TPW Commission Work Session Transcript
March 25, 2026

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION

March 25, 2026

COMMISSION HEARING ROOM

4200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78744

COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION

[ gavel pounds ]

CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: It got kind of quiet in here.

I guess that means it’s time to start.

Good morning, everyone.

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

We are a little light today, but glad to have everyone here.

I’m Paul Foster.

Let’s see, Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?

COMMISSIONER JOHN A. McCALL: Here

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Here

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?

COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?

COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

This meeting is called to order on March 25, 2026, at 9.03 a.m.

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

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

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

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Commissioners, as a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak.

And then turn them off.

The first order of business is the Approval of the Minutes from the previous Work Session held January 21, 2026.

Those have already been distributed.

Is there a motion for approval?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton moves to approve.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Second.

CHAIMAN FOSTER: Second by Timmerman.

All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES”]

Any opposed?

That passes.

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

Dr. Yoskowitz.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you.

And good morning, Chairman.

Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

I would like to provide you an update germane to the Land and Water Plan and functions inside the department.

And as customary, I will start off with an Internal Affairs Update.

On February 10 and 11, the Internal Affairs Team attended the Law Enforcement Division’s annual statewide supervisor’s meeting.

Attendees received updates on the division’s strategic plan, engaged with law enforcement guest presenters, and were provided updated Texas Commission on Law Enforcement information.

Later in February, the IA team traveled to San Marcos to participate in the annual firearms training.

Investigators engaged in concealed carry options, updated firearm tactics, and performed their annual qualifications.

 Also in February, Chief Michael Durand attended the division director retreat held at Bastrop State Park, which was focused on strengthening organizational effectiveness.

And in mid-March, the IA team members participated in two events at the Game Warden Training Center. Major Jarrett Barker and Captain Johnny Longoria attended taser training, which covered device operation, application during use of force incidents, and post-incident evidence protocols.

Later that week, the IA team returned to the Game Warden Training Center to provide a presentation to the cadets outlining Internal Affairs operations.

The presentation covered the complaint process, investigative procedures, and relevant statutes and case law governing Internal Affairs investigations.

Next, I’d like to give a short update on our Post Oak Ridge State Park, the newest of our centennial parks, or the first of our centennial parks to be moving forward.

Since the acquisition of the land for Post Oak Ridge State Park last year, our Texas Parks and Wildlife team has been working steadily to maintain public access, balancing construction schedules with managed access opportunities for the public. In the planning phase, the community has had two opportunities to share input through public meetings designed to help guide park development. The first meeting was held in Austin at the LCRA Redbud Center on January 14. The second was held in Lampasas at the Lampasas County Annex on January 15.

These sessions were led by our state parks and infrastructure teams, working closely with our design consultant studio outside and our community engagement consultant cultural strategies. Both meetings were very well attended. In fact, attendance in Lampasas exceeded our expectations, so we plan to secure a larger facility for the next meeting. The next two meetings will be on June 3, at the Bellmead Civic Center in Waco, and on June 4, at the AgriLife Auditorium in Burnet County. The input gathered so far has given us valuable insight into the community’s outdoor interests and priorities.

We’re now planning a series of focus groups and meetings to build on that input.

All the feedback we receive helps the department program which amenities to build and in what sequence over the four-year park development period.

The first construction-related projects include work on the existing house on the property to make it suitable for use as a residence for the park superintendent. That work is underway and should be completed shortly.

A modular building that will be a temporary headquarters has been put in place. And we began construction work on Phase 1 items, which includes a trailhead with parking and a restroom.

We will continue planning and design work for Phase 2, which would include a permanent headquarters, additional trails and trailheads and restrooms, overnight camping to include RV sites, minicab cabins and tent camping, maintenance area and additional park residence, and supporting utility facilities and infrastructure.

Public access to the park began on January 1, and marked a special milestone for Post Oak Ridge State Park. It was the date of the park’s first day hikes, and was led by the Superintendent, Kacey Sloan.

We have hosted two public hunts– a youth hunt in November of 2025, and an adult public hunt in January that included a visitor from the Governor, Abbott, who you can see right here, where there were 12 adult hunters that were selected through a hunt draw.

There was real excitement about the Governor’s visit. Chairman Foster was there as well. The hunters had no idea that he was coming. So, when he walked through the door there as they were getting their briefing, they were absolutely thrilled with that. So more to come on Post Oak Ridge, and we’ll update the Commission as we move through the process.

A key component to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s 2024-2033 Land and Water Resource Conservation and Recreation Plan is expanding public access to hunting opportunities across Texas.

In Fiscal Year 2025, there were approximately 1.39 million acres available for public hunting.

But our goal is to increase that total to about 1.45 million acres.

Although the number of public hunting acres has remained relatively flat over the past decade, demand for public hunting access continues to rise. The growing interest is reflected in steady increases in annual public hunting permit sales and the number of drawn hunt applications submitted each year. And in fact, the number of annual public hunt permits sold in Fiscal Year ‘25 was almost 60,000. And the number of drawn hunt applications submitted for Fiscal Year ‘25 was 306,000. Expanding available acreage is critical to meeting this demand, enhancing outdoor recreation opportunities and supporting the long-term conservation and management of Texas natural resources.

But in Fiscal Year ‘25, this Commission and the department took significant steps to expand public hunting access, including acquiring the new Trinity River Wildlife Management Area of approximately 7,000 acres, and entering into a management… wildlife management agreement for Teacup Mountain Wildlife Management Area in North Texas of approximately 11,000 acres, which is owned… that property is owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

However, additional action is still needed to meet growing demand. The department will continue exploring both traditional and innovative approaches to secure additional state and federal funding to expand public hunting opportunities and better serve Texas hunters. And obviously, the expansion of Texas state parks, along with additional wildlife management areas, will go a long ways to increasing those hunting opportunities.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Program Statewide Rainbow Trout Program provides Texans with a unique cold water fishing opportunity during the winter months by stocking rainbow trout in small community lakes, state parks, and tailraces across the state. Managed by the Inland Fisheries Division, the program annually stocks approximately 350,000 trout and oversees site selection, fish distribution, and angler surveys to measure performance and satisfaction.

Through strong collaboration about half of trout purchases are funded by local partner contributions, ensuring both broad geographic reach across the state and fiscal responsibility. From December 2024 through February 2025, the staff conducted about 3,500 in-person interviews to evaluate angler satisfaction and overall program success. Despite operating only three to four months each year, the program attracts an estimated 80,000 anglers, generating approximately 130,000 fishing trips and 344,000 hours of angling effort.

These activities translate into an economic contribution of $2.4 million in direct angler expenditures and $1.7 million in fishing license revenue, far exceeding the program’s annual cost of around $650,000. Survey results highlight the program’s continued success.

87.4 percent of anglers reported being very satisfied with the program, and 71 percent of those anglers recommended no changes to the program. Also important in this is the recruitment of new anglers. 57 percent were new to rainbow trout fishing and 22 percent were new to Texas anglers. Also, critically, is that 30 percent of those anglers were youth.

By offering seasonal, accessible fishing experience, the Statewide Rainbow Trout Program fosters outdoor engagement among youth, families, and both new and enhanced anglers.

In addition, and in doing so, delivers measurable economic, recreational, and community benefits statewide.

Chairman, with that I conclude my presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Thank you, Dr. Yoskowitz.

Any questions or comments?

All right.

Thank you very much.

Move on to Work Session Item No. 2: Advisory Committee Rules– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.

Mr. Craig Bonds.

CRAIG BONDS: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.

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

And I am requesting permission to publish proposed changes to advisory committee rules.

The Commission Chair is authorized to appoint committees to advise the Commission on issues under its jurisdiction under rules that describe an advisory committee’s purpose and tasks.

As you know, advisory committees have a finite term of four years unless the agency extends the termination date by rule.

Every four years, staff requests the Commission to extend most TPWD advisory committees for another four years.This last occurred in 2022, so the committees are set to expire on July 1, 2026.

Two advisory committees, the Game Warden Academy Advisory Committee and the Texas Statewide Trails Advisory Board, are required by statute, so they are not subject to the July 1, 2026, committee expiration date.

The rules for those committees provide that they will continue to exist until abolished by statute. However, the July 1, 2026, member term limit date applies to all advisory committees, including the Game Warden Academy and Statewide Trails Committees. So all members of TPWD advisory committees will be subject to the updated term dates.

We’re also recommending the Wildlife Diversity Advisory Committee change to the Wildlife Conservation Advisory Committee. The name change to conservation clarifies that the focus is on wildlife conservation and not human diversity, and it aligns with the changes that TPWD has made to rename the Wildlife Diversity Program in the Wildlife Division to the Wildlife Conservation Program.

The proposed changes to the committee’s purpose reflect updated terminology that the Wildlife Conservation Program uses to describe its work in connection with the program’s maturation. The changes broaden the committee’s scope to advise on issues related to furbearers, in addition to non-game and rare species, as currently described in the rules, since the law distinguishes between non-game and furbearers and the Wildlife Conservation Program monitors and manages both groups.

Further, the change provide that the committee specifically advises on matters pertaining to technical guidance and outreach with various individuals and entities, rather than just education and communication, to better reflect programmatic priorities regarding technical guidance with landowners and adult outreach efforts.

Overall, the proposed changes are intended to more accurately reflect the Wildlife Conservation Program’s purview and terminology to reduce confusion about its work.

The current and the next two slides list the advisory committees’ proposed for continuation by relevant division, including the State Parks Advisory Committee within the State Parks Division. And then we have a list here of seven advisory committees underneath the purview of the Wildlife Division that reflect the breadth and scope of the work that comes before them.

We have two committees underneath the Coastal Fisheries Division, as well as one each for Inland Fisheries, Law Enforcement, Executive Office, and Support Resources Divisions.

As referenced earlier, these two committees on the slide are required by statute, so they are not subject to the four-year expiration period.

The Game Warden Academy Advisory Board is required to exist in order for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement to approve the academy’s training program. And the Statewide Trails Advisory Board is required to exist in order for TPWD to receive federal recreational trails grant funding.

