November 5-6, 2025, Commission Meeting Agenda

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 20-21, 2025, Transcripts

Work Session
Wednesday, November 5, 2025
9:00 a.m. MST

Paul L. Foster, Commission Chair
David Yoskowitz, Ph.D., Executive Director

El Paso Convention Center
1 Civic Center Plaza, El Paso, Texas 79901
Ocotillo Room

Agenda

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Work Session held August 20, 2025

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Annual Public Hearing held August 20, 2025

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 1

Presenter: David Yoskowitz, Ph.D.

Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan

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

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

The plan consists of the following four goals:

Practice, Encourage, and Enable Science-Based Stewardship of Natural and Cultural Resources

Increase Access to and Participation in the Outdoors

Educate, Inform, and Engage Texas Citizens in Support of Conservation and Recreation

Employ Efficient, Sustainable, and Sound Business Practices

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Presenter: Brandy Meeks

Internal Audit Update

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

II. Discussion: Staff will present an update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Fiscal Years (FY) 2025 and FY 2026 Internal Audit Plans, as well as an update on external audits and assessments. Staff will also present the results of Internal Audit’s FY 2025 performance metrics.

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Presenter: James Murphy

Nonprofit Partner Rules – Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish a proposed amendment to the rules governing nonprofit partners of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The proposed amendment would allow TPWD employees to serve as officers and directors of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association (Association) without affecting its status as a nonprofit partner.

II. Discussion: TPWD is authorized to work with nonprofit organizations to carry out the mission of the department, and the Commission may designate an organization as a nonprofit partner. Current rules prescribe best practices that nonprofit partners must adhere to, which include prohibiting a TPWD employee from serving as an officer or director of a designated nonprofit partner.

The Association was founded in 1956 with the mission of providing financial assistance to the families of deceased members, who are current and former TPWD employees and their spouses, including TPWD-commissioned peace officers. Officers and directors receive no compensation from the Association and serve on a voluntary basis. The Association’s officers and directors consist primarily of current TPWD employees.

TPWD plans to make a future request of the Commission to designate the Association as a nonprofit partner. However, before TPWD may do so, it is necessary to amend the nonprofit partner rules to acknowledge that a department employee may serve as an officer or director of the Association without affecting the Association’s status as a nonprofit partner. Based on the nature of the Association’s mission, TPWD believes the proposed change is appropriate and will not create a conflict of interest.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Nonprofit Partner Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 3
Exhibit A

NONPROFIT PARTNER RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to 31 TAC §51.164, concerning Best Practices (Officers and Directors). The proposed amendment would clearly stipulate that the provisions of subsection (b)(3), which prohibit an employee of the department from serving as an officer or director of a nonprofit partner (NP), do not apply to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association (Association) was founded in 1956 with the mission of providing financial assistance to the families of deceased members (department employees and their spouses). Officers and directors receive no compensation from the Association and serve on a voluntary basis.

Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.202, authorizes the department to work with nonprofit organizations to carry out the mission of the department. The department has determined that the Association assists the department by providing bereavement benefits to families of employees and their spouses who joined the Association, including peace officers commissioned by the department. Similarly, Government Code, Chapter 2255, requires a state agency to adopt rules regarding the relationship between donors and the agency, including the agency’s employees, if the agency is authorized to accept donations or if "a private organization exists that is designed to further the purposes and duties of the agency." Although the Association’s relationship with the department is not pecuniary, it does exist to assist and support employees of the department in times of need.

The amendment is necessary to allow the department to recognize the Association as a NP and explicitly acknowledge that a department employee may serve as an officer or director of the Association without affecting the Association’s status as a NP.

2. Fiscal Note.

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

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be the facilitation of bereavement support for the beneficiaries of department employees who serve the public.

There will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rule, as the proposed amendment does not affect anyone other than department employees who are members of the Association.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

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

(5) not create, expand, or repeal an existing regulation;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

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

5. Statutory Authority.

The rule is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 11, Subchapter J, which requires the commission to adopt rules governing best practices for nonprofit partners of the agency.

The proposed rule affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 11, Subchapter J.

6. Rule Text.

§51.164. Best Practices (Officers and Directors).

(a) All officers and directors of NPs must receive a copy of or a link to the department’s Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan.

(b) In addition to subsection (a) of this section, NPs must comply with the best practices regarding officers and directors as prescribed in this section.

(1) NPs must adopt and maintain a conflict of interest policy, which includes safeguards to prevent board members or their families from benefiting financially from any business decision of the NP.

(2) NPs shall ensure that any compensation paid to executives or managers is reasonable.

(3) NPs shall not elect or designate or otherwise select a department employee as an officer or director, other than as a non-voting uncompensated representative of the department. This paragraph does not apply to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Mutual Association.

(4) NPs shall hold regular meetings of its Board of Directors.

(5) NPs shall ensure that each board member and/or director is fully informed of activities and shall provide the following information to new board members:

(A) articles of incorporation and by-laws;

(B) most recent financial statements;

(D) current agreements with the department.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 5

Presenter: Kory Gann

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – Senate Bill 1245 – Relating to the Take of Aoudad Sheep by Using a Helicopter – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish a proposed amendment to rules relating to the take of aoudad sheep by using a helicopter, as required by Senate Bill (S.B.) 1245, adopted during the 89th Texas Legislative Session.

II. Discussion: S.B. 1245 amended Parks and Wildlife Code section 43.1075 to allow a qualified landowner or landowner’s agent to contract to participate as a hunter or observer to take depredating aoudad sheep from a helicopter under a permit issued by the department, effective September 1, 2025. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to regulations governing aerial management of wildlife and exotic species add the term “aoudad sheep” where necessary to make the regulations functional with respect to the management of aoudad sheep by means of aircraft.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Rules Required or Authorized by Legislation – Senate Bill 1245 – Take of Aoudad by Helicopter

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit A

RULES REQUIRED OR AUTHORIZED BY LEGISLATION

SENATE BILL 1245

MANAGEMENT OF AOUDAD SHEEP BY HELICOPTER

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §65.151 and §65.152, concerning Permits for Aerial Management of Wildlife and Exotic Species. The proposed amendments would comport existing rules governing the take of wildlife and exotic animals from aircraft to reflect the provisions of Senate Bill (S.B.) 1245, enacted by the most recent session of the Texas Legislature. Senate Bill 1245 amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G, to allow a qualified landowner or landowner’s agent to contract to participate as a gunner or observer in using a helicopter to take depredating aoudad sheep from a helicopter under a permit issued by the department.

The proposed amendments add “aoudad sheep” where necessary to make the provisions of the subchapter functional with respect to the management of aoudad sheep by means of aircraft. Such changes are made throughout the rules as necessary.

2. Fiscal Note.

There will be no effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be compliance with the directives of the Texas Legislature.

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

The department has determined that the proposed rules affect a permit that privileges individual persons to manage wildlife and exotic species and therefore do not directly affect small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. There will be no adverse economic effect on small businesses, microbusinesses, or rural communities as a result of the rules. On this basis, the department has a determined that neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

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

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of a fee;

(5) not create a new regulation, but will expand an existing regulation (by allowing the take of aoudad sheep from aircraft under a department-issued permit);

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Kory Gann, Big Game Program Director, at 512.389.4363, email: kory.gann@tpwd.texas.gov, or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the provisions of Senate Bill (S.B.) 1245, enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature (R.S.), which allows a qualified landowner or landowner’s agent to contract to participate as a hunter or observer in using a helicopter to take depredating aoudad sheep from a helicopter under a permit issued by the department, and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G, which provides the commission with authority to make regulations governing the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft, including forms and procedures for permit applications; procedures for the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft; limitations on the time and the place for which a permit is valid; establishment of prohibited acts; rules to require, limit, or prohibit any activity as necessary to implement Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G.

6. Rule Text.

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

(1) – (11) (No change.)

(12) Subagent — A person designated by an Agent to act as a gunner for the

purpose of taking of feral hogs, aoudad sheep, or coyotes.

(13) (No change.)

§65.152. General Rules.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(c) It is lawful for a person who holds an AMP to contract with a qualified Landowner, Agent, or Subagent to act as a gunner the taking of depredating feral hogs, aoudad sheep, or coyotes from a helicopter, provided:

(1) (No change.)

(2) a department-approved Subagent authorization form has been properly

executed and is in the physical possession of the Subagent during all AMP activities in which the Subagent participates; and

(3) (No change.)

(d) A person (which includes a pilot, applicant, gunner, observer, or Subagent) commits an offense if:

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) the person participates in the take or attempted take of any wildlife or exotic animals other depredating feral hogs, aoudad sheep, or coyotes without having on his or her person a valid hunting license issued by the department;

(4) – (12) (No change.)

(e) – (g) (No change.)

