the circle in red.
Our wildlife biologists in the state conduct these surveys, that we additionally use multiple other sources of data including 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 those areas, focusing on private lands where landowners are interested and suitable habitat exists for additional wild turkey restoration.
To date, as of last night, we’ve received 401 comments– 90 percent agree completely, with 10 percent disagreeing.
The reasons for disagreement include:
There are many birds still in Wharton County.
Keep open the hunting season.
Intrusion on private property rights.
Reduce annual bag limit to one.
And reduce the season, but do not eliminate the season.
Just as presented yesterday, the current annual bag limit for that county is one.
Moving on to wild turkey hen harvest.
Staff observed a significant decline in wild turkey populations across Texas over the past decade, as indicated here with USGS breeding bird survey data.
As such, the proposal is to remove unbearded hens from all legal harvests statewide. Recent research in wild turkey population dynamics indicates that the number of hens entering the nesting season is the most critical factor for long-term sustainability.
Based on mandatory reporting, hens made up 41 percent of the total harvest in the Fall 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, but 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 net breeding season to better ensure long-term viability of wild turkey populations across the state of Texas.
As shown on this map, this proposed change would apply to all counties in TPWD’s wild turkey North Zone, which is north of Highway 20, during the fall season, as well as the special South Zone fall season, which are those areas hashed gray on the map where the sand sheet exists in south Texas.
To date, we’ve received 575 comments– with 84.5 percent agreeing completely; the rest disagreeing.
The reasons for disagreement include:
No evidence of wild turkey decline.
Abundant hens and increasing populations on a ranch or county.
Hens can become a nuisance.
Decrease annual bag limit.
And eliminate harvest of hens completely.
Just to note, there was a number of folks that said we did not go far enough in just to reduce hen harvest completely statewide. But this proposal is just to do unbearded hens.
All right, moving on to the Migratory Game Bird Proclamation.
The calendar progression and maintaining daily bag limits for the remainder of the Migratory Game Bird hunting seasons.
Just to note, as well, the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee did support unanimously all proposals in front of you today.
Public comment on this was 475… 465 comments– with 82.5 percent agreeing completely, with the rest disagreeing.
The reasons for disagreement include:
The February duck seasons– once again, we talked about that yesterday, which we cannot do under federal law.
I’ll expand on that in a second.
Changed West Zone’s goose season dates.
More teal hunting dates and different dates– some folks would prefer to go earlier than we have been traditionally going as late as possible now that we have a nine-day season instead of a 16-day season. And then also have later or February sandhill crane hunting season dates.
Just for clarification from yesterday, I did follow up on the February duck season dates and federal frameworks for Commissioner McCall.
I forgot to note that the John D. Dingell, Jr., Conservation Management and Recreation Act that passed in 2019, that was signed by President Trump in his former administration.
The one thing that did do is put the end framework dates in an act of Congress.
So, actually, to change the ending frameworks for duck season would, actually, require an act of Congress before the Fish and Wildlife Service could actually act on expanding those end framework dates.
So, just letting you know that information.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So, we were going to January 31 this year?
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yes, we were going to January 31 this year.
All right, moving on to proposals for the South Zone dove season.
As you can see here from this map, the South Zone goes from Orange west on Interstate 10 all the way to U.S. 90 in San Antonio and a little of Del Rio.
As you can see here on these maps… or not these maps, on these calendars, the top one represents the South Zone special White-winged dove area, which traditionally would have been our proposal.
Those boxes in green, which are the 4th, 5th, 6th, 11th, 12th, and 13th, would have traditionally been the special White-winged dove area days.
That’s where we would have afternoon-only hunting, and the daily bag limits would be different with reduced mourning dove harvest during those days.
With the change from Fish and Wildlife Service to allow us to go to a three-year experimental to open September 1 in the South Zone, which was the only location in the United States that had this federal restriction.
You can see currently on the top there from September 14 is the gray, as early as we could open the regular season.
Now that is the September 1 on the bottom calendars, and running through the 25th.
With regards to public comment, we received 971 comments– with 79.6 percent agreeing completely, and the rest disagreeing.
The reasons for disagreement were:
Start season on a Friday or Saturday.
So, they didn’t necessarily disagree, they just wanted a different opening date.
Too hot to hunt doves that early.
No birds in early September.
And don’t want to lose special White-winged dove days from traditional hunting.