Staff requests permission to publish proposed rules in the Texas Register for public comment. That concludes my presentation.

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

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Bonds.

Any comments or questions?

All right.

Thank you very much.

We will keep moving. Work Session Item No. 3: Financial Overview.

Mr. Reggie Pegues.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, can we just get direction from you for permission to publish?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, yes.

I’ll direct…

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Just authorize us to… yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: You have my direction to publish.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Reggie.

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

For the record, my name is Reggie Pegues, Chief Financial Officer.

And this morning I’ll be presenting the Financial Overview covering the following two areas.

First, I’ll cover FY26 revenue summaries through February.

This includes hunting, fishing license revenue, state parks revenue, and boat-related revenues.

And I’ll conclude with FY26 budget adjustments through February.

Up first is a five-year comparison of license revenue. Through February, total license revenue stands at $85.6 million. This is the highest level in the five-year period with growth being led by resident hunt and non-resident hunt. I’m sorry, resident fish and non-resident hunt.

Turning to the year-over-year comparison by license type. Total revenue is up 2.2 percent, or about $1.86 million. The most notable gains come from resident fish up 10 percent, primarily due to the year-from-purchase package and non-resident hunt up nearly 5 percent.

Moving on to the five-year state parks revenue comparison. Revenues of $30.9 million is the second highest over the five-year period, and third highest historically, with FY21 being the highest.

Looking at the year-over-year figures. State parks revenues grew 5.6 percent with increases across nearly every category. Concession shows the strongest growth at 21.8 percent, corresponding with an increase in total visitation.

Up next is a five-year comparison of boat revenues.

FY26 comes in at $7 million, slightly below FY25 but still within the historical range. Registration eased a bit while title and retained sacks have remained stable.

Looking at the year-over-year for total boat revenue.

There was a dip of 1.5 percent. This is primarily due to the mentioned decline in registration. This is slightly offset by slight increases in titles and sales tax.

Up next is a summary of budget adjustments that have occurred since the January Commission meeting where I covered activity through December. As of December 31, our approved FY26 budget stood at slightly over $1 billion.

Since then, we’ve processed a total of $50.1 million in budget adjustments. The majority of those adjustments, $42.6 million, are tied to federal funds. Within that amount, $23 million was for Wildlife and $17.5 million was for local parks. The remaining adjustments reflect smaller changes across appropriated receipts, capital and construction, fringe and operational UB. After all the adjustments, our updated budget of FY26 stands at $1.05 billion through February.

This concludes my presentation.

I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I have one question.

I think it’s back to Slide 3 or 4 where it computed resident and non-resident.

Here.

There… there we are.

This is sort of surprising to me.

Resident hunt, $7.4 million. Non-resident hunt, $12.4 million.

It’s almost double our non-resident hunt.

Is that typically the ratio?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, and that’s more so with the price.

It’s…. the non-resident are significantly higher than the resident.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

Is it double?

MR. PEGUES: I believe it’s more than double.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay, so it can be the same number or less number of permits, but there’s…

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, less total but more revenue per license.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Okay.

Just from superficially looking at that, I was thinking, wow, we’re selling a lot more non-resident hunt, which really surprised me. But it’s the value.

MR. PEGUES: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Like an out-of-state student.

MR. PEGUES: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: You’ve got to pay up.

[ laughter ]

Okay?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And it’d be interesting– I know you’re probably not prepared to answer this– but it’d be interesting to know how many… what the actual number of hunters is, versus… resident versus non-resident. Do we have that at our fingertips?

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Right.

And I agree.

Because it’s sort of hard to give a year-to-year comparison if you’re not looking at the number. Not the… the dollar value you can change because the price changes, but if you could look at the number of permits, that would give you a more clear…

MR. PEGUES: I don’t have it in front of me, but I can get that figure for you.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yeah, that’d be great.

All right.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Could you comment very briefly on kind of the impacts on Fund 9, what you’re seeing sort of… I know we’re going to talk in more detail about Fund 9 at our next meeting, but just kind of…

MR. PEGUES: You know, so I get up here and I explain revenues and I’ll, you know, terms like “record revenues” and…

But to see the full picture, we have to pull back and look at the expenditures.

For example, the license revenue and the boat revenues go into Fund 9. That’s our game, fish, and water safety account where we fund our wildlife, law enforcement, and fisheries activities.

And within that account, we have various dedications. We have our general Fund 9, which is where we can fund the majority of our expenditures. And then we have restricted Fund 9.

This is where our various stamps, freshwater, saltwater, those revenues are deposited. Now those revenues are specific limited purposes, along with our buyback funds. Those are, you know, strict dedication. We can only apply certain expenditures.

The general fund where we, again, fund the majority of our activities, we’re in a situation where expenditures are exceeding revenues to the tune of about $18 million per year.

As a result, we’re eating up our fund balances to meet our expenditures.

And based on our current estimates, somewhere within FY29 the general fund would go negative. And so, we’re trying to put things in place to try and head that off, beginning with our strategic plan, our legislative appropriation request. We actually… we tried to address it last session. There were some things that didn’t quite make it through, so we’re in the same situation.

But that’s… Dr. Yoskowitz, that’s his highest priority going into this session, is to address the Fund 9 situation.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

I’d like to ask staff to give us a very comprehensive overview of Fund 9 at our May meeting, if they would.

I think it’s…

Number one, It’ll educate us.

I think a lot of us are not that familiar with kind of how Fund 9 operates, and how critical it is to the entire organization.

But also, kind of help us focus on what we need to do to avoid 2029, as you pointed out, and make sure that we’re in a position to be in a positive balance long into the future.

So, if I could ask staff to plan to do that at our May meeting, I’d appreciate it.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, we’ll put that on the agenda for our briefing May meeting.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

All right.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I have one other thing.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: I’m looking at the lifetime revenue, which, by the way, is a great opportunity for folks.

And I’m not sure how well it’s known, generally, in the public you can buy the lifetime license. And I’ve done that for myself and our family.

It’s so convenient.

And it’s not cost prohibitive either.

So, I’m surprised to see that it’s down one and a half percent from last year. I would think with the awareness, proper marketing of that, that could grow pretty substantially every year. Because it’s really a great opportunity. It’s a great deal as well. So, I think with a little awareness campaign, we can really grow that.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: We’ll look into that…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yeah.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: …Commissioner…

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT: Yeah.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: …about how we can enhance that.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

On the combination license, is there a non-resident combo license?

MR. PEGUES: These are all…

No, these are all resident.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: So there’s not… we don’t sell a non-resident combo license?

MR. PEGUES: Yeah, I don’t believe we do.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.

And I think if you come back in May with the number component that we were looking for, as opposed to the dollar figure; obviously the combination license sales going down.

I’m surprised, I guess, at that. I’m curious why. I might suspect that people that maybe used to, in ‘25, that bought combos maybe are being a little more… you know, if they buy the combo but they don’t hunt, but they fish, maybe they didn’t buy the combo, they just bought fish.

So, I do think that number component is going to be an interesting… if really the increase we’re looking at are just people that used to buy combos that didn’t buy a combo, they just bought a fish or just bought a hunt.

So, I do think that number component is going to be interesting.

That’s all.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: The other thing in looking at this that’s just kind of interesting is this little footnote that says, “lifetime licenses are fund 544 and all others are Fund 9.”  So, if you buy a lifetime license, that money doesn’t go into Fund 9.

MR. PEGUES: No, it goes into the lifetime license account.

And that fund has a similar purpose to Fund 9, but it’s basically used for capital construction- type activities for the wildlife and fishery functions of the agency.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Hmm.

Okay.

All right.

Other questions or comments?

Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 4: Briefing– their Strategic Plan.

And Mr. Michael Goldsmith.

MICHAEL GOLDSMITH: Good morning.

My name is Michael Goldsmith.

I’m the Performance and Strategic Planning Coordinator in TPWD’s Financial Resources Division. Today I will be briefing you on updates to the agency’s strategic plan.

Strategic planning is a long-term, future-oriented process of assessment, goal setting and decision making. For this process in Texas, all state agencies are legislatively required to complete and submit an updated five-year strategic plan every two years. At TPWD, this takes the place of the natural agenda.

The strategic planning process is intended to set direction for all the agency’s operations, communicate agency goals, directions and outcomes to the legislature and to stakeholders, and guide budget preparation and establish a basis for measuring success through development and use of performance measures.

The LBB and the Governor’s office give instructions for what must be included in the plan and the part it plays in the budget process.

The strategic plan instructions include agency goals, objectives and strategies, an assessment of internal and external factors impacting the agency, and a set of performance measures to assess progress.

This gets budget preparation in two ways. The goals and strategies in the strategic plan comprise the budget and planning structure for each agency, which provide the framework through which agencies request and receive legislative appropriations.

And also, identifying funding priorities by communicating departmental needs sets the stage for exceptional item requests and the legislative appropriations request.

Within the formal requirements for what must be included, the agency can use the plan as an opportunity to communicate what it thinks is important and what factors are affecting its ability to be effective.

The strategic planning process we’re now working on is part of the budget cycle configured by the LBB and the governor’s office. Decisions made now about strategic plan structure have implications on how budgets get set up in the future.

The goals, objectives and strategies in the budget structure provide the framework through which agencies request and receive legislative appropriations. These goals, objectives and strategies are used in the budget development to create our legislative appropriations request based on the budget structure approved in the strategic plan.

We also have the opportunity to create narratives around our priorities and our internal and external environment that gives context to the LAR items so that oversight agencies understand our current operating environment and are not taken by surprise by the items in the submission. And defining performance measures in a strategic plan can inform decision making internally and externally when performance measure projections are set during budget development.

This leads to our ability to report on performance measures, track expenditures, and evaluate our progress to make decisions about our needs and operations in the future. The budget development phase begins in the spring, with final submission of the natural agenda due in June, and LAR development begun in June and due at the end of August.

After the LAR is submitted, the LBB holds budget hearings with agencies to better understand their requests and ask questions.

For each agency, they make recommendations about funding needs and which requests will be included.

This becomes the starting point for the General Appropriations Act, which is the budget bill. The legislature meets from January to May of odd numbered years. We’re given a certain amount of money from the legislature and the General Appropriations Act, which begins the budget implementation phase.