(h) The department will not approve an LOA for the take of feral hogs or aoudad sheep on a tract of land where feral hogs or aoudad sheep have been released or liberated by or with the approval of the Landowner or Agent for the purpose of being hunted.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 6

Presenter: Kory Gann

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

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules governing chronic wasting disease (CWD) detection, response, and management in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed amendments would function collectively to acknowledge and accommodate the decision of the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to cease cooperative efforts with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) with respect to the management of CWD in wildlife resources.

II. Discussion: The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) has been concerned for over two decades about the emergence of CWD in free-ranging and captive populations of white-tailed and mule deer in Texas. TPWD is the primary state agency responsible for the management and protection of native wildlife in the state, while TAHC is the state agency responsible for protecting animal agriculture (livestock and poultry) from disease and human health from zoonotic disease. Under Texas Agriculture Code section 161.101(a)(6), CWD is a reportable disease and requires a veterinarian, veterinary diagnostic laboratory, or person having care, custody, or control of an animal to report the existence of CWD to TAHC within 24 hours after diagnosis.

The Commission and TPWD have worked extensively with TAHC since 2016 to respond to and manage CWD detections and mitigate disease spread, particularly in deer-breeding facilities, where the majority of CWD cases to date have occurred. During that collaboration, TPWD’s goal was always to reduce the probability of CWD being spread from facilities and locations where it might exist and to increase the probability of detecting and containing CWD if it does exist. TAHC’s withdrawal from the USDA herd certification program and amendments to TAHC rules regarding CWD management facilitated the separation of CWD management responsibilities between TPWD and TAHC. Moving forward, TAHC’s responsibility will focus on exotic CWD-susceptible species under their jurisdiction, and TPWD’s responsibility for CWD management will focus on native CWD-susceptible species under TPWD regulatory authority.

This rule package is necessary to facilitate that separation of responsibility for CWD management with respect to native cervids, and does the following:

eliminates references to TAHC where appropriate;
alters definitions and provisions referring to TAHC hold orders, quarantines and herd plans;
modifies definitions to provide for the transition to TPWD of functions previously discharged by or in conjunction with TAHC for CWD-exposed and CWD-positive facilities of all kinds;
provides for TPWD disease management plans to replace TAHC herd plans;
applies statewide carcass disposal rules to all dead deer or parts of deer in a person’s possession and specific requirements for disposal of dead deer in exposed or CWD-positive breeder facilities;
implements a manifest/documentation requirement for breeder deer carcasses transported to public landfills for disposal;
allows for TPWD biologists, in addition to veterinarians and epidemiologists, to make determinations with respect to movement status for breeder deer in certain situations;
stipulates that changes in land ownership do not affect trace-out release facility status; and
makes nonsubstantive conforming and housekeeping-type changes as appropriate and necessary.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Disease Detection and Response Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

DISEASE DETECTION AND RESPONSE RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §§65.81, 65.88, 65.90, 65.91, 65.94, 65.95, 65.97, 65.99, and 65.100, concerning Disease Detection and Response, and 65.610, concerning Deer Breeder Permits. The proposed amendments would function collectively to acknowledge the decision of the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) to cease cooperative efforts with the department with respect to the management of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wildlife resources.

CWD is a fatal neurodegenerative disorder that affects some cervid species, including wildlife resources such as white-tailed deer and mule deer, but also exotic species such as elk, red deer, sika, and their hybrids (referred to collectively as “susceptible species”). It is classified as a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy), a family of diseases that includes scrapie (found in sheep), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, found in cattle and commonly known as “Mad Cow Disease”), and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans. CWD is spread by prions (a misfolded protein that is the infectious agent) that other animals can acquire directly or indirectly via bodily fluids or contaminated environments. CWD prions are known to persist in soil, vegetation, water, and carcasses indefinitely and there is no practical method for denaturing them. Thus, if CWD is not contained and controlled, the implications of the disease for Texas and its multi-billion-dollar ranching, hunting, wildlife management, and real estate economies could be significant.

The department has been concerned for over two decades about the emergence of CWD in free-ranging and captive populations of white-tailed and mule deer in Texas. The department is the primary state agency for the management and protection of native wildlife in the state, while TAHC is the state agency responsible for protecting animal agriculture (livestock and poultry) from disease and human health from zoonotic disease. Under Agriculture Code, §161.101(a)(6), CWD is a reportable disease and requires a veterinarian, veterinary diagnostic laboratory, or person having care, custody, or control of an animal to report the existence of CWD to TAHC within 24 hours after diagnosis. Because CWD can be transmitted between wildlife and farmed animals, there is an obvious nexus of interagency responsibilities in certain situations.

The department has worked extensively with TAHC since 2016 to develop, implement, and improve a collaborative interagency regulatory response to the spread of the disease, particularly in deer-breeding facilities, where the majority of CWD cases to date have occurred. The goal of the department at all times during that collaboration was to reduce the probability of CWD being spread from facilities and locations where it might exist and to increase the probability of detecting and containing CWD if it does exist. With TAHC no longer participating in the joint management effort, department’s rules must be amended accordingly to compensate and maintain the integrity of CWD management in wildlife resources.

A central component of the joint strategy for CWD management was the department’s utilization of TAHC hold orders and quarantines as a regulatory mechanism for isolating and restricting the movement of infected or potentially infected animals. The proposed amendments would remove all references to TAHC (with exceptions as noted), hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans and replace references to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans, as appropriate, with references to “disease management plan,” which is necessary to create and implement a similar mechanism administered solely by the department and applicable only to white-tailed and mule deer.

The proposed amendment to §65.88, concerning Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions, in addition to conforming changes regarding TAHC mentioned earlier in this preamble, would extend the applicability of the section to all dead deer being transported (i.e., not just deer killed by hunting), reword subsection (a) for purposes of clarity, and add new subsection (b) to address the disposal of deer that die within breeding facilities. The disposal methods for deer that die within exposed and positive breeding facilities are currently addressed under TAHC herd plans; therefore, the department must stipulate those standards in department rules in order to prevent the spread of CWD from breeding facilities where it might or has been confirmed to exist. Additionally, the proposed amendment would require persons transporting carcasses of dead breeder deer to a landfill (if the deer are not interred in situ) to possess a completed disposition document on a form approved or supplied by the department, which would be required to accompany deer carcasses during transport and until the carcasses are accepted at the landfill. The proposed amendment is necessary to aid in law enforcement investigations, if necessary, by documenting deer that no longer bear the permanent identification required under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L.

The proposed amendment to §65.90, concerning Definitions, consists of a number of related changes intended to accommodate the withdrawal of TAHC from participation in CWD management in wildlife contexts and to make clarifications and improvements to definitions used throughout the subchapter. The changes are necessary to prevent misunderstandings and standardize the applicability of various specialized terms.

The proposed amendment would add new paragraph (14) to define “exposed facility” as “a facility that has received exposed deer,” and alter current paragraphs (29) and (45) to make those provisions applicable to all types of facilities and not just to deer breeding facilities. The current rule defines “exposed deer” and “exposure” but does not explicitly address facilities that contain exposed deer. The current definitions in paragraphs (29) and (45) reflect the division of labor with respect to the former role of TAHC in CWD management. Because TAHC hold orders and quarantines will no longer be issued for premises on the basis of CWD in wildlife populations, the affected definitions must be made applicable to all facilities (rather than just to breeding facilities) to accommodate the absence of TAHC involvement.

The proposed amendment also would make several changes affecting terminology related to administrative mechanisms for authorizing the movement of breeder deer. In order to effectively and efficiently track the movement of breeder deer to and from deer breeders for purposes of law enforcement and disease investigations, the department created a specialized database commonly known as TWIMS, which allowed the automation of many permitting processes. Every location where breeder deer are kept or released is assigned a unique “facility ID” in TWIMS. Although the term “facility” has long been defined by rule to apply to any location required to be registered in TWIMS, the term has, for whatever reason, become synonymous with “deer breeding facility.” Similarly, although the terms “Movement Qualified” (current paragraph (26)) and “Non-Movement Qualified” (current paragraph (28)), under current rule apply only to breeding facilities, they have for whatever reason erroneously become understood to include movement authorizations for other types of facilities, which is technically not the case. The terms were promulgated to reflect the binary opposition states (predicated on compliance with disease-testing requirements) necessary for TWIMS to allow or prevent the activation of a transfer permit that allows deer movement to and from deer breeding facilities or to other types of facilities; however, the terms have become so commonly used to refer to release locations that the department believes it is easier and more effective to simply alter the rules to expand the applicability of the terms to include all types of facilities. Along the same lines, the term “transfer permit” has long been defined in Chapter 65, Subchapter T, to mean the authorization for movement of breeder deer to or from any type of facility, some confusion has arisen as to whether “to or from” means “to and from” even though release locations are terminal destinations (i.e., the transfer permit in such cases is a permanent and final “one-way only” authorization of movement to a location from which the deer cannot ever be removed while still alive). Finally, the proposed amendment would replace the term “release site” (current paragraph (34)), with the term “release facility.” As discussed earlier in this preamble, every location where breeder deer are kept and every location where breeder deer are released are assigned a “facility ID” in TWIMS. To maintain continuity of terminology, the proposed amendments would remove all references to release sites and replace them with references to “release facility.”