Moving on the South Zone dove season second segment.
The Commission yesterday made this change to go from December 18 to January 21.
This public comment is with regards to the previous proposal, which received 942 comments– with 53.3 percent agreeing; and reasons for disagreement listed there.
Once again, those opposed letters we mentioned yesterday.
Those are all now in agreement. So, I’ll be happy to take any questions now, if you have any.
Sorry.
All right, I’ll turn it over to Mr. Blaise Korzekwa.
BLAISE KORZEKWA: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Blaise Korzekwa, White-tail Deer Program Leader.
And this morning I will be presenting proposed changes to the Statewide Hunting Proclamation for Commission action.
We currently have two big-game regulation proposals that I’ll get onto more detail on the following slides. But those proposals are to expand doe days in 21 counties and modify the definition of “muzzleloader.”
Both of these 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 blue there on the map are located in Deer Management Units Number 11 and 12.
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 four does per buck.
Staff have also received feedback from hunters, landowners, and farmers in these counties that have expressed concern with the increasing deer population, and have requested an expansion of 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 the firearm, which allows for a conservative harvest while still providing hunting opportunities.
Those 21 counties shown on the map are mostly located in the Post Oak Savanna ecoregion, and currently have a four-day doe season that starts on Thanksgiving Day and closes the Sunday following Thanksgiving.
These 21 counties are the only ones 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 have an annual bag limit of two antlerless deer in which they may be harvested during the special doe season, as well as during archery, youth-only, and muzzleloader seasons.
After harvest, hunters have 24 hours to complete mandatory harvest 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.
And although called a 16-day season, due to calendar progression and the week that Thanksgiving may actually fall on that year, some years may have a season length of 23 days.
As mentioned earlier, the bag limit of two antlerless deer as well as mandatory harvest 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.
And at the end of the presentation we did offer a survey for those in attendance, in which over 75 percent of attendees supported this proposal.
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 design such that the propellant and bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle.”
However, there is new muzzleloading technology in which the propellant is in a self-contained powder charge. The hunter will load this charge into the breech of the rifle and insert a primer.
Once that is complete, the hunter will then load the projectile through the muzzle. This 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 those 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 by allowing use of new muzzleloading technology during muzzleloader season.
And both of these proposals are supported by the White-tail Deer Advisory Committee.
As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., we received 533 public comments regarding the expansion of doe days– with 94 percent agreeing completely and a total of 6 percent in disagreement.
The reasons for disagreement include that they would like doe days to be longer than what was proposed.
However, there is also concern with smaller property sizes and the potential for those landowners to overharvest does.
As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., we’ve received 456 public comments regarding the modification of the definition of muzzleloader– with 83 percent agreeing completely, and a total of 17 percent in disagreement. Reasons for disagreement include that modern muzzleloaders are not a primitive weapon. But there were also comments that muzzleloaders should not have a special season.
I will note that Texas does not have a primitive weapon season, but rather we have an archery-only season on the front end and a muzzleloader season on the back end.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 65.3, 65.4.2, 65.6.4, 65.6.6, and 65.314 through 65.320 as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the February 20, 2026, issue of the Texas Register.”
That concludes my presentation, and I’m willing to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Do we… Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman.
A comment.
This is fine.
Remind me again when the doe days are actually going to be.
MR. KORZEKWA: The second Saturday of general season, which would be the second Saturday of November, and run through the Sunday following Thanksgiving.
So, in most years, it’s 16.
Every six or seven years– it’s due to calendar progression– it’s actually… it extends it a week.
So, it will be a 23-day season.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: 23 day.
Okay.
Not now.
I’m not opposed to this at all.
Just I’d like you to consider that, you know, certainly in our area, the rut usually begins late October, early November, a lot later than that down south.
So, it’s hard to make a regulation for the whole state.
But for our area, it certainly would make more sense to have… to be taking out the doe permits more or less corresponding with archery season, which is because the doe are not bred there.
And so, you’re taking down one doe instead of one, versus when rut kicks in you’ve got the dominant bucks that breed first, secondary bucks come along later.
And so, the trophy bucks, you know, could inadvertently be killed along with the genetics; could go along with that doe.
Just something for consideration.
We can talk about it another time.
MR. KORZEKWA: Yes, Sir. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments or questions?
All right.
We do have three people signed up to speak on this topic.