Based on this funding level, we create an operating budget and implement action plans to show how this money will be spent in support of our goals and strategies.

The final phase is budget monitoring. We report on our performance measures, track expenditures, and evaluate our progress to make decisions about needs and operations in the future.

Proposed changes to performance measures this round include four substantive changes to measures and 22 changes that would not change the way a measure is calculated.

Number of responses to requests for information and data regarding rare, threatened and endangered species would replace the current measure; number of responses to requests for technical guidance recommendations and information regarding rare, threatened and endangered species.

This proposal would shift from oral and written responses by staff to an automated portal for requesting and retrieving information and data that will be launched in FY26 by the Texas Natural Diversity Database Team.

The number of students certified in voter education and number of students certified in hunter education measures would change the reporting date from actual class date to certification date at the receipt of payment. This would make reporting more timely and reduce staff time previously spent on updating previous quarter reports, as the old reporting method included delays in volunteers entering information.

Rate of reported incidents per 100,000 park visits resulting in injury or death would replace the current measure rate of reported accidents per 100,000 park visits resulting in injury or death. “Incidents” is the preferred language around safety to encourage proactive prevention.

Other proposed changes include minor revisions to better capture the activities of divisions in various program areas, including administrative cleanup, clarifications, or changes to the names of business systems.

These are particularly in Inland Fisheries, State Parks, Law Enforcement and Communications Divisions.

These proposed changes have been approved by the Executive Office and will be submitted to the LBB and the Governor’s Office. We will be discussing future steps with them when the strategic plan instructions have been issued. Their approval is necessary for these proposed changes to become final.

Other elements of the strategic plan include an internal and external assessment of challenges, opportunities and major initiatives to be undertaken within the 2027 through 2031 timeframe, statutory challenges for the department’s ability to fulfill its mission and possible fixes, and an analysis of the department’s workforce ability to meet present and future challenges and an analysis of our recent customer satisfaction survey.

Initial division submissions have been received and are in the process of being edited.

Once compiled, our team will meet with the executive office to determine priorities. We will distribute drafts to divisions, and they need to get approval and signatures of the Executive Director and the Commission prior to finalization. A full draft of the plan will be distributed to EO and divisions in May, and components of the plan will be presented at a high level in the May Commission meeting. We anticipate the final document will be due electronically to LBB and the Governor’s Office on June 1.

With that, I will close and ask for any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Goldsmith.

Any comments or questions? I have one kind of just minor one.

MR. GOLDSMITH: Sure.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: What do we mean by “natural agenda?”

What does that mean?

MR. GOLDSMITH: That’s the name we’ve given to the holistic agency strategic plan.

The strategic plan…

DR. YOSKOWITZ: We just call it the Natural Agenda, Chairman.

It is the strategic plan.

We just have given it a name as the Natural Agenda.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Interesting.

Okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: It is marketing, Chairman.

[ laughter ]

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Any other questions?

Thanks very much.

Next, Work Session Item No. 5: Internal Audit. Ms. Brandy Meeks.

BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks.

I’m the Chief Auditor.

This morning, I’d like to update you on our audit plans as well as recent external audits and assessments. So, this and the next slide show the status of our current audit plan.

As you can see, we had two carryover projects from Fiscal Year ‘25.

We just recently completed the last one, and that was the audit of the TPWD Friends Groups. We also completed our fiscal control audits of three state parks, the audit of Abilene State Park, Fort Richardson, and Possum Kingdom State Parks. We are in the reporting phase for the audit of the TPWD Surplus Process.

And we are also working on outsourcing the audit of the JOC program.

As far as IT and cybersecurity projects, we are in the planning phase for the IT Asset Management/Extended IT advisory. And we are now no longer in an advisory capacity on the BTR rewrite.

We are also in the reporting phase for our semi-annual follow-up of all audit items due during the first two quarters of this fiscal year. There are no external audits or assessments taking place right now in the agency.

And this completes my presentation. I’m happy to answer any questions you had.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Questions?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Quick question.

Brandy, we talked about doing more outsourcing.

I did see one of the slides had some outsourcing.

How are we progressing on that?

MS. MEEKS: So, after our last Commission meeting, I did meet with the audit subcommittee, and they decided to go ahead and fill the two positions that we had vacant. So, we’re working on that.

But we do have some lapsed salaries. So, we were going to use that to just try out an outsourced engagement, especially considering I’ve been down two auditors all year.

So, it would help to have those resources in-house. So, we are now… we have to get approval from the SAO to outsource any of our engagements, and that’s pretty much… we’re right at that point where I’ll be asking for the approval of the SAO. We’ve got the RFQ in order, and I’ll be reaching out to the SAO.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Great.

Thank you.

MS. MEEKS: Yeah.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments or questions?

Thank you.

MS. MEEKS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Work Session Item No. 6: Proposed Amendments to Rules on Proof of Residency Requirements– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. James Murphy.

JAMES MURPHY: All right.

Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.

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

And I’m here today to present a proposed revision to the department’s rules on proof of residency for hunting and fishing licenses.

I’ll begin by describing the reasons for the proposal.

Current rule does not require identification at the point of sale. But Parks and Wildlife Code Section 12.114 does require persons age 17 or older to have in their immediate possession a driver’s license, personal ID card or certificate, or similar identification while hunting or fishing. So, requiring ID at the point of sale provides three benefits to the department.

The first is it prevents fraud and misrepresentation of Texas residency status by ensuring that individuals do not unlawfully obtain at the point-of-sale resident price licenses or benefits that are reserved for Texans or for Americans.

It also will enhance deterrence of intentional fraud. And I think it will improve accountability at the point of sale, which will reduce the need for law enforcement out in the field to check those upon identification of potentially criminal behavior.

So, what are the documents that we’re requiring here?

The first option is a driver’s license or personal ID certificate issued in compliance with REAL ID. That’s a national law that requires verification of legal status or citizenship upon issuance. Another option is a driver’s license or ID card issued by DPS, or certain states that verify citizenship or immigration status when they issue their driver’s license or ID certificates.

The third option is, if you don’t fall into one of those two categories, would be a driver’s license or personal ID certificate along with a secondary form of identification.

That would be a U.S. passport, birth certificate, military ID card, Texas license to carry a handgun. Or if you’re a foreign resident, you’d be looking at your country of origin passport plus any applicable immigration-related documents like a visa or a green card, or in some instances like Canada, just verification of Canadian citizenship.

So, how are we going to implement this?

Just a few points that I’ll make here.

We’re going to implement this for the next upcoming license year. Those sales begin on August 15.

We obviously have some work to do to implement it along the way, and we do work on that license year system. We’re going to provide instructions to our licensed deputies and our law enforcement offices so they can help identify the correct IDs.

Here’s an example of our manual that we hand out to issuing agents. We’ll update this, we’ll have some graphics, and ultimately make this as easy as possible for our licensed deputies and law enforcement offices.

Our online sales system will be modified a bit to add an ID verification step. You’ll take a photo of your ID. It’ll verify that it does have the proper markings from each state.

And then we’ll ultimately pass you in. If you do not pass, you would have to come to a physical office, either a licensed deputy or to a law enforcement office to verify your identification.

So, we have a few changes since our publication of this in the Texas Register back in January. The first is we are going to implement two recommendations from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office. This is a new state law where agencies go through a regulatory efficiency review of their administrative code.

Our TREO, as we call it, our TREO review and report came in after we published this, and they did have some recommendations related to this section of the Administrative Code.

So, we’re going to go ahead and implement these. We’ve reviewed them and determined that their logical outgrowths of the original proposal will ultimately make it ease the burden on those seeking a Texas residency status.

So, the first is we’re going to accept electronic documents to demonstrate proof of Texas residency. You could show your utility bills on your smartphone or your paycheck receipt.

You don’t have to print them all out and come in in the same way.

I think that will make that a little easier for folks.

The second is we’re going to eliminate this notarization requirement for parents talking about their student… or their kids who are students here in Texas. That had been something that we had to have notarized. A self-declaration or penalty of perjury has been deemed to be equivalent. And so just make things a little bit easier and reduce the cost of getting a notary service to get that statement in.

We’re also going to add two licenses that were omitted in the proposal. These are those lifetime hunting to combination upgrades, or lifetime fishing to combination upgrades.

Those were just omitted. We realized we needed to add those to the list. We’re going to remove a duplicate of ID requirement for foreign residents.

The original proposal had talked about both their country of origin passport and immigration documents plus their country of origins driver’s license or ID card. We don’t need that ID card from somebody from overseas. We just need their passport and immigration documents. So, just make that a little easier there.

And then we’ve reorganized to improve clarity. One thing that we noted in the original proposal was that the standard for Texas residents was too high. Really any Texas driver’s license or personal ID card is sufficient. It doesn’t need to be REAL ID to be sufficient. We’ve verified immigration status in Texas when issuing driver’s licenses since 2011. And any that came before that are long since expired.

So, public comments: we have 70 total online comments– nearly 80 percent agreement there. We have received three letters of opposition from elected officials. The first is from the House Democratic Caucus signed by 29 representatives. Another one from Representative Barbara Gervin-Hawkins. And another from Representative John Bryant. Similar letters.

Their reasons for disagreement are concerns about decreased tourism and participation, a loss of revenue to the department from reduced sales, some increased administrative costs due to enforcement challenges, and just a general request to delay implementation of this rule until next legislative session when a sort of comprehensive bill could be considered on identification for hunting and fishing here in Texas.

And so, with this, staff requests this item be placed on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation. Certainly, happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

Commissioner Patton.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

Do you feel, or has anyone looked at the… an estimate or potential for loss of revenue because of this?

What do we think it may be?

MR. MURPHY: It’s really difficult to say at this stage, Commissioner Patton.

What I will say is you are going to be very receptive to customer feedback as this is implemented.

If we’re seeing elements of the rule that are causing challenges we didn’t intend, of course we have the ability to come back and do a subsequent rulemaking to correct that.

And then we’re going to be doing a look back on this.

We’re going to be evaluating it periodically throughout the license year, seeing if we’re noticing any reduced trends.