The proposed amendment to §65.91, concerning General Provisions, would eliminate references to TAHC and replace the term “herd plan” with the term “disease management plan” for reasons previously discussed in this preamble. The proposed amendment to subsection (d) would address situations in which a premise is subject to TAHC movement restrictions because of CWD exposure in a susceptible species other than white-tailed deer or mule deer. The department has determined that because native cervids are susceptible species, allowing breeder deer to be moved from an exposed location represents an unacceptable risk of spreading CWD to native free-ranging and captive deer populations unless a determination based on the particulars of a given circumstance indicate that risk is either non-existent or acceptable. The proposed amendment also would alter subsection (e) to create an exception that would allow the transfer of deer to or from a facility designated NMQ if authorized under a disease management plan. The department has determined that there may be unforeseen situations in which compliance with a disease management plan provides epidemiological confidence that the transfer of deer by a facility otherwise not allowed to move deer can be allowed. Finally, the proposed amendment would alter subsection (f) to clarify that the provisions of the subsection apply to facilities where CWD has been confirmed as well as facilities where CWD is suspected to be present, which is necessary to address situations in which a facility nominally linked to a positive facility can be cleared following epidemiological investigation.

The proposed amendment to §65.92, concerning CWD Testing, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The proposed amendment to §65.94, concerning Breeding Facility Minimum Movement Qualification, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble and alter subsection (e) to allow department biologists, in addition to veterinarians and epidemiologists employed by the department, to recommend the continuation of NMQ status for a breeding facility for which there are problematic epidemiological or veterinary deficiencies that preclude restoration of MQ status. The department has determined that because TAHC will no longer be involved in CWD management efforts with respect to native wildlife, additional department personnel will or could be needed to perform functions formerly shared with TAHC.

The proposed amendment to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, makes conforming changes as discussed previously in this preamble and would stipulate that changes in land ownership do not affect the status of a property as a trace-out release site. The department has determined that because CWD is an existential threat to native wildlife, it is necessary to eliminate the potential for unscrupulous persons to evade disease-management obligations by way of real estate transactions.

The proposed amendment to §65.97, concerning Testing and Movement of Deer Pursuant to a Triple T or TTP Permit, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The proposed amendment to §65.99, concerning Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The proposed amendment to §65.100, concerning Violations and Penalties, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

The proposed amendment to §65.610, concerning Transfer of Deer, would make conforming changes discussed previously in this preamble.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state and local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed, as department personnel currently allocated to the administration and enforcement of disease management activities will administer and enforce the rules as part of their current job duties.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be the continued efficacy of department efforts to prevent the spread of CWD from locations where it does or has a reasonable probability to exist, thus ensuring the public of continued enjoyment of the resource and also ensuring the continued beneficial economic impacts of hunting in Texas.

(B) There will be no adverse economic impact on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

(C) Under provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, and rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), in April 2008, the Office of the Attorney General issued guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses, micro-businesses, and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s "direct adverse economic impacts" to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

Government Code, §2006.001(1), defines a small or micro-business as a legal entity "formed for the purpose of making a profit" and "independently owned and operated." A micro-business is a business with 20 or fewer employees. A small business is defined as a business with fewer than 100 employees, or less than $6 million in annual gross receipts. The department has determined that the proposed rules will not result in direct economic costs to small businesses and microbusinesses.

The department has determined that the proposed rules will not affect rural communities because the rules do not directly regulate any rural community.

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

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

(F) The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules. Any impacts resulting from the discovery of CWD in or near private real property would be the result of the discovery of CWD and not the proposed rule.

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation or repeal an existing regulation, but will modify existing rules to accommodate the cessation of TAHC involvement in the management of CWD efforts with respect to native wildlife;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Kory Gann, Big Game Program Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas, 78744; (512) 389-4363, (e-mail: kory.gann@tpwd.texas.gov); or via the department’s website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, which requires the commission to adopt rules to govern the collecting, holding, possession, propagation, release, display, or transport of protected wildlife for scientific research, educational display, zoological collection, or rehabilitation; Subchapter E, which requires the commission to adopt rules for the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds, urban white-tailed deer removal, and trapping and transporting surplus white-tailed deer; Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, sale, of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; Subchapters R and R-1, which authorize the commission to establish the conditions of a deer management permit for white-tailed and mule deer, respectively; and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permitted under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, R, R-1, and Chapter 61.

6. Rule Text.

§65.81. Risk Mitigation Provisions.
(a) (No change.)

(b) Breeder Deer.

(1) – (7) (No change.)

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

(9) (No change.)

§65.88. Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions.

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

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(b) A white-tailed deer or mule deer that dies in an exposed breeding facility or positive breeding facility must be disposed of only as provided in subsection (a)(1) or (2) of this section. If a breeder deer is disposed of as provided in subsection (a)(1) of this section, a completed disposition document on a form provided or approved by the department must accompany the carcass(es) to the landfill and remain with the possessor until the carcass(es) has/have been accepted by the landfill.

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

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

(1) – (6) (No change.)

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

(1) – (3) (No change.)

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, R, R-1, and Chapter 61.

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

(1) – (11) (No change.)

(12) Disease management plan--A set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department.

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

(A) – (C) (No change.)

(14) Exposed facility—A facility that has received an exposed deer.

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

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

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

[(16) Herd Plan--A set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department and TAHC.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(27)[(26)] Movement Qualified (MQ) — A designation made by the department pursuant to this division that allows:

(A) a deer breeder to [lawfully] transfer breeder deer to another facility; or

(B) a facility to receive breeder deer.

(28)[(27)] Not available/unavailable for testing — For a Category B trace-out deer breeding facility, a deer that is no longer present in a facility and cannot be found or the whereabouts of which are otherwise unknown.

(29)[(28)] Not Movement Qualified (NMQ) — A designation made by the department pursuant to this division that prohibits:

(A) the transfer of deer by a deer breeder; or

(B) a facility from receiving breeder deer.

(30)[(29)] Positive [breeding] facility — A [deer breeding] facility where CWD has been confirmed to exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(39)[(38)] Susceptible species — Any cervid species or part of a cervid species that is susceptible to CWD.

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

(41)[(40)] TAHC — Texas Animal Health Commission.

(42)[(41)] Test-eligible —

(A) – (B) (No change.)

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

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

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

(A) – (B) (No change.)

(46)[(45)] Trace-out [breeding] facility — A breeding or release facility that has received an exposed deer that was in a CWD-positive deer breeding facility.

(47) Transfer—The movement of breeder deer under a transfer permit executed as provided in Subchapter T of this chapter:

(A) from or to another breeding facility; or

(B) from a breeding facility to another type of facility.

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

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

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

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

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

§65.91. General Provisions.
(a) – (b) (No change.)

(c) Except as provided in this division or as expressly authorized and in accordance with the provisions of a disease management[herd] plan, [no person shall transfer deer to or from] any facility for which a CWD test result of "suspect" or "positive" has been obtained from an accredited testing laboratory, irrespective of how the sample was obtained or who collected the sample, is automatically NMQ and the[The] provisions of this subsection take effect immediately [upon the notification of a CWD "suspect" test result, and continue in effect until the department expressly authorizes the resumption of permitted activities at that facility].

(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this division, no person may cause or allow breeder deer to be transferred from a facility subject to[moved from a facility for any purpose if such movement is prohibited by a herd plan associated with] a TAHC hold order or TAHC quarantine applicable to a trace susceptible species unless specifically authorized to do so under a disease management plan or the department has authorized movement following an epidemiological assessment.

(e) No person may transfer deer to or from a facility that has been designated NMQ by the department unless:

(A) specifically authorized by the department for the holder of a scientific research permit when the proposed research is determined to be of use in advancing the etiology of CWD in susceptible species; or
(B) authorized by a disease management plan.

(f) Immediately upon the notification that a facility has received a CWD "suspect" test result (a CWD-suspect facility) or a CWD “positive” test result (a CWD-positive facility), all facilities that have received[that have been in possession of] a deer [that was] held in or transferred to the [CWD suspect] facility within the previous five years shall be designated NMQ by the department until it is determined that the facility is not epidemiologically linked to the CWD-suspect or CWD-positive[CWD suspect] deer, or it is determined upon further testing that the "suspect" deer is not a confirmed positive.

(g) – (i) (No change.)

§65.92. CWD Testing.

(a) (No change.)