First is James McAnelly.
Welcome.
Mr. JAMES McANELLY: Thanks, Commissioners.
My comments were only on the second segment of the South Zone dove.
We’ve obviously… cooler heads have prevailed, and we got it back to the traditional dates.
And we’re removing comment. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Next is Jay Daigre.
I have no idea how to pronounce this.
Dagre?
[ laughter ]
Mr.JAY DAIGRE: Thank you.
Jay Daigre.
I had the same opinion on the second split of the dove, so my comments are removed.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Great.
Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And Mark Katzfey.
Mr. MARK KATZFEY: Yeah, thank you all for letting me speak.
I’m kind of… stole my thunder there.
Thank you all for changing that.
My main concern was the second season issue.
My name is Mark Katzfey, by the way.
I’m a landowner and outfitter, dove outfitter in George West, Texas, Live Oak County. We hunt doves in Jim Wells, Bee County, San Patricio County as well.
Last year we entertained, we hosted about 2,200 and 2,400 hunters actually for both seasons, and we had a total of 5,000 hunts. We plant sunflowers and sesame throughout those counties and attract birds.
So, my ranch, we’ve been dove hunting for the last 30 years and putting on hunts. And in the last 10 years our game’s really gone up. We’ve planted a lot of sunflowers, sesame.
Hay fields have turned into dove fields.
I mean, hunting is our life down there.
So, it’s a really, really big deal to the community.
It’s a big deal to us.
We entertain a lot of people.
And so, it’s what we think about year-round.
So, I do applaud your decision to move the September 1 season.
I know it’s pained me to see dove hunters in the field during White-winged season harvest mourning doves. And they go out to pick them up and they just kind of shove a little dirt on them because they can’t put them in the bag because they’re over their two limit. So, allowing us to have all mourning doves and White-winged during September 1, I think is very welcome. I want to applaud your decision on that.
I was here to talk about the second season issue.
When I was told it was going to begin on Thanksgiving, I just wanted to express my opinion.
That’s just really a bad idea.
In my opinion, that’s time to kill deer, not doves.
And I know you can’t help but overlap dove season some… you can’t help but overlap deer season some, but let’s keep it to a minimum.
A lot of my hunters like to deer hunt and dove hunt, and they don’t want to use up their precious 90 days while they’re wanting to deer hunt, and then they can’t use those days later on when they really want to dove hunt.
Some of my most popular times to dove hunt in the second season is in January.
So, in the second season, I had about 500 dove hunters come in, and 60 percent of those were in January.
So, January 1 and 2 is the most popular weekend to hunt doves in the second season for my business.
Most of them do it because deer season is over and the kids are still out of school. So, it helps. They have opportunities for those kids to hunt.
So, I just want to tell you that.
And I appreciate y’all making that decision.
I’m a little confused, too.
Because, I mean, I’m here to testify, but you all have already made the change.
I don’t know why, if we have public comment, why maybe we would talk about that before you change it.
I feel like I had already budgeted my schedule to come here, and I wanted to talk to you all and thank you all for doing that.
But it seems like I would have had… talking and telling you all this yesterday would have been more appropriate.
So, thank you all very much.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you, Mr. Katzfey.
Any more comments or questions?
If not, I will entertain a motion to approve.
And this is with the change…
MR. MURPHY: Yes, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …that we’ve all discussed.
MR. MURPHY: Yes, on the second segment of the dove zone, that’s correct.
Please clarify that.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Commissioner McCall.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Second, Doggett.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Second, Doggett.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
All right.
That passes.
A lot easier than duckweed.
[ laughter ]
Item No. 4: Special Take Authorization for Disease Management– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.
Kory Gann.
KORY GANN: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Kory Gann.
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. 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 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 facilities. Since the adoption of these rules, there’s 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 reinvasion 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 authorization, reporting requirements, diagnostic sample collection, carcass disposition, and disease testing requirements, will be addressed in the authorization itself.
Special Take Authorizations will only be used to take non-federally regulated wildlife with take restrictions under TPWD statutory authority, and all special take authorizations will still require approval by both wildlife division, and law enforcement division prior to issuance.
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 also 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.
As of yesterday, 21 people have provided feedback on this proposal– with 71.4 percent in agreement, and 26.8 percent disagreeing either completely or on specific items.
The most common reasons for disagreement include:
The scope of wording referring to wildlife as too broad.