We are hopeful that that impact would be minimal because we do think most people that are hunting and fishing are going to have a driver’s license or ID card available; If they don’t, that they would be in a position to go and get one.

The cost of a driver’s license or ID card here in Texas is $33.

We think the cost is probably pretty equivalent in other states.

So, we hope the impact will be minimal, but we’ll obviously keep a very close eye on that and correct as needed.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Why is the age 17 to be required to have an ID, versus 16?

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, that’s in our Parks and Wildlife Code.

That’s the age cutoff that the legislature has given us for youth versus adults in this scheme. I couldn’t speak, Commissioner, as to the legislative history or the reasons why that age was chosen. But that is the, kind of, youth cutoff age in our license scheme in the Parks and Wildlife Code.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, if you’re under 17.

MR. MURPHY: You don’t need to show anything, no.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …you don’t have to prove…

MR. MURPHY: No. No, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Interesting. Okay.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman, the only question I have is, you know, when it starts getting close to dove season and you look for the most remote place you can find to go get a license so you’re not there all day.

How long is this going to add to the process of verification?

Is that just as simple as putting in your driver’s license number and then it goes through?

MR. MURPHY: Well, you’ll have to present your driver’s license, Commissioner McCall.

And so, for our online sales system, the vast majority of people would notice very little difference other than they’ll have to take a photo of their ID when they do it. There’ll be a quick online verification step where they’ll check that. And then you pass and you buy your license online like you would otherwise.

And so, I think for most folks that will continue to be the primary way.

If you do have to show that secondary identification though, if you’re in one of those 19 states that doesn’t verify immigration status upon issuance of a driver’s license, those you’re going to have to do in person.

You’re going to have to come to a licensed deputy, one of those, you know, the many stores across Texas– I believe we have 1,700 or so licensed deputies in Texas– that sell our licenses.

Or you’d have to come to one of our law enforcement offices that are spread regionally throughout the state.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, one other question.

I have a friend of the family that comes in every year and hunts– out of state.

I can tell you that license costs $315.

I’ve paid for it for a long time.

And what verification out of state?

How does that… is it the same process?

What I’ve been able to do is just go buy the license.

So, how would that work?

Because that person’s not here, they’re out of state.

How would I present that ID?

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, so they would need to… so for the 31 states that includes Texas that have driver’s licenses, or if you have a REAL ID.

So, if you’ve gotten a recent driver’s license or ID card from any state, it’s most likely going to be a REAL ID license.

And so, in that instance, you’re going to just buy it online or come to the store. The only difference is you show them your license when you buy… when you make the purchase.

For those 19 states that do not have that, if you don’t have a REAL ID, maybe you have an old license from one of those 19 states that doesn’t verify, you are going to have to come in person to one of those licensed deputies or to a law enforcement office to make those purchases.

And there you would show your driver’s license and ID card plus a passport or a birth certificate or some U.S. military ID card, a secondary identification to prove that you have a right to be here in the United States.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, but if they have… if they’re in one of the other states that does– which they are– has a REAL ID card, they just… the only difference is they’re going to show up in person with me to get that license.

MR. MURPHY: Or buy online using our new verification steps.

So, just a photo of your ID when you’re doing it online with your smartphone.

They do a check on there.

You get a little check mark that says your ID passed and you can purchase your license online.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, thank you.

MR. MURPHY: You bet.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Question.

What I’m wondering about is your typical point of sale, like a Walmart, how are we going to train these folks to… for all these new rules? I mean, there’s a lot here.

So, a typical Walmart clerk, or someplace that you’d buy a license like this, how are they going to be able to decipher this, all this information?

[ laughs ]

Because there’s a lot here.

MR. MURPHY: There is, and certainly in the rule text it can feel a little overwhelming to read it. We’re going to simplify that as much as possible with graphics for our licensed deputy staff.

This instruction manual I mentioned before goes out to each of our licensed deputies and as well as our law enforcement offices.

And it gives specific text instructions. But we’re also going to create a couple kind of very clear flow charts that will show which IDs are going to be required. So, of course, we’re going to be receptive to feedback from our licensed deputies throughout this process if they’re encountering challenges.

But we’re going to try to make it as easy as possible.

All that said, we do understand that particularly for foreign residents a Walmart clerk is not very well equipped necessarily to review a visa. But most of this documentation is fairly clear cut.

And again, we’re going to have as much guidance as we can in this manual for those clerks.

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anything else?

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Murphy.

If there are no further questions, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Next, Work Session Item No. 9: Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants– Special Provisions for dotted duckweed– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Michael Tennant.

MICHAEL TENNANT: Good morning, Chairman, 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 risks 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 of 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 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 six facilities. All existing programs include baseline biosecurity requirements and species-specific rules that further minimize risk of escapement.

All exotic species 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 has 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 the 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 waterways, 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 risk to small ponds and community fishing lakes if it escapes cultivation. Its rapid growth, drought-tolerant seeds, and ease of transport by waterfowl create ecological, recreational, and economic concerns even though documented impacts to date are limited.

On the benefit 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 provisions would substantially minimize the risk of escape.

However, permitting this exotic species would still require careful rule-making, strong oversight, and clearly defined corrective measures to safeguard Texas’ public and private ponds.

Permitted dotted duckweed aquaculture would substantially increase inspection demands and workloads of regional biologists and game wardens due to strict containment requirements and a need for routine inspection.

At the department’s request, the Texas A&M AgriLife subject matter experts reviewed both the risk-benefit analysis and the 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 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 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 changes 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 escape risks 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 agreed these measures are feasible and effective.

Additional restrictions prohibit any discharge into waterways and require all processing to occur on site to minimize escape pathways. Because natural forces like hurricanes pose significant risks 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 risks 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 U.S. 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, the lowest density. Within this proposed exclusion zone, the landscape has many small 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 U.S. 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 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 Agricultural 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 TPWD.

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, the topic was presented and discussed with the Freshwater Fisheries Advisory Committee, which unanimously asserted that the risks to public and private waters were too high to permit cultivation of dotted duckweed in aquaculture facilities.

The department also received a letter of opposition from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. This is a challenging natural resources management issue that must weigh and consider risks and benefits to private aquaculture businesses, other stakeholders such as private pond owners, and to our public waters.

To the extent practical, department staff developed special provisions that would minimize the risk of escapement from permitted aquaculture facilities. These provisions are focused on ensuring biosecurity at a programmatic level for not only the petitioner’s facility, but for any and all future culture facilities.

However, there are no foolproof strategies for completely eliminating risk.

To reiterate, should the Commission adopt the proposed rule changes, this would establish a permit program and authorize the department to issue commercial aquaculture facility permits for dotted duckweed at any facility, not solely the petitioner’s facility, provided compliance with both standard and dotted duckweed specific provisions designed to ensure aquaculture biosecurity.

Our staff recommendation is for you to hear directly from stakeholders by placing this item on Thursday’s agenda for public comment and action. For clarification and preparation for the presentation in tomorrow’s Commission meeting, should this proceed, staff request guidance from the Commission regarding whether it’s acceptable to proceed with the newly proposed special provisions presented today, which added the U.S. Highway 83 dotted duckweed culture exclusion zone and the annual inspection frequency requirement.

Both of these special provisions resulted from stakeholder feedback, and were logical outgrowths from the original proposal.

That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Tennant.

Questions or comments?

Commissioner McCall?

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, yeah, I still have questions and concerns.

But I don’t know that we need to hear them twice.

So, maybe tomorrow is a more appropriate time to bring this up.

I’m assuming that the stakeholders for the cultivation plant will be here tomorrow also.

Do we have anybody on?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think that’s our expectation.

MR. TENNANT: Yes, Sir, that’s correct, Commissioner McCall.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, yeah, so, I don’t want to…

Yeah, I think they deserve to hear everything also.

So, I don’t guess we have any further comment unless anybody wants to hear something.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, I agree with you.

I’m looking forward to hearing more…

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …tomorrow.

If there are no further questions, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Were you going to say something?

Oh, okay.

Work Session Item No. 8: Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation– Recommended Adoption for Proposed Changes.

Mr. Shaun Oldenburger.

SHAUN OLDENBURGER: 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 part of the presentation, will present proposed changes for the ‘26-’27 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamations.

As you recall, in January, this Commission gave permission to publish proposed changes in the Texas Register for potential action during tomorrow’s Commission meeting. At the end of our presentation, Mr. Korzekwa will request permission to place these proposals on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and potential action by this Commission.

We will begin the presentation on proposed changes to the ‘26-’27 Statewide Hunting Proclamation for upland game birds.

As a reminder, the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee did unanimously support all changes on upland game bird regulations that are proposed 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 the hunting season, both chachalaca and quail seasons aligned to simplify regulations for hunters instead of disjunct but similar hunting seasons. Once again, we are requesting to align these hunting season dates.

If you haven’t seen one, there’s a chachalaca.

As of last night, we received 385 comments – 371 agreed completely, or 96 percent agreed completely; with regards to about approximately 3.6 percent disagreed. No comments really germane to the proposal.

All right, moving on to wild turkey proposals.

Mandatory harvest reporting has been in place for Matagorda and Wharton Counties since 2022. And one gobbler county’s 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 has been reported in Wharton County over the last three hunting seasons.

As shown here, recent two-minute wild turkey distribution maps indicate Matagorda County has no, or minimal, wild turkeys.

And Wharton County shows minimal presence mostly in the western part of the county. These occupancy surveys are regularly conducted by our wildlife division biologists. As we’ve discussed before, estimating wild turkey abundance is challenging.

So, we rely on multiple data sources, including occupancy surveys, brood sightings, breeding bird surveys, and other available information, to monitor wild turkey populations across the State of Texas.

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

As of last night, we received 388 comments – 90 percent were in agreeing completely, with approximately 9.8 percent disagreed.

The reasons for disagreement were: Many birds are still in Wharton County, please keep it open.

Intrusion on private property rights. We had some commenters requesting to reduce annual bag limit to one. And some commenters requested to reduce the season, but do not eliminate the hunting season.

Just as a reminder, the annual bag limit for these counties is one.