(b) Except as provided in §65.95(c)(7) of this title (relating to Movement of Breeder Deer) or subsection (d) of this section, an ante-mortem CWD test is not valid unless it is performed by an accredited laboratory on retropharyngeal lymph node, rectal mucosa, or tonsillar tissue with at least six lymphoid follicles collected within eight months of submission by a licensed veterinarian authorized pursuant to statutes and regulations governing the practice of veterinary medicine in Texas [and regulations of the TAHC] from a live deer that:

(1) — (2) (No change.)

(k) Upon notification by the department that CWD is suspected or confirmed in a deer as a result of ante-mortem testing in a facility, the facility is automatically NMQ and the permittee shall:

(1) — (2) (No change.)

(l) (No change.)

§65.94. Breeding Facility Minimum Movement Qualification.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, a breeding facility is designated NMQ and is prohibited from transferring breeder deer anywhere for any purpose if the breeding facility:

(1) (No change.)

(2) is not authorized pursuant to a disease management plan[herd plan associated with a TAHC hold order or TAHC quarantine];

(3) — (4) (No change.)

(b) – (d) (No change.)

(e) The department may decline to designate a facility as MQ under subsection (d) of this section:

(1) (No change.)

(2) upon the recommendation of a licensed veterinarian or a biologist or epidemiologist employed by the department [or TAHC]. The recommendation must:

(A) — (B) (No change.)

(f) – (i) (No change.)

§65.95. Movement of Breeder Deer.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(1) An approved release facility[site] consists solely of the specific tract of land to which deer are released and the acreage is designated as a release facility[site] in TWIMS. A release facility[site] owner may modify the acreage registered as the release facility[site] to recognize changes in acreage (such as the removal of cross-fencing or the purchase of adjoining land), so long as the release facility[site] owner notifies the department of such modifications prior to the acreage modification. The release facility[site] requirements set forth in this division apply to the entire acreage modified under the provisions of this paragraph.

(2) Liberated breeder deer must have complete, unrestricted access to the entirety of the release facility[site]; provided, however, deer may be excluded from areas for safety reasons (such as airstrips) or for the purpose of protecting areas such as crops, orchards, ornamental plants, and lawns from depredation.

(3) All release facility[sites] onto which breeder deer are liberated must be surrounded by a fence of at least seven feet in height that is capable of retaining deer at all times under reasonable and ordinary circumstances. The owner of the release facility[site] is responsible for ensuring that the fence and associated infrastructure retain deer under reasonable and ordinary circumstances.

(4) The department will not authorize the liberation of breeder deer at a release facility[site] registered in TWIMS following the effective date of this subsection unless the owner of the release facility[site] submits to the department a letter of endorsement by a person authorized by the department to conduct fence inspections under the provisions of §65.603 of this title (relating to Application and Permit Issuance) stating that the person has personally conducted an on-site inspection at the release facility identified in the application and affirming that the release facility[site] is surrounded by a perimeter fence meeting the requirements of paragraph (3) of this subsection. This paragraph does not apply to release facility[sites] that have received deer prior to the effective date of this paragraph. It is an offense for any person the department has authorized as a facility inspector to submit the letter of endorsement required by this paragraph if the person has not personally conducted an onsite inspection at the facility.

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

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

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

(A) - (B) (No change.)

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

(D) – (F) (No change.)

(d) Trace-out Release Facility[Site].

(1) A release facility[site] is a trace-out release facility [site] if it has[:] received trace deer directly or indirectly from a positive breeding facility, unless the department has determined that the landowner of the release facility has satisfied the requirements of a disease management plan for the property[it has not been released from a hold order or quarantine related to activity described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.]

(2) The landowner of a trace-out release facility[site] must:

(A) within 60 days of notification by the department that trace-out release status has been confirmed, remove every trace deer at the release facility[site], either by lawful hunting or as specifically authorized in writing by the department (or both), and submit post-mortem CWD samples for each deer within seven days of mortality; and

(B) submit post-mortem CWD test results for 100 percent of all hunter-harvested deer until the department is confident that CWD is not present at the release facility[site] or as prescribed in a disease management[herd] plan.

(3) No breeder deer may be transferred to a trace-out release facility[site] unless the deer has been tagged in one ear with a button-type RFID tag approved by the department.

(4) A change in ownership of a tract of land does not affect the status of the property as a trace-out release site for the purposes of this subchapter.

(e) The owner of a trace-out release facility[site] that is not in compliance with applicable provisions of this division is ineligible for enrollment or continued participation in the Managed Lands Deer Program under Subchapter A of this chapter.

§65.97. Testing and Movement of Deer Pursuant to a Triple T or TTP Permit.
(a) General.

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) In addition to the reasons for denying a Triple T permit as provided in §65.107 of this title (relating to Permit Application and Processing) and §65.109 of this title (relating to Issuance of Permit), the department will not issue a Triple T permit if the department determines, based on epidemiological assessment, [and consultation with TAHC]that to do so would create an unacceptable risk for the spread of CWD.

(4) – (7) (No change.)

(b) – (c) (No change.)

§65.99. Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities.
(a) (No change.)

(b) No deer from a facility subject to the provisions of this section may be transferred or liberated except as provided in this section or expressly authorized in a disease management[herd] plan and then only in accordance with the provisions of this division and the disease management[herd] plan.

(d) Category A trace-out breeding facility.

(1) – (3) (No change.)

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

(5) (No change.)

(e) Category B trace-out breeding facility.

(1) – (4) (No change.)

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

(6) (No change.)

(f) The department shall, provided the provisions of this subchapter do not otherwise prevent restoration of MQ status, restore MQ status to a breeding facility that has been designated NMQ under the provisions of subsection (e) of this section as provided in this paragraph.

(1) MQ status may be restored for a facility in which all trace deer available for testing are tested in accordance with subsection (e) of this section and trace deer unavailable for testing were received by the trace facility less than 36 months prior to the date of detection in the positive breeding facility, provided:

(A) – (D) (No change.)

(E) Compliance with the requirements of this subsection does not relieve any person of any obligation or requirement of a disease management[herd] plan.

(2) MQ status may be restored for a facility in which:

(A) – (D) (No change.)

(E) Compliance with the requirements of this subsection does not relieve any person of any obligation or requirement of a disease management[herd] plan.

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

(1) – (3) (No change.)

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

(5) (No change.)

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

(1) – (5) (No change.)

(i) Positive Facility.

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

(A) – (C) (No change.)

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

(E) – (F) (No change.)

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

(3) Fencing meeting the specifications in §65.605 of this title shall be installed around a positive facility no later than the completion of the disease management[herd] plan and removal of a quarantine unless the owner of the facility conducts a complete depopulation of the breeder deer.

§65.100. Violations and Penalties.
(a) A person who violates a provision of this division or a condition of a deer breeder’s permit, DMP, Triple T permit, TTP permit, disease management[herd] plan, or custom testing plan commits an offense and is subject to the penalties prescribed by the applicable provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Code.

(b) [A person who possesses or receives white-tailed deer or mule deer under the provisions of this division and/or Subchapters C, D, or T of this chapter is subject to the provisions of TAHC regulations at 4 TAC Chapter 40 (relating to Chronic Wasting Disease) that are applicable to white-tailed or mule deer].

[(c)] A person who fails to comply with a provision of this division or a condition of a deer’s breeder permit, DMP, Triple T permit, TTP permit, disease management[herd] plan, or custom testing plan may be prohibited by the department from future permit eligibility or issuance.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, sale, of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L.

§65.610. Transfer Permits.

(a) – (d) (No change.)

(e) Release.

(1) – (4) (No change,)

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

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

(B) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 7

Presenter: Kevin Mote

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – Senate Bill 2801
Relating to a Permit Issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department for Certain Hunting Dog Field Trials; Authorizing a Fee
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed changes to rules to implement the provisions of Senate Bill (S.B.) 2801, enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature, in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed changes relate to the establishment of a field trial permit to pursue squirrels, fur-bearing animals, and nongame wildlife.

II. Discussion: TPWD currently administers two field trial permits: one for Private Bird Hunting Areas, which is limited to banded, pen-raised birds, and one for Competitive Hunting Dog Events on TPWD wildlife management areas. S.B. 2801 authorizes the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) to adopt rules creating a third type of field trial permit specifically limited to the pursuit of squirrels, fur-bearing animals, and nongame wildlife on privately owned lands or on specified public hunting lands. The proposed changes generally do the following:

establish provisions for application and issuance of the new field trial permit;
prescribe requirements for on-site supervision and documentation during permitted events;
establish a universal fee of $50 for all TPWD-issued permits involving the use of protected wildlife to train dogs;
identify the specific units of TPWD public hunting lands where field trial permits may be issued; and
make nonsubstantive, housekeeping-type changes to existing rules for clarity, conformance, and ease of reference.