And concern of possible take of federally regulated wildlife species.
Additional comments were not germane to the proposal.
The proposed amendments are supported by the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association and the Texas Wildlife Association.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code, Section 65.907, as listed in Exhibit A, with changes as necessary to the proposed text as published in the February 20, 2026, issue of the Texas Register.”
Thank you for your time and consideration.
And I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Gann.
Comments or questions from the Commission?
All right.
We do have one speaker on this topic, Justin Dreibelbis.
Welcome back, Justin.
JUSTIN DREIBELBIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, everybody.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak.
With the reemergence of New World screwworms moving up through Mexico now, 150 miles south of the border, it’s definitely… We stand to see some serious risk here from our agricultural community, wildlife, natural resources, and just our state economy.
Any tools we can give the department and landowners to help surveil and remove potentially affected animals is a good thing, in our opinion, and we feel like this is a move in the right direction.
Encouraged by the work that USDA is doing, Parks and Wildlife, Animal Health Commission, and putting a plan together if this pest gets here.
We think this fits in there very well. And we’ve definitely asked the staff to look for ways that we can give preauthorization of take of a suspected infected animal to landowners.
And so, I think this is a good move in the right direction.
So, thanks for your consideration.
We’re in favor.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
All right.
I will entertain a motion to approve.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Second by?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Scott.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]
Any opposed?
This motion passes.
Moving on to Action Item No. 5: Land Acquisition Parker County– Approximately 50 acres at Lake Mineral Wells State Park and Trailway.
Mr. Jacob Aston.
JACOB ASTON: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
My name is Jacob Aston.
I’m a project manager with the Land Conservation Program.
And today I’ll be presenting a 50-acre land acquisition at Lake Mineral Wells State Park and Trailway located in Parker County.
Here’s a county map showing Parker County indicated with the red star.
Here’s a more zoomed-in map showing the state park and trailway located in Mineral Wells.
Lake Mineral Wells State Park and Trailway consists of 3,280 acres located on Rock Creek, a large tributary of the Brazos River, and opened in 1981. Going a little bit back in history. In 1922, the city of Mineral Wells built the lake to increase the growing city’s water supply.
1963, the city found a better water supply and stopped using the lake as its main source of water. 1975, after the closing of Fort Wolters, the city and the fort donated the acreage around the lake to the department, with the city retaining responsibility for the upkeep of the dam and spillway.
And staff has identified a 50-acre tract adjacent to Lake Mineral Wells State Park and Trailway that is available for acquisition from a willing seller.
The subject tract adds operational utility to the park, and provides greater access to a 200-acre portion of the existing park that had limited and unreliable access.
The additional access can provide greater recreational opportunities, such as hiking and hunting.
Here’s a map of the proposed acquisition of land with the State Park and Trailway outlined in red and the subject tract in yellow.
As of yesterday, at 5:00 p.m., there have been 43 total comments– 41 in agreement, two in disagreement.
There was only one comment left.
And they indicated that they prefer to see money to be spent on water and electric camper pads for the equestrian camping area at the park, and then access to more trails for the equestrians.
In addition to that, we received a letter late last night from the Texas Chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in support of the acquisition.
And staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 50 acres at Lake Mineral Wells State Park and Trailway.”
That concludes my presentation.
I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Aston.
Do I have any comments or questions?
If not, I would entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: Scott, so moved.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Scott and Timmerman.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF “AYES”]
Any opposed?
This passes.
Thank you, Jacob.
MR. ASTON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Action Item No. 6: Land Acquisition– Stephens County – Approximately 2,850 acres.
Mr. Stan David.
STAN DAVID: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
This item will discuss the land acquisition of Stephens County, approximately 2,850 acres.
It will create a brand new WMA.
Red star there is Stephens County, North Central Texas.
Zoomed in map here of where it would be in the county, close to the Possum Kingdom State Park.
Proposed acquisition of land: approximately 2,850 acres, which includes native wildlife and habitat that are representative of the Rolling Plains ecosystem.
This acquisition tract will help to expand the wildlife management area footprint in this region of Texas.
Staff believe this property is suitable for a new wildlife management area, and acquisition will provide new public hunting opportunities and habitat conservation.
The new WMA will be called the Robbie Davis Wildlife Management Area.
Here’s a map of the proposed acquisition.