All right, moving on to statewide regulations. Staff observed a significant decline in wild turkey populations across Texas over the past decade, as indicated here on the USGS bird banning survey data from 1992, to recent.

As such, the proposal is to remove unbearded hens from all legal harvests statewide. Recent research from wild turkey population dynamics indicates that the number of hens entering the nesting season is the most critical factor for long-term sustainability of wild turkey populations. 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 spring of 2024, hens accounted for just 1 percent of the harvest, and half of those hens reported were unbearded. This proposed change would reduce overall hen harvest across the state, and ensure more hens make it to the breeding season to 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 90 there, during the fall season, as well as the special South Zone fall season, which are those areas in hash gray there in the sand sheet in South Texas.

As of last night, we received 549 comments– 468, or 85.2 percent, agreed completely, 10.2 percent disagreed completely, and 4.6 percent disagreed specifically.

The reasons for disagreement really fall into these buckets:

No evidence for wild turkey decline. Abundant hens and increasing population on our ranch or county. Hens can become a nuisance, so folks want the opportunity to control the wild turkey population on their ranch. Decrease annual bag limit or eliminate harvest of hens completely. So, just to let you know, some folks disagreed but said we didn’t go far enough.

And some folks wanted to actually completely eliminate hen harvest across the state.

All right, moving on to the Migratory Game Proclamation.

Just so you know, besides South Zone dove season, calendar progression, and maintaining daily bag limits for the remainder of those migratory game bird hunting seasons. So, as we do, we propose all hunting season dates on an annual basis.

So, the entire proclamation is available for public comment.

As of last night, we received 445 comments– 365, or 82 percent, agreed completely, with the rest disagreeing.

The reasons for disagreement are:

February duck seasons.

Change the West Zone goose season dates.

More teal hunting days.

Different dates.

And then later February sandhill crane seasons.

Just for the Commissioner’s information, three of those four are outside of the purview of the department because they’re not in federal frameworks. And, for instance, February duck season is one of the things that we have not gone down that road.

That is an important biological time for pair bonding for duck populations.

And so, therefore, that’s the reason federal frameworks only go to the last day of January.

All right, moving on to South Zone dove season.

We’ll discuss two proposed changes to these seasons. As you see here, the zone lies south of Interstate Highway 10 and U.S. 90, basically from Orange all the way to Del Rio.

So, over the past 15 years, TPW staff have consistently advocated for reducing regulatory restrictions in South Zone dove hunting regulations.

And just so you’re aware, this is the only location in the United States that had federal restrictions on opening days, so the department’s tried to change that over the years.

Finally, this last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did grant Texas Parks and Wildlife Department preliminary approval for a change in federal frameworks on opening day on a three-year experimental basis.

If the Commission approves this change, Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists will conduct monitoring over the next three years, including harvest surveys and potential wing collections to ensure that change does not result in any biological impacts to our mourning dove population in South Texas.

As a result of the approval by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the proposal is to eliminate the special White-winged dove days, and begin the season on September 1. This change would simplify regulations statewide, and unify daily bag limits across all zones and seasons.

So, here’s the calendars. I know this is a little bit confusing and tough to see because I’ve got cheaters here. On the top end, as you can see, what the traditional, basically, proposal would be from staff with regards to the South Zone. Those dates in green would be the special White-winged dove days. That’s where you had afternoon-only hunting, and then you have differential bag limits where only allowed two mourning doves during year ‘15. And there in gray is the regular season where the different regulations start. So, we can only start those seasons as early as September 14.

On the below calendars, as proposed south season, you will see there it’s very similar to north and central where it would open September 1 and run out to October 25, the first segment, and have the same regulations across all zones in the State of Texas.

To date, we have received 922 comments– 730 agreed completely, or 79.2 percent.

The rest disagreed, or 15.8 percent completely and 5 percent specifically.

Reasons for disagreement really all fall on these four buckets:

Start season on Friday or Saturday.

So, they wanted the season earlier, but they wanted to open up on a Friday or Saturday, not midweek.

Too hot to hunt doves that early.

No birds in early September.

And they don’t want to lose the special White-winged dove days in traditional hunting. Obviously, there’s a long history in the State of Texas with the special White-winged dove zone in area, so they just didn’t want to lose that tradition as family and friends.

All right, moving on to the second proposal for the South Zone dove season, second segment. Basically, in January, the Commission proposed a change to move the 35 days that are left. We’re allowed 90 days in a hunting season for doves.

The second segment from the mid to late December to late January season to the opening season prior to the day of Thanksgiving, and running those days to the near end of December.

As you recall, the Commissioners wanted to gauge public interest to this change discussed at this Commission meeting. As you can see here, the top calendar represents the more historic approach to the second segment, and the bottom calendar represents the change.

So, here you can see in gray.

Basically, you can start there December 18, run to January 21, was the original proposal. And then moving to the Commission’s proposal is run from November 25, the day before Thanksgiving, running out those 35 days to there you see in December 29, and no days in January.

To date, we received 895 comments– 52.6 percent agreed completely, 43.1 percent disagreed completely, and 4.2 percent disagreed specifically.

Reasons for disagreement were varied, but:

Loss in revenue due to January hunts, competes with other hunting season dates.

For instance, folks really like Thanksgiving time for deer hunting and like the way the seasons are currently structured with lots of different species across the South Zone, South Texas right now.

“No birds in November, early December, many more birds in January” was a very common comment that we’ve heard from many of our hunters.

And then “takes opportunity away from quail, waterfowl hunters, and traditional hunting.”

So, basically, in January is a popular time to go quail hunting and waterfowl hunting in the State of Texas. And if it’s really slow, folks like the opportunity to go chase doves if it’s on the ranch or place they’re hunting. So, we did have some opposition as well from the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee, the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee, Texas Wildlife Association, and two ranches.

With regards to the Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee and TWA and the two ranches, they specifically don’t have an issue with having some Thanksgiving opportunity for dove hunting in South Zone, they just don’t want to sacrifice the January days to do it.

And so that’s where they sat.

And the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee comments were very similar to those buckets that you see from the public above.

So, before I turn it over to Mr. Blaise Korzekwa, I’d be happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Oldenburger.

COMMISSIONER McCALL.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: I have a couple of questions.

Well, comment first.

Last year in East Texas, Houston County, which is where my ranch is, north Houston County, right almost bordering Anderson County, we had three turkey sightings last year. And three weeks ago had two big old gobblers walk out right on my rifle range.

So, do we have any statistics for how well the East Texas turkey population is doing, or is it totally random?

MR. OLDENBURGER: I think it depends on the location.

Obviously, you know, we’ve been trying to restore turkeys in East Texas for the last decade. And so, we’ve been getting eastern wild turkeys from a number of other states; bringing those in.

We’ve obviously, the Commission has reduced hunting opportunity across East Texas. We are starting to see with habitat restoration, our technical guidance with private landowners, and also these eastern turkey wild restorations, we’re actually starting to see some improvements in population rebounds in areas.

We’re looking at potential down the road as far as opening up not counties, per se, but also smaller areas within counties where there could be potential harvest for gobblers.

So, I would say definitely in some areas we’re starting to see improvements.

In fact, this morning I got a text that shows a video of a burn that Texas Parks and Wildlife Department was involved in. And we burned the area, the grasslands and the wooded acres, and there’s three gobblers strutting out in the pasture right next to it.

Five years ago, there weren’t any turkeys in that location.

So, the fact is we are starting to see some improvements.

Obviously, habitat conditions play a large role in that.

But statistically, can we say anything?

No, it’s more anecdotal as far as what we get from our hunters.

We do send a survey out in the fall to our deer hunters asking, “Hey, did you see any wild turkeys?”

We’re actually starting to see a lot of comments, “Hey, seen wild turkeys where I never have seen them for the last decade or so.”

So… and then also we’re kind of daisy-chaining our restoration across the Trinity River and some other areas across East Texas, and introducing Easterns more to the east, obviously, and then Rios is a little bit farther west. And so, we’re starting to see some restoration in birds in places that we never have.

So, I think anecdotally, yes, we’re starting to see some birds come back.

Obviously, there’s still some areas that we traditionally have not seen birds. Until we get to habitat up to snuff where we actually can put turkeys there, it’s just probably going to be a hole in the landscape.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Thank you.

This is anecdotal because it’s just… but I can tell you, before last year, I’d never seen a turkey.

MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: …like ever, ever, ever.

So, we’re doing something right, whatever that may be.

More importantly, let’s talk about duck season just for a second.

I was very… what is our federal limit, or do we say… what flexibility do we have in the State of Texas to set the end?

It seems like we always hinge on the beginning.

And I’d asked this question earlier.

MR. OLDENBERGER: Yep.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: …and, you know, I was given the last day of January was a federal limit.

So, I told all my buddies, “You got till January 31.”

Needless to say, I was extremely disappointed to see it end on January 24. Because as luck would have it, that’s when the only cold front and the only ducks were there, were that last week.

Is there… what would it take to have duck season go to the first Saturday in February?

Is that something that has to go through federal limits?

Is that something within the jurisdiction of Texas?

MR. OLDENBERGER: That would be underneath the jurisdiction of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Secretary of the Interior to do that.

That is a federal framework.

And just for a little background on that.

Going back about 15, 16 years ago, it used to be January 15.

It used to be the last Saturday in January. And so… now it is the last day in January. So, over the last 15, 16 years, that has been pushed back three different times.

And so, what we normally try to do is, also from a department… or from the Commission standpoint what we pitched is try to take advantage of as many weekends as possible. And the way those 74 days fall in the landscape sometimes, if you open on a Saturday, we can get to a Sunday with two different segments. But yeah, it would require a change from the Fish and Wildlife Service level.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.

Given that, whatever it takes, I would like to see us go to the last day of January, the 31st.

I don’t care if that’s on Wednesday.

MR. OLDENBERGER: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: My duck hunters like a duck hunt.

And it is getting pushed back. A lot of global conditions are changing this. But I can assure you that that last week wouldn’t have changed much because of the prior seven weeks there was hardly any ducks. And not just me.