Attachments – 3

Exhibit A – Rules Required or Authorized by Legislation – Special Permits – Senate Bill 2801 – Field Trial Permits
Exhibit B – Fee Rules – Permits for the Use of Protected Wildlife to Train Dogs
Exhibit C – Public Hunting Proclamation – Competitive Hunting Dog Events

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit A

RULES REQUIRED OR AUTHORIZED BY LEGISLATION

SPECIAL PERMITS

SENATE BILL 2801 — FIELD TRIAL PERMITS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes new 31 TAC §65.908, concerning Field Trial Permit. The proposed new rule would implement provisions required or authorized under Senate Bill 2801, enacted during the Regular Session of the 89th Texas Legislature, which amended the Parks and Wildlife Code by adding new Chapter 43, Subchapter J, to create a field trial permit allowing the pursuit of squirrels, furbearing animals, and nongame wildlife on privately owned land or public lands identified by commission rule. The fee for the permit is fixed by statute at $50.

Proposed new subsection (a) would explicitly identify the field trial permit authorized by S.B. 2801 and clearly distinguish it from other, similar types of permits already issued by the department under existing statutory and regulatory authority. The department wishes to eliminate, to the extent possible, any confusion with respect to various dog-related permits administered by the department.

Proposed new subsection (b) would prescribe the process and content for applications for a field trial permit. The proposed provision would specify the issuance of permits to named individuals only, which is necessary to facilitate enforcement activities by providing for the clear identification of a responsible party with respect to conduct regulated under the rule. The proposed provision also would allow for the department to prescribe permit conditions necessary to manage and protect wildlife resources subject to permitted activities. Because Texas is a large state with many types of ecological systems and property conditions, the circumstances of any given permit cannot be anticipated and articulated by rule; therefore, the provision would allow the department to prescribe permit conditions unique to a given permit if necessary.

Proposed new subsection (c) would require the permittee to be present at all times during the period of validity of the permit, to maintain a list of all participants present during the period of the validity of the permit (including identification and contact information), a map or boundary description of the property where the activity is taking place, and written landowner consent for permitted activities (if the permittee is not the landowner of the property where permitted activities are taking place), all of which are necessary to assist the department in determining regulatory compliance.

Proposed new subsection (d) would identify the units of department-owned public lands where field trial permits under the provisions of the proposed new section could be issued, which is required under the provisions of S.B. 2801; provided the activity does not occur during public hunting activities or interfere with research or management activities.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be minor fiscal implications to the department as a result of administering the rule, which the department estimates at less than $500 per year.

There will be no fiscal impacts to other units of state or local government.

There will be fiscal implications on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed, namely the cost of a permit ($50); however, that fee is established under the provisions S.B. 2801 and is not a result of this rulemaking.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be compliance with the directives of the Texas Legislature.

(B) Under provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), in April 2008, the Office of the Attorney General issued guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s "direct adverse economic impacts" to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that because the rule as proposed does not directly regulate any small business, microbusiness, or rural community, there will be no adverse economic impact on small businesses, microbusinesses, or rural communities as a result of the proposed rule.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of a fee;

(5) create a new regulation (to implement a process for obtain a Field Trial Permit);

(6) not expand an existing regulation;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Kevin Mote, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 217-2779 or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The new rule is proposed under the provisions of Senate Bill 2801 (R.S. 2025), which amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, by adding new Subchapter J, to authorize the commission to prescribe by rule the manner of application for and issuance of the field trial permit authorized by the subchapter, rules necessary to administer the subchapter, and rules to specify public lands where field trial permits under the subchapter may be issued.

The proposed new rule affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter J.

6. Rule Text.

§65.908. Field Trial Permit.

(a) General.

(1) The department may issue a Field Trial Permit to a qualified applicant as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter J.

(2) A permit under this section is not required for an activity lawfully conducted under the provisions of:

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

(B) §65.194 of this title (relating to Competitive Dog Events).

(3) A permit under this section may not be substituted for or used in lieu of a permit described in:

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

(B) §65.194 of this title (relating to Competitive Dog Events).

(4) A permit under this section is valid only on the specific property or portion of public lands for which it was issued and authorizes only the activities identified in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter J.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “public lands” means the department-owned or department-managed lands listed in subsection (d) of this section.

(b) Application and issuance.

(1) A permit under this section shall be issued only to a named individual and not in the name of any organization or association.

(2) The department will not issue a permit under this section until an administratively complete application for a Field Trial Permit has been submitted to the department on a form supplied or approved by the department for that purpose.

(3) The department may prescribe permit conditions as necessary to manage and protect wildlife resources subject to the activity authorized by the permit.

(c) On-site requirements. The person to whom a Field Trial Permit is issued (permittee) shall be present and available at the property for which a Field Trial Permit is issued during the time period specified on the permit for the conduct of field trial activities. The permittee shall possess on their person at all times during the time period specified by the permit for the conduct of permitted activities:

(1) the Field Trial Permit;

(2) a list of all persons participating in permitted activities (participants). The list shall consist of, for each participant:

(A) the participant’s full legal name;

(B) address and a functioning telephone number or email address; and

(C) the driver’s license or state-issued personal identification number issued by the participant’s state of residence;

(C) a map or boundary description of the property where the permitted activities are to take place, if the prospective activity is to take place on private lands; and

(D) if the property where the permitted activity is taking place is owned by a person other than the permittee, written consent from the owner of the land where the permitted activity is taking place to use the property for the purposes authorized by the permit.

(d) A permit under this section may be issued for designated areas within the following units of public hunting lands, provided the prospective activity does not interfere with public hunting, research, or management activities.

(1) Big Lake Bottom WMA);

(2) Black Gap WMA;

(3) Blue Elbow Swamp-Tony Houseman WMA;

(4) Caddo Lake WMA;

(5) Chaparral WMA;

(6) Dam B WMA (including Angelina-Neches Scientific Area)

(7) Las Palomas WMA;

(8) Elephant Mountain WMA;

(9) Gene Howe WMA (does not include Pat Murphy Unit);

(10) Guadalupe Delta WMA;

(11) James Daughtrey WMA;

(12) Justin Hurst WMA;

(13) Matador WMA;

(14) McGillvray and Leona McKie Muse WMA;

(15) Moore Plantation WMA;

(16) Nannie Stringfellow WMA;

(17) Old Sabine Bottom WMA;

(18) Pat Mayse WMA;

(19) Ray Roberts;

(20) Roger Fawcett WMA; and

(21) White Oak Creek WMA.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit B

FEE RULES

PERMITS FOR THE USE OF PROTECTED WILDLIFE TO TRAIN DOGS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §53.10 and §53.11, concerning Fees.

The proposed amendments would implement a universal fee of $50 for all permits involving the use of protected wildlife to train dogs.

The Texas Legislature during the most recent regular session enacted Senate Bill 2801, which added new Chapter 43, Subchapter J, to create a new type of field trial permit limited to the pursuit of squirrels, furbearing animals, and nongame wildlife on privately owned land or public lands authorized by the department by rule. The fee for the permit is set by statute at $50. The department already issues two types of “field trial” permits (one for private bird hunting areas, and the other for public hunting lands) and has determined that having three kinds of permits with the same or similar name that are valid for at least four different regulatory scenarios under multiple fee standards could create confusion that is avoidable; therefore, the proposed amendments would replace the current fee values for other types of similar permits with the $50 fee established by S. B. 2801.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be minor fiscal implications to the department as a result of administering the rule. The department estimates a revenue reduction of approximately $700 year resulting from the reduction of the fee for the current Private Bird Hunting Area Field Trial Permit (from $63 to $50). The department has issued an average of 56 such permits per year for the last five years. The department estimates a revenue reduction of zero dollars as a result of the proposed fee reduction for the Competitive Hunting Dog Trial Permit, as the department has not issued any in the last three years.

There will be no fiscal impacts to other units of state or local government.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule will be a uniform fee for similar types of low-demand permits issued by the department.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) affect the amount of a fee, by reducing the fees for Private Bird Hunting Area Field Trial Permits and Competitive Hunting Dog Event Permits);

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not expand an existing regulation;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Kevin Mote, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 217-2779-; email: kevin.mote@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.0762, which authorizes the commission to adopt regulations necessary to administer that subchapter, including fees for a private bird hunting area field trial permit; Parks and Wildlife Code, §62.016, which authorizes the department to issue competitive hunt dog permit in an area controlled by the department; and Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.403, which authorizes the department to issue a permit authorizing access to public hunting land for specific hunting, fishing, recreational, or other use and impose fees for such permits.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 43, 62, and 81.

6. Rule Text.

§53.10. Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees.

(a) – (c) (No change.)

(d) Competitive hunting dog events and field trials on public lands — $50 [Competitive hunting dog field trial permit fees:]

[(1) 10 or less participants — $105 per day;]

[(2) 11-25 participants — $210 per day;]

[(3) 26-50 participants — $315 per day;]

[(4) 51-75 participants — $420 per day; and]

[(5) 76 or more participants — $525 per day.]

§53.11. Commercial Hunting Licenses and Permits.

(a) – (d) (No change.)

(e) Private Bird Hunting Area field trial permit — $50[$63];

(f) – (h) (No change.)