It’s outlined in red. You can see it’s bisected there by, I think that’s Highway 67, if I can see that correctly.
To date, public comments: there’s 52 total– 49 agree, 3 disagree. Some reasons for disagreement are:
Concern about purchasing land from the TPW Foundation– I think the general public doesn’t understand the separation between the two.
And one person was transparency on purchase price.
They’d like to see it published. But we have rules that we protect it from publishing a price before we close.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to acquire from a willing seller approximately 2,850 acres in Stephens County.
That concludes the presentation.
I can answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I move approval.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: We have one person signed up.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, we do have one speaker.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Matt Wagner.
Welcome.
MATT WAGNER: Greetings, Chairman Foster and Commission members.
I’m Matt Wagner, Executive Director of the Texas Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
We want to thank the Commission and staff for the acquisition of this new WMA.
There are currently 50 WMAs in the state, encompassing nearly 750,000 acres.
And although this sounds like a big number in a state that’s over 170 million acres, it’s less than one-half of 1 percent of the land area. These WMAs are very important not just for public hunting, but as living laboratories for wildlife and habitat research and demonstration sites for private landowners.
Today our population exceeds 31 million people, and growing.
We also have the greatest number of hunters than any other state, at 1.2 million. But that’s less than 4 percent of the population. And although there are many factors driving the low number of hunters per capita in Texas and around the country, one of the biggest factors is the lack of affordable access to land to hunt on.
And our WMAs provide that access, as do many of our state parks.
So, by the way, we’re excited about the acquisition of new state parks, too.
But this WMA is especially positioned to offer quality dove hunting, which is one of the best ways to recruit new hunters and youth.
And we’d love to collaborate with the department on a dove management workshop at some point in the future. But we sincerely thank you for providing places to hunt, fish, camp, hike, and learn about our natural world.
We encourage you to continue to find more opportunities with willing landowners to provide places for the public, especially our youth, to recreate.
But thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
I believe Mr. Timmerman has a motion.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move approval.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Patton, second.
All in favor?
[CHORUS OF "AYES"]
Any opposed?
Thank you, Stan.
MR. DAVID: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, that passes.
Moving on to Item No. 7: Request for Pipeline Easement– Jefferson County– Approximately 13 acres at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.
And Dr. Whitney Gann is with us.
DR. WHITNEY GANN: Good morning, Commissioners, Chairman.
For the record, my name is Whitney Gann.
I’m the Facilities Coordinator for the Wildlife Division.
And I’m going to present a request for a pipeline easement at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.
J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area is located in Jefferson County, as illustrated by the red star there along the Texas Gulf Coast.
If we zoom into that star, you can see the location of the WMA just southwest of Port Arthur. The J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area consists of approximately 25,500 acres of coastal marsh and open water within the Texas Chenier Plain, and is adjacent to the Sabine Neches Waterway.
The WMA is divided into three units, the Hillebrandt, Big Hill, and Salt Bayou. Mustang Express Pipeline, LLC, requests an easement of 50 feet in width crossing 11,373 feet, a little over two miles of the WMA.
The total easement area is approximately 13 acres, and this proposed pipeline would use the horizontal directional drilling method with no surface impacts.
This map illustrates the property boundaries outlined in red.
And you can see the three units labeled there as well. If we zoom in, you can see in yellow the footprint of the proposed pipeline crossing the bottleneck portion of the Big Hill unit and along the southeastern side of the Salt Bayou unit there.
As of yesterday at 5:00, we have 20 total comments on this proposal– 4 in agreement, 16 in disagreement.
Reasons for disagreement cite an objection to any industry on state lands, disruption to native habitat. And one commenter made note that TPWD does not receive adequate compensation.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit A and authorizes the Executive Director to take all necessary steps to grant an approximately 13-acre easement at the J.D. Murphree Wildlife Management Area.
Thank you.
I’ll take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Dr. Gann.
Comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER SCOTT: I’ll make a comment before I make a motion.
Having grown up and crawled around out in that marsh most of my younger life, I do not agree with any of the three things that were spoken about why we shouldn’t do it.
We’ve granted many of them.
I’ve been here 16 years, and I think I’ve made every motion that crosses J.D. Murphree.
So, knowing this very, very well, we have very strict rules about the directional drilling.
There’s no open trenching or anything.
So, having said that, I’d make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Second?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Second.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF "AYES" ]
Any opposed?