I have a lot of friends down on the coast, and they’re seeing a tremendous decline because they’re just not migrating down. The best chance is when we finally get a cold front, push them into Texas.

And that doesn’t usually occur until late January. So, whatever that would take, I would propose that we at least get some public comment on that.

MR. OLDENBERGER: Okay.

Well, obviously, you’re in luck this year because you are going to go to January 31, because that is the last Sunday for this next hunting season.

So, that does work out for this next hunting season for you.

But yeah, we’ll take that back to the Technical Committee and Advisory Committee, and talk about that and bring some feedback to you.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: And if we have feedback with the United States Fish and Game, ultimately I would like– of course, that’s up to them– but I would think we’re Texas, we should have veto power over them.

[ laughter ]

That we should go to the first Saturday or Sunday, excuse me, in February. That could be, you know, worst case scenario, the 1st.

You know, best case scenario or worst depending on which side you’re on would be February the 6th. Because it’s being pushed back over the last 15 years for a reason.

And it’s not just my feedback, it’s everybody’s feedback. So, if we have input, which I’m sure we do on some council there with the United States Fish and Game, you know, we should give that to them.

And that this needs to be pushed back. Because I understand that where the breeding population falls and with ducks, but three to four days is not going to make a difference.

MR. OLDENBERGER: We’ll take that back and discuss that a little bit more.

Also, I’ll work with Kevin Kraai to get you some specific information on migration ecology. And some recent telemetry studies have been done. And looking at kind of when birds fall out and kind of stop migrating.

Just a general comment. In late January, even early February, we’re already seeing birds push north.

So, sometimes we’re already shooting birds moving north, and towards the end of late season. So, we’ll get you some information, too, to kind of give you what the best on migration ecology, what’s going on out there with ducks.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, and it was mentioned to me earlier that the Central Flyway is shifting more to the west than where it was before. Have you heard this, or do you have any information on that?

MR. OLDENBERGER: Well, I would say, you know, if you look over the last 30 years, you know, your mid latitude states, you know, your Nebraska, your Kansas and stuff. You know, they used to have seasons pass. Birds would move south.

You know, obviously, there’s more water since the 1960s in those states with all the reservoirs across the state.

You know, if you think about historically, go back 100 years, there wasn’t much water until you get to Texas. So, there’s a lot of water up north of us now.

But, you know, by those areas are starting to stay open year round as well. And there’s a lot more corn in places.

And so, food availability, stuff like that. So, yeah, I mean, we can get you some harvest information, too, from Fish and Wildlife Service surveys to kind of look at how harvest has changed across the landscape over the last 30 years.

I know a lot of folks, including Kevin Kraai, Waterfall Program Leader, and the Central Flyway Council, have been looking at that information. So, we’ll get that to you as well.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah, If there’s been a shift in the migratory pattern, you know, more westerly…

I don’t know why that would be because as we looked over the dotted duckweed, there’s less water out there than it is in East Texas, so I don’t know why that would happen.

But I had heard, again, I can’t remember who told me that.

But, you know, if you can find out if anybody has any real statistics over that. I’d just be interested from a personal standpoint.

MR. OLDENBERGER: All right, we’ll get that information to you.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: All right, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

Any comments or questions on the dove season?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Yes.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. Patton.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

Okay, well, I’m very pleased that we’ve gotten a lot of robust comments on this issue. 895 seems like a pretty good number. Certainly, happy with the people that agree completely. Even if you combine the disagreement, you know, categories, they are still behind in this election.

When we talked about this at the last meeting, I didn’t want it to be contentious or anything like that. But there’s still a lot of interest.

And, you know, something like this would be a substantial departure from tradition. Maybe it needs a little more time, keep our eye on it. Maybe we can get more days.

Maybe we could…

I suspect most people like the idea, as I still do, of having a hunting opportunity of dove over Thanksgiving. And maybe in other years we can have that. But I’d like to suggest that we pull the dove proposal from the agenda, and more or less go back to what the traditional dove hunting has been, if that’s possible.

MR. OLDENBERGER: So, just for clarification…

Oh, sorry.

Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER DOGGETT:  Commissioner Doggett.

I think I agree with your position, Commissioner Patton.

You know, I got some calls on CWD, but the calls on this subject way outnumbered them.

And people are pretty passionate about it. I think the best solution that we may look at further down the road is if we could get three splits. But we can’t, right, because of the federal rule.

But informally we’ve talked to the Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife at the Interior Department, and they’re looking into that. So, if we can, that would be pretty spectacular.

If you just for two or three days during Thanksgiving, and then we keep the rest of the season like it is. It could be a great compromise solution, I think.

But I think I agree with Commissioner Patton in that we need to table it for now and look at it later, because that January season’s important for folks, right?

And just to completely do away with that just doesn’t seem rational at this point.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Go ahead.

MR. OLDENBERGER: No, I was going to say, just for clarification.

The Commission, if approved, would propose for tomorrow we come back to you basically with more traditional dates, which are the calendar up there on the top end, which would have been December 18 through January 21, instead of the current proposal, which is November 25 to December 29. Is that correct?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think that…

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, let me weigh in here.

I think the original proposal, which was the September 1 start date.

The original proposal…

MR. OLDENBERGER: But on the second segment here, it would be more of the traditional.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: The traditional proposal.

Yes, so, going back to the original proposal with the September 1 date and the traditional second split.

MR. OLDENBERGER: Okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, just clarify that.

MR. OLDENBERGER: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, so, yeah, I concur with that.

And, you know,  despite Commissioner Patton’s very well-intended suggestions, I think in light of the federal regulations and some of the feedback we’ve gotten I’d like to direct staff to go back to the original proposal.

MR. OLDENBERGER: All right.

We will present that tomorrow to you all.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

MR. OLDENBERGER: And also, just let you all know, we’re doing a deep dive into the federal regulations on zones and splits on this as well. It gets a little complicated with the three-year experimental South Zone.

So, we’re trying to wade through all this and get a little bit more direction from the service, too.

So, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

And then Mr. 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 requesting permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation.

We currently have two big game regulation proposals that I’ll go into more detail on the following slides. But those proposals are to expand doe days in 21 counties and to modify the definition of “muzzleloader.” And both of these proposals are intended 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 on the map are located in deer management units Number 11 and 12. And based on the department’s deer surveys, these deer management units have seen an increase in deer density, as well as a skewed sex ratio of four does per buck.

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

Although doe harvest is permitted throughout most of the state for the entire duration of the general season, there’s currently 89 counties that have some form of doe days. These counties with doe days have restricted season dates in which does may be harvested with the firearm, which allows for a conservative harvest while still providing hunting opportunities.

Those 21 counties shown in blue are mostly located in the Post Oak Savanna ecoregion, and currently have a four-day doe season that runs from Thanksgiving day and closes the Sunday following Thanksgiving. These 21 counties are the only counties in the state that have a four-day doe season. 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.

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

At the end of those presentations, we did offer a survey to attendees in which over 75 percent of those attendees supported the proposed changes.

The final proposal would be to modify the definition of “muzzleloader.” The current definition is shown on the slide and is defined as “any firearm design such that the propellant and the 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 done, the projectile is then loaded 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 about one percent of the statewide harvest each year, and this modification would expand hunting opportunities by allowing use of new muzzleloading technology during muzzleloader season. Both of these proposals are supported by the White-tail Deer Advisory Committee.

As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., we’ve received 507 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 actually like the doe days to be longer than what was proposed.

However, some public comment also expressed concern with smaller property sizes and the potential for those landowners to overharvest.

As of yesterday at 5:00 p.m., we’ve received 433 public comments regarding the modification of the definition of muzzleloader, with 83 percent agreeing completely and a total of 17 percent in disagreement.

The reasons for disagreement included 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 are requesting permission to place this item on tomorrow’s agenda for public comment and Commission deliberation. That concludes my presentation, and I’m willing to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Korzekwa.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Just a comment. I’m very familiar with the muzzleloading technology.

It’s been around for about ten years and has picked up speed.

I’m in full support.

You’ve got the same argument still about compound bows versus traditional recurve, so that’ll never go away.

But it does open more hunting opportunities.

I’m just curious, in some states the muzzle loading season mirrors bow season, and ours is on the back end.

I have no strong feeling either way.

I’m just wondering why it’s that way.

MR. KORZEKWA: So, historically, we’ve had the archery season earlier and then muzzleloader season has been at the end.

It’s really been a way for those folks, especially in counties that also have doe days, because they’re also allowed to harvest those with the muzzleloader as well.

So, rather than overlapping those seasons, because then you do get some disagreement between the hunters on “why is archery allowed this many days and muzzleloader this many days?” or vice versa.

But rather than having a overlapping season with those, we’ve decided to have two separate seasons. And even though there is a special muzzleloading season, muzzleloaders can use that firearm equipment during the general season as well. It’s not just those two seasons. But they are allowed an extra two weeks at the end if they choose to do so.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay. Yeah.

Good reason.

If you moved that to the beginning, we’d be hearing a lot from the archers.

MR. KORZEWKA: Yes, Sir.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other comments or questions?

If there are none, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

And if I didn’t make myself clear on the dove, I’d like to direct staff to pull the dove proposal from Thursday’s agenda and go back to the original proposal.

Is that clear?

Okay.

All right.

Next is Work Session Item No. 9: Special Take Authorization for Disease Management– Recommended Adoption of Proposed Changes.

Mr. Kory Gann.

KORY GANN: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.

For the record, my name is Kory Gann, and I’m the big game program director in the Wildlife Division.

Today I will present proposed amendments to rules relating to the special take authorization for disease management.

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

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 trace deer from release facilities. Since the adoption of these rules, there has been a need to broaden the scope of the authorization for take to include additional wildlife health and disease related issues. This is increasingly evident given the potential 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 myiasis. New World Screwworm 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.

Authorizations for take will only be used to take non-federally regulated wildlife with take restrictions under TPWD statutory authority. And all authorizations for take will still require approval by both the 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 March 24, 21 people have provided feedback on this proposal, with 71.4 percent in agreement and 28.6 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.

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

And thank you for your time and consideration.

And I’m happy to take any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Gann.

Comments or questions on this?