(i) Field Trial Permit (private lands; select public lands)- $50.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit C

PUBLIC HUNTING PROCLAMATION

COMPETITIVE HUNTING DOG EVENTS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to 31 TAC §65.191, concerning Definition, and §65.194, concerning Competitive Hunting Dog Events.

The proposed amendments would remove all references to “field trial” and “field trial permits” and instead refer to those activities as “competitive hunting dog events,” which is necessary to prevent confusion.

Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §62.016, the department is authorized to issue a permit for “competitive hunting dog events” in an area designated by the commission as a public hunting area and places no restrictions on the species that such permits may be used to pursue. Department rules (§65.194) therefore provide for the issuance and use of such permits, and employ the term “field trial” as a useful shorthand. The fee for the permit is variable, depending on the number of participants, but ranges from $105 per day (10 participants or less) to $525 per day (76 participants or less). Under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter F, the department may issue a Private Bird Hunting Area Permit on private lands, and persons who hold such a permit may apply for a “field trial” permit as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.0763, which is limited to the pursuit of banded, pen-raised game birds. The fee for that permit is $63. Since the field trial permit created by Chapter 43 is distinct and separate from the “field trial” permit authorized for use only on public lands, the department believes the possibility for confusion was remote.

The Texas Legislature during the most recent regular session enacted Senate Bill 2801, which added new Chapter 43, Subchapter J, to create another type of field trial permit limited to the pursuit of squirrels, furbearing animals, and nongame wildlife on privately owned land or public lands authorized by the department by rule. The fee for the permit is set by statute at $50. The department has determined that having three kinds of permits with the same or similar name that are valid for at least four different regulatory scenarios under multiple fee standards could create confusion; therefore, in proposed rulemakings published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register the department would create the “Field Trial Permit” explicitly required by S. B. 2801 and make the $50 fee for that permit applicable to all other permits relating to the use of dogs for training purposes on either public or private lands. To further reduce potential confusion, the proposed rules would eliminate the references to “field trial permit” and instead refer to those activities as “competitive hunting dog events.”

The proposed amendment to §65.194 would also clarify that an application for a permit shall specify the species to be pursued during the prospective activity, make changes to modernize program administration by requiring applicants to provide an email address as part of the contact information, and rephrase paragraph (9)(B) for clarification.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be fiscal implications to the department or other units of state government as a result of administering the rule.

There will be fiscal implications on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed, namely the cost of a permit; however, those effects will positive because the fee for the affected permit is being reduced.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not reduce the amount of a fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not expand an existing regulation;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Kevin Mote, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 217-2779); email: kevin.mote@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.403, which authorizes the commission to issue a permit authorizing access to public hunting land or for specific hunting, fishing, recreational, or other use and to impose a fee, and under Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.404, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules governing recreational activities in wildlife management areas.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 81.

6. Rule Text.

§65.191. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All other words and terms shall have the meanings assigned in §65.3 of this title (relating to Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation).

(1) — (9) (No change.)

(10) Competitive hunting dog event [(field trial)] — A department-sanctioned contest in which the skills of hunting dogs are tested.

(11) – (49) (No change.)

§65.194. Competitive Hunting Dog Event [(Field Trials)] and Fees. The department may authorize competitive hunting dog events[field trials] on public hunting lands. All activities conducted pursuant to this section shall be subject to the provisions of this subchapter, except as specifically provided in this section.

(1) No person shall conduct or participate in a competitive hunting dog event[field trial] on public hunting lands unless the event has been sanctioned by the department through the issuance of a Competitive Hunting Dog Event[Field Trial] Permit in accordance with this section.

(2) An application for a Competitive Hunting Dog Event[field trial] Permit shall be submitted at least 90 days in advance of the proposed event to the Wildlife Division regional director in whose region the proposed event would take place. The application shall include, at a minimum:

(A) the name, address, email address, and telephone number of the sponsoring person(s) or organization(s), and the Social Security number of the person to whom the permit will be issued, if approved;

(B) the unit(s), compartment(s), and approximate acreage of public hunting lands that the proposed event would involve;

(D) the exact nature of the event, including any construction, facilities emplacement, or other site alterations;

(E) the number of participating dogs, dog handlers, and officials, respectively, and the estimated number of spectators;

(F) the species of animals or birds to be pursued during the event;

(G)[(F)] the fee for the competitive hunting dog event[field trial] permit[as assessed according to the number of participating dog handlers and officials]as specified by Chapter 53, Subchapter A of this title, (relating to Fees).

(H)[(G)] proof of liability insurance for the event in the amount of at least $250,000, which shall include coverage of personal injury and property damage; and

(I)[(H)] a performance bond in the amount of $5,000 to assure restoration of the involved public hunting lands to pre-event[pre-field trial] conditions.

(3) Approval or denial of the permit application shall be at the sole discretion of the regional director and shall be based on the anticipated impact the proposed event would have:

(A) on the natural resources of public hunting lands; and

(B) on other events or activities authorized or conducted by the department.

(4) The regional director shall, within 30 days of receipt of such application, notify the applicant of approval or denial of the application. If the application is approved, the [field trial] permit shall be issued in the form of a letter to the applicant. Any requirements or restrictions in addition to the provisions of this subchapter shall be specified in the permit.

(5) A permit issued under the provisions of this section[The field trial permit] shall be present and available on-site during all permitted[field trial] activities. The permittee shall, prior to commencing any competition, attach to the permit an accurate list containing the names of all dog handlers and officials who at any time participate in the event, and the names of all spectators. The aggregate number of participants named on the list shall not exceed the number of participants authorized by the [field trial] permit. The list shall be sent to the regional director no later than ten days following the conclusion of the event.

(6) All persons named on the list as officials, dog handlers, or spectators shall, during the event, be exempt from the access permit requirements of this subchapter.

(7) The permittee is responsible and liable for the actions of all [field trial]participants, spectators, and dogs during all activities conducted during an[this] event conducted under the provisions of this section.

(8) All construction, facilities emplacement, or other site alterations shall be performed and removed strictly in accordance with the conditions specified in[of] the [field trial] permit. The permittee shall not be released from the obligations of this section and the performance bond shall not be returned to the permittee until the department is satisfied that the site has been restored to pre-event[pre-trial] conditions.

(9) During any [field trial] activity conducted under the provisions of this section, it is an offense for any person attending the event or named on the list required by paragraph (2) of this section to:

(A) violate any condition of the [field trial] permit; or

(B) kill or injure any wildlife resource [take or attempt to take any animal or bird].

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 8

Presenters: Shaun Oldenburger
Blaise Korzekwa

2026-2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

I. Executive Summary: Staff will brief the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) on potential changes to hunting regulations for the 2026-2027 season.

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

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2026-2027

Work Session Agenda Item 8
Exhibit A

Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2026-2027

Game Bird Regulations

Align chachalaca and quail hunting season dates.
Close Matagorda and Wharton counties to wild turkey hunting.
Change annual bag limits to only gobblers and bearded hens in counties where either sex is currently allowed for wild turkey hunting.
Open Angelina National Forest (Jasper County) in the East Zone to wild turkey hunting.
Allow turkey management units (TMUs) for hunting opportunities to be established in closed counties in the East Zone where sustainable populations occur.
Change the South Zone dove hunting season structure, which may include an earlier regular season opening date and removal of the Special White-winged Dove Days.
Reflect calendar progression with most migratory game bird hunting season dates.
Note: Federal frameworks will not be finalized until November 13, 2025, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regulations Committee meeting in Bloomington, Minnesota.

Big Game Regulations

Expand doe days in 21 counties in the Post Oak Savannah ecoregion.
Modify the definition of muzzleloader.

Work Session Agenda Item 9

Presenter: Cody Jones

Party Boat Rules
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed changes to rules governing party boat operations in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed changes would update, reorganize, strengthen, and improve rules relating to the licensure and operation of commercial party boats on inland waters in Texas.

II. Discussion: In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature directed the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) to regulate the operation of party boats (defined as vessels operated, rented, or leased by the owner or an employee for a group recreational event for more than six passengers) on public fresh water as necessary to protect public health and safety. The Commission subsequently adopted rules that impose various measures intended to protect and enhance the safety of the public, including requirements for party boat owners to obtain a Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)-issued license; mandatory annual inspections of party boats; party boat operator standards; limitations on the number of people that may be aboard a party boat while underway with paying passengers; basic emergency and safety requirements; and mandatory minimum liability insurance coverage.