Thank you, Dr. Gann.
This passes.
And then one final item is a briefing item on the Modernization of State Wildlife Action Plan of Texas.
And Ms. Kelly Simon will make this presentation.
KELLY SIMON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, good morning.
I thought it was going to be the afternoon before we talked, but we got through it pretty quick.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Kelly Simon.
I am the Strategic Planner and the Coordinator of the State Wildlife Action Plan revision of 2025.
Today I’m presenting on how Texas has modernized the State Wildlife Action Plan to make better decisions about conserving our rare species.
In 2016, a National Blue Ribbon Panel studied what it would really cost to conserve rare species in the country.
They estimated at the time that it would cost about $1.3 billion every year. In inflation-adjusted dollars, that equals to about $1.69 billion.
In 2025, the federal program that provides the majority of funding for rare species conservation received about $73 million.
So, the reality is that we must be very, very strategic about how we spend our conservation dollars. And that’s exactly what the State Wildlife Action Plan is designed to do. The State Wildlife Action Plans are required in order to unlock that $73 million that I mentioned earlier, of which Texas receives about $2.7 million each year. And they serve as the primary strategic framework used by U.S. states and territories to guide conservation investment through the State Wildlife Grant Program and other conservation funding initiatives.
In these plans, each state identifies species that need the most attention, the threats that they face and the actions that can help them recover. Since the first plans were developed about 20 years ago, State Wildlife Action Plans have become the foundation for wildlife conservation planning across the country. They also guide how states use State Wildlife Grants, that federal funding program that I mentioned earlier that’s dedicated to conserving rare species.
The first thing a State Wildlife Action Plan does is identify what we call “species of greatest conservation need.”
And those are often referred to as SGCN. There are any species in need of help, and whether they’re game or non-game, and regardless of the type of species that they are.
The goal is to act early, before they become threatened or endangered and prevent the need for listing in the first place.
And there are no regulatory restrictions associated with SGCN.
This designation simply helps unlock that federal funding for conservation.
Our State Wildlife Action Plan was first developed in 2003.
And back then it tried to be a complete– and this is maybe a reproduction of it, but it is exactly what it looked like.
Our State Wildlife Action Plan was first developed in 2003, and back then it tried to be a complete account of conservation and management that we thought that we should do.
It was very, very informative.
But it also read a bit like an encyclopedia.
So, for the 2025 update, Texas didn’t just revise an old plan.
We built a process that helps us make better decisions about how we spend our limited conservation dollars.
It brings together data on species, habitats, and threats, so we can see what’s at risk, where to focus, and what actions will make the biggest difference.
And it’s built to be used, not just by us, but by any of our conservation partners interested in Texas wildlife.
And I’m proud to say that the State Wildlife Action Plan is the first fully online digital wildlife action plan in the country.
The entire plan is online. It’s searchable and it’s ADA compliant. We’ve worked hard to make it easy for anyone in wildlife conservation to explore and use.
And let’s take a quick overview of the Texas 2025 fully digital State Wildlife Action Plan. This is the fun part of the meeting.
We can all see the information… we can see all the information in the app in a number of different ways.
But let’s just jump in through that Explore portal right there in the center, where we can explore all the species of greatest conservation need.
And at a glance you can see which species are only found in Texas, what kind of organism they are and different measures of how common they are, and whether the species needs more research or whether we’re ready to begin taking actual on-the-ground conservation actions.
And if you want to find out more about a specific species, all you do is click on it. You see a larger photo and more information. And as you scroll down, you see some of the features of the plan.
One of the features of our plan is our knowledge gap analysis.
This is something we’re really proud about, and helps us deliver strategic funding decisions.
It helps us decide whether a species needs more research or whether we’re ready to begin moving forward with conservation actions, like habitat restoration or species management.
We can also read about its habitat, and even dig deeper into specific habitat types.
For example, we can see here that the cactus wren uses a variety of different habitats. Among them are shrublands and desert scrub.
You can click on “desert scrub” and find out more about that habitat and the other species that can be found there.
So, let’s go back to the cactus wren information sheet again.
And scrolling down, we can see a heat map of where people have documented the cactus wren.
And the dotted gray shape there is where we expect to find them in Texas. Since the cactus wren is a conservation-focused species, that means we want to understand the threats that it faces, and what we can do to address them. And you can see those right here. The threats are in yellow and their associated actions are in green. We have no actions that are not tied to a threat.