If not, I will place this item on Thursday’s Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 10: Mountain Lion Harvest Reporting– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.

Mr. Jonah Evans is here.

JONAH EVANS: Good morning, Chairman Foster, Commissioners, Dr. Yoskowitz.

For the record, my name is Jonah Evans.

I’m the Non-Game and Rare Species Program Leader within the Wildlife Division.

I’ll be presenting two proposals today, one to establish mandatory harvest reporting for mountain lions and another to remove the mountain lion specific exclusion from scientific permits. I’ll begin with harvest reporting.

Over the past few decades, the need for better mountain lion data in Texas has been reiterated by numerous stakeholder advisory and interest groups.

In the early 1990s, a petition was filed that led to the department funding two research projects and committing to increased efforts to track voluntary reporting. We also agreed at the time to consider mandatory harvest reporting if voluntary reports weren’t producing the needed data. In the years following, the voluntary reports did not prove effective.

In 2007, an invited panel of mountain lion experts from several states provided input on research needs. And in 2012, a meeting of internal leadership convened to provide recommendations.

Both groups emphasized the department needed accurate data on mountain lion populations.

In 2022, the Commission received another petition that raised concerns about populations, criticized the department’s lack of data on mountain lions, and requested several policy changes.

A stakeholder group was formed, and again agreed that the department needed better data on mountain lion populations.

The group was split, however, on whether to recommend mandatory harvest reporting, with some members citing concerns about landowner privacy and asking if the department could explore alternative approaches.

At the 2025 Commission meeting in November, I presented the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mountain Lion Research and Monitoring plan. And the plan outlined the approaches the department can take to monitor mountain lion populations, but also clarified that it will not be statistically possible without accurate harvest data.

The non-game chapter in Texas Parks and Wildlife Code states that the department shall develop and administer management programs to ensure the continued ability of non-game species of fish and wildlife to perpetuate themselves successfully. While there have been several studies on mountain lions in Texas, due to high costs and land access limitations they have focused on relatively restricted geographical areas.

And as a result there has never been a reliable, large-scale estimate of mountain lion populations in the state.

Past Texas studies have identified possible population concerns due to high harvest, low survival, and genetic isolation, with human caused mortality consistently being the predominant mortality factor.

However, we have very little insight outside of these limited study areas and time frames.

As a result, current harvest rates are nearly completely unknown in much of the state.

For several decades, the department has attempted to engineer an effective voluntary reporting system for mountain lions. And other states with hunted lion populations, they rely on mandatory harvest reporting. And compliance is generally high enough to represent total harvest, as in the bar shown on the left here. A common misconception is that we simply need more voluntary reporting.

However, the underlying issue is that the number of voluntary reports received fluctuates unpredictably from year to year, and they are an unknown proportion of the total harvest, as in the bar on the right.

Staff have sought input from outside statisticians and population modeling experts, and received widespread agreement that voluntary harvest data are simply too unreliable to be used for population estimation purposes.

Staff have also explored several alternatives for monitoring populations in the absence of harvest data. However, options are limited, and would generally involve capture and GPS collar projects in multiple regions each year.

We’ve conservatively estimated that this would cost around $1 to $2 million per year, but would result in large regions being understudied for several years at a time, and may not be possible in areas with limited access to private property. Non-invasive techniques, such as trail cameras, have not yet proven reliable for determining mountain lion population status at large scales.

There is also no known method to utilize opportunistic trail camera photos submitted by the public to inform a population model.

Ultimately, the data provided through mandatory harvest reporting is significantly lower cost, and a necessary component for determining statewide mountain lion populations. It is worth noting here that the Commission has previously adopted requirements for harvest reporting for several species, including wild turkey and alligator gar statewide, and White-tailed deer in certain counties.

Wildlife management in Texas relies heavily on voluntary partnerships with private landowners, and staff recognizes the importance of a landowner’s right to manage mountain lions and to privacy. Therefore, we have worked to develop a harvest reporting proposal that respects these rights.

First, it was crucial to staff that we ensure reports are kept strictly confidential. The timely passage in 2025 of Senate Bill 1248 ensures this by prohibiting the department from disclosing information about any person who submits a report, or the data the report contains. Only broadly summarized information may be shared.

Second, we do not need to collect any precise locations or information that may identify the property where the mountain lion was harvested.

And third, while many other states rely on physical carcass checks, we wanted to reduce reporting burden by developing an alternative that still produces reliable data.

Given the considerations above, staff proposed a harvest reporting requirement for mountain lions that includes the following:

Harvested mountain lions would be reported via the Texas Hunt and Fish smartphone application or website– and it’s important to note that the app functions without cell phone service and synchronizes later when back in range.

To be consistent with other department harvest reporting requirements, there would be a requirement to submit the report within 24 hours of harvest. And the report would only require the county name of where the harvest occurred.

Accurate data on sex and age of harvested lions is crucial for the population model to function properly. Unfortunately, studies in other states have found that self-reported age and sex information is not reliable. We initially intended to utilize photos taken within the app for age and sex confirmation.

However, we reached out to numerous trappers and houndsmen over the last two months, and there was widespread preference for tooth and tissue submission over photos. This was due to concerns about the sensitivity of images, location metadata that could potentially be added by the smartphone, and some landowners having strict “no photography” rules for hunters and trappers.

In response to this feedback, we propose that a premolar, the small tooth behind the canine, and a small tissue sample be submitted within 60 days of harvest to complete the harvest requirement.

To simplify this process, the department would provide a return address and stamped mailer. And if desired, there would be an option to schedule a Parks and Wildlife biologist to collect the sample.

So, finally, staff want to be clear and reiterate that the proposed changes do not limit the rights for a landowner, hunter, or trapper to harvest mountain lions.

I’ll now transition to our other proposal, which is to remove the mountain lion specific exclusion from scientific permits.

Texas Administrative Code requires entities to obtain a scientific permit when handling native wildlife for research, and to provide certain data in a report to the department.

However, in 1997, a provision was added that specifically excludes mountain lions from the permit requirement.

The result is that mountain lions are the only native species that can be handled for research in Texas, but do not require a scientific research permit.

Some partners voluntarily obtain a permit and share data with the department, but this is not always the case.

And data obtained from these projects, while generally limited in scope, could prove valuable to the department.

So, staff recommends removing the mountain lion exclusion from Texas Parks and Wildlife Administrative Code Subchapter J regarding scientific, educational, and zoological permits. Since this subchapter contains zoological permits as well, and lists minimum cage sizes for all species that can be held in captivity, we also recommend adding a mountain lion facility standard that is consistent with other large cats.

Staff requests permission to publish the proposed rules in the Texas Register for public comment.

And this concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Evans.

Do we have comments or questions on this?

Mr. Patton.

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.

On… Okay, well, first off, comment.

I don’t know if I’m particularly in favor of harvest reporting, or depending on how you want to characterize “harvest.”

I really don’t like the idea of ranchers, of us managing ranching, and how ranchers want to maintain their ranch.

If harvest was going to be defined as a hunt, or a paid hunt, or hunting with dogs, that’s certainly much more comfortable with that. Data, I’m not opposed to.

I don’t necessarily want to live in a world without cats.

But I also live in a world with cats, and do ranch in an area where there is no shortage of them. And, of course, I have a great concern because I see a lot more cat-related mortality to desert bighorn sheep and mule deer than I do anything else.

So, having said that, I do have a specific concern, particularly to harvest related to hunting cats. A really good trophy of a cat hunt is, in fact, the skull.

So, I’m a little concerned with the request to take out a molar of the skull, which would probably involve, you know, taking the jaw bone.

And I don’t really know what benefit we’re going to have there, other than I think it’s going to damage the jaw. I suppose a taxidermist can do a lot, but that does seem to be a little bit of an overreaching that I haven’t previously seen before.

So, I would say, I would be against specifically taking out tooth damage in the jaw.

But I am curious what information you’re really going to get there that is meaningful.

That’s all.

MR. EVANS: Thank you, Commissioner Patton.

First of all, to clarify, it’s not a full molar, it’s called a premolar, and it’s a really, really small tooth that generally is fairly unnoticeable in a skull. And there are tooth extraction methods that can be used. And the idea is that we would provide resources on how to do it yourself in the smartphone application and on our website, but also provide the opportunity for a biologist to use a tooth extractor, which we have in our possession that we can use to extract those teeth.

The reason they are really useful is that there’s a technique called cementum annuli, where we essentially cut the tooth in half, look at it under a microscope, and you can more or less count the tree rings in the tooth to count to know how many years old the mountain lion is, which is very valuable data for a population model.

Because knowing that someone harvested a two-year-old cat versus an eight-year-old cat tells you a lot; something very different about the population in that area.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: One… Mr. Chairman, one follow-up question.

Is this voluntary or mandatory that they have to pull the molar?

MR. EVANS: It would be a requirement of the proposal. And the need for this is that without having a confirmation of the sex and the age of the animal, the value of the data are just dramatically low… reduced.

We really need to have some way to confirm this is a male or female and, you know, is it a juvenile, sub-adult, adult.

And that’s where we initially planned to utilize photos, but really got a kind of resounding feedback.

We spoke to over 40 trappers and houndsmen in the state, and it was surprisingly consistent that they would really prefer a tooth and tissue sample.

COMMISSIONER McCALL: Scientifically, I can see where that makes sense.

Realistically, I agree with Commissioner Patton. I have been on a lion hunt out around Alpine, harvested lion horseback, and still have the skull. And that is part of the trophy status there. So, it might be easy for some people to know what they’re doing to extract it. But I can tell you the average hunter out there is going to tear something up. So, I would have concerns over that.

MR. EVANS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anybody else?

COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question.

How are we going to get the word out that this has gone from voluntary to mandatory to the general population?

I guess the trappers are probably going to know about it.

But, you know, big change that this is mandatory.

And I guess there’s obviously heard earlier this week that there’s penalties involved and misdemeanor charges potential.

But how are we going to get this word out?

MR. EVANS: Yeah.

So, I think there’s a couple different ways to answer that.

First is clearly reaching back out to all the people that we work with, but also like a public information campaign of some kind, working with the media, et cetera.