Since that time, the state has seen explosive growth in population and tourism and a corresponding increase in utilization of public surface water resources for outdoor recreation activities, including party boats, which are quite popular on lakes of all sizes. A series of recent incidents caused the TPWD Law Enforcement Division to reassess the efficacy of current rules. Based on continuing issues involving fatalities, injuries, insurance fraud, regulatory evasion, and other violations, staff believes that there is widespread intentional non-compliance with the rules’ basic safety and documentation requirements, which warrants action to strengthen and improve party boat rules in the interest of public health and safety. The proposed changes generally do the following:

increase the minimum amount of mandatory liability insurance required of licensees and clarify that insurance coverage must be on a per-incident basis;
allow for specified U.S. Coast Guard certifications to be substituted for inspection and licensing requirements;
implement initial and continuing (at five-year intervals) requirements for stability testing and inspection of party boats in dry dock (or by underwater video) by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor;
require stability testing by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor following significant structural modifications or incidents resulting in structural damage;
specify the components of the required annual water safety compliance inspection by TPWD;
enhance mandatory personal floatation device requirements, including additional measures to protect children, and emergency procedure requirements; and
make nonsubstantive, housekeeping-type changes for clarity, conformity, and ease of reference.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Regulation of Party Boats

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

REGULATION OF PARTY BOATS

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of 31 TAC §55.406, amendments to §§55.401-5.403, and 55.405, and new 55.406, 55.408, and 55.410, concerning Party Boats. The proposed repeal, amendments, and new sections would function collectively to modernize, improve, reorganize, and streamline the regulation of commercial party boats on Texas inland waters in the interests of public safety.

In 2007, the 80th Texas Legislature responded to a spate of serious incidents involving commercial party boats (hereinafter, “party boats”) on inland waters by enacting House Bill 12, which amended the Parks and Wildlife Code to add new Chapter 31, Subchapter G, to task the Parks and Wildlife Commission with the duty to regulate the operation of party boats (defined as a vessel operated by the owner of the vessel or an employee of the owner and rented or leased by the owner for a group recreational event for more than six passengers) on public fresh water as necessary to protect the public health and safety. The commission responded by promulgating 31 TAC Chapter 55, Subchapter H (32 TexReg 10011), which imposed various measures intended to protect and enhance the safety of the public, including requirements for party boat owners to obtain a department-issued license, mandatory annual inspections of party boats, party boat operator standards, limitations on the number of people that may be aboard a party boat while under way with paying passengers, basic emergency and safety requirements, and mandatory minimum liability insurance coverage.

Since 2007, the state has seen explosive growth in population and tourism and a corresponding increase in utilization of public surface water resources for outdoor recreation activities, including party boats, which are quite popular on lakes both large and small. A series of recent incidents caused the department to reassess the efficacy of current rules.

In May of 2018, a woman fell from a party boat on Lake Travis, striking her head and then drowning.

In August of 2021, a party boat on Lake Conroe capsized, throwing 53 passengers into the water along with a substantial quantity of diesel fuel, resulting in the death of one passenger and significant exposure to spilled fuel by the survivors. The vessel had a history of regulatory issues (while operating under another name in another state), was prohibited by the U.S. Coast Guard from operating in federal waters, and had been renamed and relocated to Texas.

In July of 2022, the department arrested the operator of a party boat on Lake Austin and obtained a conviction for Boating While Intoxicated (BWI).

In May and June of 2025, the department conducted saturation patrols (an increased, temporary law enforcement presence on popular public waters during holiday or other high-use periods, intended to protect public safety by counteracting and minimizing common dangerous behaviors) on Lake Austin and Lake Travis, which resulted in 20 violations involving party boats, including: no evidence of inspection, no proof of insurance, passengers on the top deck while under way, inadequate staff preparation and education (e.g., CPR certification, boater education certification), no certificate of number (registration) onboard, unlawful party boat operation, no party boat operator license, and others. At least four boats over 30 feet were found operating illegally by claim of being livery vessels rather than party boats.

In August of 2025, department law enforcement personnel cited a party boat operator for operation without the required insurance, which had been allowed to expire.

Also in August of 2025, a party boat passenger Lake Travis overdosed and died, while in another incident a passenger was injured by a propeller strike.

The department is also aware of instances in which party boat owners have intentionally altered vessel length for the sole purpose of evading the applicability of the subchapter.

This is a sample of some of the major incidents that have occurred; department game wardens routinely encounter situations involving party boats in which borderline dangerous conditions or behavior are observed.

The department concludes, on the basis of continuing issues involving fatalities, injuries, insurance fraud, regulatory evasion, and other violations, that there is widespread intentional non-compliance with basic safety and documentation requirements, which warrants action to strengthen and improve party boat rules in the interest of public health and safety.

The proposed repeal of §55.406, concerning Violations and Penalties, is necessary to make room for proposed new §55.406, concerning Inspections and Certifications.

The proposed amendment to §55.401, concerning Definitions, would alter the definition of “inland waters” and add new definitions for “Owner’s Agent,” “Accredited Marine Surveyor,” “Accredited Naval Architect,” and “Stability Letter.” The current definition of “inland waters” is not completely accurate, as it does not exclude certain border waters with Oklahoma and Louisiana that are considered navigable waters by the federal government and therefore subject to regulation by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which supersede state regulations and are generally considered to be as or more efficacious than state regulations. The proposed amended would add language to make the definition completely accurate. The proposed amendment would define “owner’s agent” as “any person engaged, authorized, or otherwise allowed, directly or indirectly via an intermediary, to operate a vessel that is not owned by the person but is subject to the provisions of this subchapter.” The department has encountered numerous instances of attempted evasion of regulatory compliance in the form of persons employing semantics to claim that some sort of lease or subcontractor arrangement absolves the actual owner of a vessel being used as a party boat from culpability for violations of provisions of the subchapter. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.171, a party boat is defined as “a vessel operated by the owner of the vessel or an employee of the owner.” The statutory definition is, in the determination of the department, unambiguous with respect to the legal responsibilities of a person who owns a vessel being used as a party boat; however, the department seeks to make it abundantly clear that a business arrangement between the owner of a vessel used as a party boat and a person who is technically not an employee of the owner but ultimately operates or oversees the operation of the vessel is irrelevant in the context of determining responsible parties in the course of administrative and enforcement activities. The proposed provision would make this clear.

The proposed amendment would define “accredited marine surveyor” as a person accredited by one of the four recognized professional trade organizations. The proposed rules would require party boats and initially and periodically thereafter to be inspected by an accredited third-party inspector; thus, a definition of the term is necessary to ensure that party boat inspections are conducted by person competent to perform them.

The proposed amendment would define “accredited naval architect” as a person accredited by one of the two recognized professional trade organizations. The proposed rules would require party boats and initially and periodically thereafter to be inspected by an accredited third-party inspector; thus, a definition of the term is necessary to ensure that party boat inspections are conducted by person competent to perform them.

Finally, the proposed amendment would define “stability letter” as “an affidavit from a naval architect or accredited marine surveyor attesting to the loading limits necessary for the safe operation of a vessel used as a party boat” and stipulate an occupancy limit. The proposed rules require every vessel operated as a party boat to be assessed initially and periodically thereafter for seaworthiness and for the particulars of that assessment to be put in writing in the form of a Stability Letter that is then submitted to the department; therefore, a definition of the term is necessary to provide guidance as to the content of the letter.

The proposed amendment to §55.402, concerning Applicability and Exceptions, would make alterations necessary to comport the section with other components of the proposed rulemaking, consisting of the insertion of a reference to proposed new §55.406, concerning Inspections and Certifications, in subsection (b), and the removal of current subsection (c)(2), which is no longer necessary because it address license reciprocity on border waters. Such waters are under USCG jurisdiction and a USCG license is required to operate a party boat; thus, because the proposed amendment would exempt persons in possession of a valid USCG captain’s or pilot license from having to obtain a party boat license in Texas, party boat operators in Louisiana and Oklahoma would meet the exception to licensure in Texas.

The proposed amendment to §55.403, concerning License Required, would alter current subsections (a) and (c) to create an exception to licensing requirements for persons in possession of a valid USCG captain’s or pilot’s license. The department has determined that USCG requirements for such licenses meet or exceed the requirements of this subchapter and therefore the department is satisfied that public safety is not being compromised by allowing federal licensure to be substituted for a party boat operator’s license.

The proposed amendment to §55.405, concerning Employer/Owner Responsibilities, would update the section to comport it with the changes being made in this rulemaking, increase the minimum amount of liability insurance required to be carried, clarify that the liability insurance policy must be applicable on a per-incident basis, stipulate a records retention period, and eliminate current subsections (c) and (d).

The proposed amendment would add language to allow certain USGS certifications to be used in lieu of the inspections and certifications required under the subchapter. The Coast Guard requirements for certification of “K” or “T” class commercial boats meet or exceed the standards that would be imposed under the proposed rules and the department believes that because of that, exempting such vessels from the inspection and certification requirements of the subchapter does not jeopardize public safety.