Going back to the overview of the Texas State Wildlife Action Plan, our plan is science-driven. It has science-driven conservation priorities, including the way that we determine SGCN, or Species of Greatest Conservation Need, and our knowledge gap analysis and conservation opportunity area tools.
Everything we’ve included in the plan is grounded in current research, beginning with how we determine what species are put on the SGCN list in the first place.
In 2003, we relied on expert opinion in order to make our highest priorities. That was the best way to go then.
But now we have a much more objective decision tree, and everything that went into making that decision is featured right there on the species information page.
One of the biggest challenges in conservation is knowing when you’ve got just the right amount of information to act.
Because research takes money.
And we need to have some information, but we need to know when it’s time to move from information gathering and research to conservation action.
And that’s what our knowledge gap analysis helps us do.
It gives us a clear, repeatable way to decide whether a species needs more research or is ready for conservation action.
If key information is missing, we focus on research, get that key information understood. When we have enough information, we can move easily into conservation.
The knowledge gap analysis is really the backbone of our plan.
It helps and allows us to document progress toward conservation, clarify meaningful research needs, break an endless research cycle, and efficiently allocate funding.
In other words, it tells us when it’s time to stop studying a species and start actions to help it.
And finally, our conservation opportunity area tool helps us focus on conservation and restoration.
It’s not a map of rare species, and it will never be complete.
But it pulls together habitat, threats, connectivity, and species data to show the potential for what conservation could be.
Not all SGCN are in the model. But in general, the COA, or the Conservation Opportunity Area Map, can help us highlight areas of the state with high concentrations of rare species and suitable habitats.
The Conservation Opportunity Area Map is really a decision tool.
Oh, is a decision tool. It helps people working at any scale, whether it’s landscape conservation, habitat restoration, or species research.
It helps us understand the characteristics of Texas’ landscape in relationship to rare species.
Next, we’ll look at a couple of examples of how Texans can use the State Wildlife Action Plan to guide our conservation decisions.
As you recall, the knowledge gap analysis allows us to decide which species need to receive more research and which ones and targets precisely what kind of research will make the most difference.
So, let’s look at how we can put the knowledge gap analysis and our easy-to-use filters in the app to work to help a graduate student who wants to develop a research study that is important, and also that they can get funding for.
They can use the State Wildlife Action Plan to help. First, they’ll use the filter function to get started.
First, by indicating what kind of animals they want to search.
In this instance, the student is interested in amphibians and reptiles.
Of course, they’ll search for research-need species or research-focused species. They’ll further refine to those species that are found in Brewster County because this student goes to Sul Ross University, and that’s in Brewster County.
And there are a lot of other variables they can take a look at just to make sure that they’re drilling down into the research questions that are addressing their own priorities.
But with just a few clicks, that student now has a precise target of five species that can benefit the most from their attention and which align with their own goals.
So, maybe the Western Massasauga grabs the student’s attention, so they look a little bit more closely at it. And they take a look a little closer at the barriers to readiness, which is how we present the knowledge gap analysis.
And they see three research topics they could focus on.
So, now the Texas State Wildlife Action Plan is shining a bright light on the research topics that are the most critical in the state, and can move our species much more quickly, much more efficiently, along that continuum from research-focused into conservation-focused.
Okay, so let’s go back to the Explore Species page for our next case study, where we see how the State Wildlife Action Plan can help a land manager find out the best conservation actions to take, and where they should be taken.
Okay, so we’ll start back here at the Explorer portal.
And from here, again, they’ll use the filter tool to narrow down their options. In this example, the landowner selects conservation-focused species.
Of course, they want to all accomplish conservation.
They filter for grassland and savanna habitats because that’s the type of habitat in their area. Narrows it down to Deaf Smith County because that’s, again, where their property is. And looks for species that respond well to habitat restoration.
And in just a few clicks, the query gives us six species that a landowner might want to focus on. When you look at each of these species that meet those criteria, you see that some have complementary conservation actions. So, for example, the Western box turtle, the yellow-billed cuckoo, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. They all benefit from riparian or streamside restoration, and all use grassland, savanna, and streamside habitats.
Using the COA, the Conservation Opportunity Area Map, we can identify and prioritize restoration of streamside and grassland habitats that will benefit these three species and, crucially, all the other species that also use those habitats.