Also, in communication with our law enforcement side. It’s really clear that our game wardens when there’s a new policy like this changed, that at least for the first year, if not longer, that the focus is really on education and getting everybody up to speed on this, rather than immediate enforcement.

And I’m happy to take any additions to that.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

I’ll just make my personal comment.

I am very much in favor of mandatory reporting. I think we’ve tried for many years to use voluntary reporting and have not had good results. I’m also in favor of the tooth and tissue process. I think it will provide much better scientific data than the photos.

And I think there’s some confidentiality issues around people sending digital photos with location and all that kind of stuff.

So, I think it’s a good compromise, and I think we should move forward with it.

I do want to be sure and get comfortable. I think you’ve answered it. We don’t want to have to destroy the jaw of a carcass to extract the tooth. And I’m pretty sure you’ve described that well, and that that won’t be necessary.

MR. EVANS: That’s correct.

And I do think there might be some compromise options that we could work with as we, you know, if we decide to move forward with this over the next few months.

And I also… if I return back in May, I could come back with images that show exactly what we’re talking about; where that premolar is and the size of it, et cetera.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Anybody else? If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register. This is not something we’ll take action on this week.

MR. EVANS: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Work Session Item No. 11: Wildlife Rehabilitation Rules– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.

Mr. Richard Heilbrun.

RICHARD HEILBRUN: Good morning.

For the record, my name is Richard Heilbrun.

I’m the Deputy Division Director for the Wildlife Division.

And I’m presenting today on proposed changes to the wildlife rehabilitation regulations.

A permit… In Texas, a permit is required to rehabilitate injured or orphaned wildlife. This permit exists to release native wildlife back into the wild. And it is not a pet permit.

And the state law does not allow wildlife to be kept for that purpose.

Wildlife rehabilitators provide an important service to the department and to the public. Nationally, the field of wildlife rehabilitation has become highly technical. However, in Texas, our current regulations do not help to add new experienced rehabilitators. We have several broad-scale challenges within the permit program.

First, hands-on experience is not required to become a rehabber.

The current exam requirements are insufficient. And veterinarian consultation is not currently required.

New permittees have unlimited supervision authority. Subpermittee responsibility is unclear. And there are no current requirements to report certain diseases to the department.

Lastly, there is a misperception among the public that this is an easy permit to get to be able to keep wildlife as pets or to generate social media content.

The department modernized this permit in 2021, and the issues I’m presenting today are a result of needing to refine that modernization.

In 2025, staff convened a wildlife rehab council of long-tenured permittees and requested their feedback. Over the course of six months, they provided recommendations. And this proposal is a result of those conversations and multiple rounds of feedback.

So, it’s necessary to introduce some terminology. We use the terms “permittee” and “rehabilitator” interchangeably. Rehabbers are allowed to use subpermittees and volunteers. Subpermittees have very similar authorizations and can perform rehab work without someone physically supervising their work. Subpermittees can also run a remote or satellite facility under the direction of the permittee. Think of these satellite facilities as intake or overflow locations. Volunteers, however, must be physically supervised.

The first category of changes we propose is to revise eligibility requirements.

Currently, there is no experience requirement to become a rehabilitator. We propose that permittees must have 800 hours experience over two years, or about one day per week. We also propose to set a minimum age of those subpermittees to 18 years old.

The next category is to revise examination requirements for new applicants.

Currently, new applicants have to score 100 percent on a very basic 10 question exam. We propose to change that to 80 percent on a much more comprehensive exam. And we propose that subpermittees have to take a very basic 10 to 15 question exam and score 100 percent on that exam every five years.

Currently, the day after someone receives a permit, they can immediately supervise unlimited subpermittees and have unlimited satellite facilities.

We propose a graduated supervisory structure that matches experience with the number of people that are added to their permit. So, for example, a Type A rehabber with no experience could supervise volunteers.

A Type B permittee with at least two years of experience could supervise volunteers and up to 5 subs. A Type C permit for people with five years of experience could supervise 10 subs and up to 5 satellite facilities. And lastly, we propose the creation of a special Type D permit for those large clinics.

So, we have several large clinics across the state that serve the major metropolitan areas. And we would define that as a clinic that handles at least 3,000 animals each year. And we would allow them to have unlimited volunteers, subs, and satellites.

We also propose changes to disease reporting rules. Rehabbers are currently required to report certain diseases to other agencies. So, proposed language would require those diseases to also be reported to the department and to enable the department to limit the intake and release of rehabbed animals by emergency rule in response to a disease outbreak or crisis such as New World Screwworm.

Currently, all permittees are required to submit quarterly reports to enable the department to monitor and prevent the spread of chronic wasting disease. However, even rehabilitators that do not treat deer have to meet this requirement. Proposed changes would mean any rehabber that does not treat deer would move to annual reporting. We also clarify that permittees are responsible for supervising and reporting all activities conducted under their permit at both satellite and primary facilities.

We also propose to revise rules for non-releasable animals. The department allows an extremely limited number of animals to be retained for educational or clinical reasons. The proposal would require that these non-releasables be housed at the primary registered facility, and that during educational programming non-releasables would be restrained and may not be touched by the public.

Currently, new applicants have to submit a letter of reference attesting to personal knowledge of the applicant. We propose to change that requirement to the requirement of attesting to the applicant’s clinical experience.

We also propose that rehabilitators would supply documentation that a licensed veterinarian is available to provide consultation. We propose to change the annual training requirements from one course every three years to eight hours annually.

We also propose two measures to increase biosecurity and safety.

First, we suggest that facilities such as apartments, townhomes, and duplexes are inappropriate for wildlife rehabilitation activities and would not be registered. Additionally, local law enforcement has requested of the department that they’re notified when someone is permitted to keep wildlife at their residence. So, we propose a registration requirement.

Because of the added training and examination requirements, staff are recommending a longer on-ramp than usual for this regulation package. We believe that an implementation date no sooner than September 27… excuse me, September 2027 would allow staff and rehabilitators to be prepared for these changes.

We propose that existing permittees would not need to retake the exam and would simply be placed into new permit types based on their years of experience and their operational needs, and existing facility registrations would be honored.

Staff request permission to publish these proposed rules in the Texas Register for public comment.

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

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

Comments or questions?

You know, one thing that comes to mind, to me, is that having volunteer… people that are willing to volunteer to take care of, whatever, orphaned animals or whatever kind of rehab may be necessary. The more difficult we make it, the less likely people may be to step up and provide these services. And so, are you getting any kind of pushback about making it too difficult?

MR. HEILBRUN: We have heard some concern.

And so, some of the recommendations we got from our advisors from in the community were actually more aggressive than this.

And so, in the interest of making sure that enough people could become a rehabilitator, we dialed back some of those suggestions.

We want to make sure that the volunteers that do want to enter the pipeline to become a rehabilitator know what they’re getting into. And so, a lot of the feedback that we’ve gotten from brand new volunteers is they said, “I had no idea this was so hard.” “I had no idea I didn’t have the education and knowledge needed to do this on my own.”

And so, one of the approaches that we’re taking is to create that mentorship pipeline so that they could learn from existing rehabilitators. And so, we’re trying to make it as easy as possible to become a subpermit, subpermittee.

And once they get a taste of what that means to be in that world, then they have the access to rehabilitators to become their own permit.

COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Richard, how many people… how many permittees are we talking about across the state?

MR. HEILBRUN: Yeah, so we have 400 primaries and about 1,700 subpermittees right now.

So, about 2,100 people in the system. And then we don’t keep track of the day-to-day volunteers. That’s tracked by the rehabilitator themselves.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And your very first opening comment, you made it very clear that this is not a permit to keep pets.

Is that kind of… is that a pervasive issue?

Is that something that you face often?

MR. HEILBRUN: That’s one of the main reasons that we’re coming to you with this proposal, and why we approach the rehab community to begin with.

We’re getting a lot of folks that have said, “Well, I want to keep this animal as a pet” or “I already have one.” And so, then we have to discuss with them why that’s illegal and what this is and what this involves.

And sometimes their answer is, “Well, the regulations don’t prohibit me from applying for this, and so I’m going to go ahead and get a permit.”

And so… and then the other thing that I mentioned, I sort of briefly mentioned, was we’re getting a lot of folks that have social media accounts.

And they see providing content for native wildlife as being a boon to increase their click rate and their account, their viewership. And there are substantial challenges with allowing that to happen, and it’s currently not allowed under state law. But they’re pressing us to give them a permit to generate content.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

Anything else?

All right.

If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in Texas… in the Texas Register.

Okay?

Also, I’ll just take a quick moment off the script to welcome Chairman Emeritus Lee Bass, who’s joined us today. We’re always pleased to have him, and appreciate his lifelong service…

CHAIRMAN EMERITUS LEE BASS: Thank you, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …to Texas and to the department.

CHAIRMAN EMERITUS BASS: It’s a pleasure to be here.

A lot of friendly faces.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Welcome.

All right.

Work Session Item Nos. 12 through 23 will be heard in Executive Session.

At this time, I would like to announce that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 551 Government Code, referred to as The Open Meetings Act, an Executive Session will be held for the purpose of the deliberation of real estate matters under Section 551.072 of The Open Meetings Act, and seeking legal advice under Section 551.071 of The Open Meetings Act, including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation.

We will now recess for the Executive Session at 11:14 a.m.

[ gavel pounds ]

[ PAUSE OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ]

[ gavel pounds ]

CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: We will now reconvene the Work Session on March 25, 2026, at 2.02 p.m.

I am Chairman Paul Foster, present.

Commissioner Doggett?

COMMISSIONER LESLIE DOGGETT: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner, let’s see, Rowling?

COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And Commissioner Timmerman?

COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?

COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton, Present

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Present.

All right.

We are now returning from the Executive Session where we discussed the Work Session Real Estate Item Nos. 12 through 21, Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Item No. 22, and Litigation Item No. 23.

If there are no further questions, I will place Item Nos. 14, 16, and 19 on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.

For Item Nos. 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 21, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.

Regarding items Nos. 22 and 23, no further action is needed.

Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its work.

And I declare us adjourned at 2:03 p.m.

[ gavel pounds ]