Finally, I want to highlight how the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan is designed to be transparent and collaborative. This is a ten-year plan. What about missing information or information that becomes outdated?
Fortunately, this is not a static website or a printed document.
This is a working system. If you have a partner account, you can directly help shape our conservation priorities from today through the life of the plan.
So, let’s see what that would look like.
So, say I’m a research partner who’s working on Plains spotted skunk, as you do. And I realize that I’ve recently read a paper that could contribute to the barrier that I notice on the Species Information page called Condition of Population.
So, I select the Contribute Information button, and I go to the partner contribution area that we’re calling the State Wildlife Action Plan Workbench. And here, partners can add information about our habitat descriptions, locations, threats, actions, and, crucially, the knowledge gap analysis.
Since I want to update the KGA barriers, I select the Condition of Population barrier and I’m able to review the information that we currently have. And then I can submit my contribution and support the proposal, including citations for published research.
The suggested update shows up in the partner’s personal log of workbench submissions.
And then the appropriate Texas Parks and Wildlife staff member will review the suggestion, and either approve it or decline it or ask for more information.
Partners see exactly where they are in the process right there.
There’s no black box that they throw their suggestion into and wonder what happened to it. They can see their suggestion’s progress from submission to decision.
And one last thing. The 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan is ready for action.
Oh, I guess, there we go.
Ready for action.
It’s completed.
It’s well under our initial estimated budget.
And it’s already being used.
We’ve brought the work to the national stage, bringing it to state and national conservation meetings.
It’s been very well received.
Most recently, an international conservation group used our SWAP data tools to identify conservation-ready species of greatest conservation need that share complementary conservation actions.
And those species and actions will now guide a locally-driven conservation campaign in North Texas.
In fact, the organization was so excited about how easily they could generate the information that they needed, that they brought the Texas State Wildlife Action Plan back to their international organization to share with their international partners to show as an example of what modern conservation planning can look like.
So, Texas is leading the way with State Wildlife Action Plan that is digital, science-driven, transparent, and collaborative.
So, I invite everyone to test out the 2025 State Wildlife Action Plan. It’s a lot of fun to go through. You can either use the address here, type it into your search engine, or you can use the QR code in the Explore app. You can do this on any device and any platform.
And I invite our media friends to check out the media kit using our QR code here at the bottom.
This concludes the presentation, and I welcome any questions.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Thank you, Ms. Simon.
Very good.
Actually, I was trying to play with the app while you were talking about it. I was working my way through it, but I was having a few… I obviously hit a few glitches.
Are there any questions from anyone on the Commission?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, Patton.
Is the txswap.org… is that where it is, or is it on the main Texas Parks and Wildlife Department page?
MS. SIMON: Right.
The site was developed through a partner at Capital Area Council of Government.
And it is on our site at txswap.org.
It is not on the Texas Parks…
We do have a portal at the Texas Parks and Wildlife site.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman.
This is fascinating stuff.
But where is the spotted skunk located in Texas?
[ laughter ]
MS. SIMON: Well, if you go to txswap.org and type in “Plains spotted skunk,” you can click on it.
And if you scroll down, there should be a map with citizen science observations of the skunk throughout Texas.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: But they’re in Texas?
MS. SIMON: I believe so.
[ laughter ]
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Never say never.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: All right.
Thank you.
MS. SIMON: Absolutely.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: There’s a lot of stuff to filter in there.
You have a lot of different options.
That’s very good.
Any other questions or comments?
Well, thank you very much.
MS. SIMON: Thank you very much.
VICE-CHAIRMAN BELL: Well, Dr. Yoskowitz, I think the Commission has completed its business.
And I declare us adjourned at 12:07.
[ gavel pounds ]
In official recognition of the acceptance of these donations in a lawfully called public meeting of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission, we hereby affix our signatures this ___ day of __________, 2026.
_______________________________________
Paul L. Foster, Chairman
_______________________________________
Oliver J. Bell, Vice-Chairman
_______________________________________
William "Leslie" Doggett, Member
_______________________________________
Anna B. Galo, Member
_______________________________________
John A. McCall, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Robert L. "Bobby" Patton, Jr., Member
_______________________________________
Travis B. Rowling, Member
_______________________________________
Dick Scott, Member
_______________________________________
Timothy "Tim" Timmerman, Member