Current rule requires a party boat operator to maintain a minimum of $300,000 of liability insurance from an insurer licensed to do business in Texas. The requirement for liability insurance is established by Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.175(c); however, the amount of insurance is set by the commission. Although the department considers that a survey of party boat operations indicates that most are carrying liability insurance that exceeds the $300,000 minimum, the department nonetheless believes it is prudent to adjust the minimum value. The current value was established in 2007. Thus, the proposed amendment would increase the required minimum to $500,000 to reflect the fact that the Consumer Price Index has increased significantly since 2007 (49%), and the requirement would represent the bare minimum with respect to the ability to respond to incidents resulting in damages or injuries. The proposed amendment also would clearly state that the insurance required by the subchapter is to be on a per-incident basis. The department has encountered situations in which persons have maintained that because the rules do not stipulate insurance on a per-incident basis, insuring on a per-vessel or per-fleet is therefore sufficient. The department disagrees, maintains that it should be intuitively obvious, and wishes to make this clear in rule. The proposed amendment also would require proof of insurance to be kept on board a party boat at all times and made available upon request to a department employee acting within the scope of official duties. The department believes it is necessary to be able to quickly determine that a party boat operator is in compliance with the minimum insurance requirements at any time the vessel is being used to accommodate paying passengers.

Similarly, the proposed amendment would require the retention of all documentation required by the subchapter for a period of two years, which is the statute of limitations for Parks and Wildlife Code violations under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31, Subchapter G.

Finally, the proposed amendment would remove current subsections (d) and (e). The provisions of subsection (d) would be relocated to proposed new §55.408, concerning Passenger Safety. Current subsection (e) would be eliminated because passenger load limits would be calculated by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor as part of the inspection and assessment regime set forth in proposed new §55.406, concerning Inspections and Certifications.

Proposed new §55.406, concerning Inspections and Certifications, would prescribe general and specific requirements related to the department’s ability to determine vessel safety.

Proposed new subsection (a) would clearly state that any person who operates or allows the operation of a vessel as a party boat when the vessel has not been inspected and certified as provided by the subchapter commits a criminal offense. The provision is necessary because the department believes it should be absolutely clear that no vessel is to be operated as a party boat unless it has been determined by the department or the USCG to be safe for that use. The proposed new subsection also would require a stability test to be performed following significant alterations to the vessel’s structure or equipment, or following a reportable incident as described in Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.105, unless the incident does not involve physical damage to the vessel. The department reasons that any development or occurrence that could fundamentally alter a vessel’s seaworthiness or stability merits the performance of a stability test to determine the vessel’s ability to operate safely. Finally, the proposed new subsection would stipulate that when a vessel is required to be the subject of a stability test under the subsection, it is unlawful to operate that vessel as a party boat until the results of the stability test have been submitted to the department and the department has authorized resumption of operation as a party boat. The provision is necessary to provide a verification mechanism for vessels whose safety could potentially be compromised by alteration or incident.

Proposed new subsection (b) would establish a continuing inspection and assessment regime for vessels operated as party boats. Current rule requires a qualifying vessel to pass an annual safety inspection conducted by the department before it can be lawfully used as a party boat. The proposed new rule would replace the current requirement for a single annual inspection conducted by department law enforcement personnel with a new approach that would require 1) an initial comprehensive inspection/certification to be performed by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor (and department verification of other water safety requirements as a condition of licensure), followed by 2) annual water safety compliance inspections conducted by the department, and 3) additional ongoing inspections by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor no less frequently than once every five years. In addition to the serious incidents documented earlier in this preamble, the department has encountered numerous problematic issues with respect to compliance and compliance verification, highlighting not only the need for strengthening of regulatory oversight, but new approaches to providing for public safety. However, one significant operational constraint is game warden availability for inspection duties. The department’s law enforcement personnel are tasked with a wide and diverse array of enforcement responsibilities, ranging from the enforcement of recreational hunting and fishing laws to environmental, water safety, and border security matters. There are 136 party boats licensed in Texas and 182 operator licenses currently active in the state and most are concentrated around a handful of large lakes, which places a unique burden on game wardens stationed in those areas with respect to scheduling and conducting the inspections required under current rule. Therefore, the department seeks to address the issue by providing for an initial comprehensive inspection and certification to be performed by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor as opposed to a game warden (although department game wardens would still, prior to issuance, verify that initial water safety requirements have been satisfied). Not only would this approach provide for an independent, professional assessment of vessel seaworthiness and safety, it would allow party boat owners and operators greater flexibility to schedule and have inspections performed. The proposed new subsection would require an initial inspection to be performed by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor, consisting of an examination of a prospective party boat in dry dock to assess the integrity of the hull, steerage and propulsion systems, a USCG-approved stability test, and determination of an occupancy limit. The proposed rule would provide for a video inspection to be conducted in lieu of the inspection in dry dock, which is intended to provide an alternative method of compliance in instances where it is impractical or not possible for vessels to be taken out of the water. The rules would require a USCG- approved stability test because such tests are already widely performed, understood, and accepted as efficacious, which is necessary to document in writing the limitations on any given vessel necessary to prevent overloading of passengers, cargo, equipment, and fuel that could cause unsafe operational conditions.

Proposed new subsection (c) would require an annual water safety compliance inspection to be performed by the department, which would function to provide a continuous process for verifying that party boats and party boat operators are equipped and operating as required by law. The inspection would consist of confirmation of compliance with various statutory requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31 (registration, lights, sound signal devices, fire extinguishers, passenger safety information, etc.), items mandated by department rules promulgated under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31 (first-aid kit), and the possession and display of required documentation, all of which the department considers necessary to demonstrate that any given party boat or operator is operating safely as required by law.

Proposed new subsection (c) also would prescribe the process for requesting, scheduling, and performing the annual assessment inspection required under the subsection. As noted earlier, the department has experienced logistical and administrative stress with respect to inspections under the current rules. Current rules specify only that a party boat may not be operated unless an annual inspection has been performed within the previous 12 months. The department has determined that it is necessary to provide additional structure and timeliness to the process; therefore, the proposed provisions would require licensees to schedule an assessment inspection not more than 60 nor less than 30 days prior to the annual anniversary date of the inspection for initial licensure and would require the department to conduct the assessment inspection no more than 30 days prior to that date. By organizing and stratifying requests for inspection, the department can impose some sort of order on the process and avoid logjams that occur when multiple licensees wait until the last minute to obtain the inspections they cannot legally continue to operate without having.

Proposed new subsection (d) would require party boats to be inspected in dry dock or by video at five-year intervals by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor to determine the suitability of the vessel for continued use as a party boat. Party boats are not pleasure craft, they are working vessels subjected to extensive, repetitive use that can impact hull, power, and steerage systems. The department believes it is prudent and appropriate to require party boats to be inspected in dry dock (or via video) at least once every five years to ensure the integrity of such systems.

Proposed new §55.408, concerning Passenger Safety, would set forth specific provisions intended to advance the safety of passengers aboard party boats. Proposed new subsection (a) would explicitly establish the number and types of personal flotation devices that must be aboard a party boat when it is carrying passengers, including provisions intended to provide adequate water safety for children and minors.

Proposed new subsection (b) would enumerate the specific emergency procedures that a party boat operator would be required to articulate to each paying passenger aboard a party boat and require those procedures to be conspicuously posted aboard the vessel for passenger reference. Those procedures are already required under current §55.405, relating to Employer/Owner Responsibilities, and are being relocated to the new section for greater organizational sense.

Proposed new §55.410, concerning Violations and Penalties, would restate verbatim the contents of current §55.406, which is proposed for repeal to create space for proposed new §55.406, concerning Inspections and Certifications.

2. Fiscal Note.

There will be fiscal implications for persons required to comply with the rules as proposed, which are identical to those addressed in the discussion of the proposed rules impacts on small and micro businesses later in this preamble.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be the protection of public health and safety by enhanced oversight of party boat operators and the safety of other recreational users who share the water with party boats, as well as reduced burdens on first responders.

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

The department has determined that the proposed rules will impose an adverse economic effect on small businesses and microbusinesses, namely, party boat operators. Department data indicate that there are 136 party boats licensed in Texas and 182 operator licenses currently active in Texas. To ensure that this analysis fully captures all entities that could be affected by the rules, this analysis assumes that all 136 party boats owners qualify as a small or microbusiness. The department has accordingly prepared the economic impact statement and regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

The proposed rules would require prospective licensees to engage an accredited naval architect or accredited marine surveyor to perform an initial inspection of the party boat as a condition of licensure, to consist of an analysis of the vessel’s seaworthiness, a stability test, and the calculation of the maximum number of passengers the vessel is able to carry safely. Following initial licensure, the proposed rules would require an inspection by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor at least once every five years, and following significant modifications that could affect vessel stability or reportable incidents resulting in damage. The distribution and availability of the services required varies across the state, but based on cursory research, the experience of knowledgeable law enforcement personnel, and anecdotal information, the department has determined that the total cost of compliance for initial licensure could range anywhere between approximately $1,500 and $3,000 per vessel.

The cost of a stability test is dependent on the length of the vessel. The minimum length of a party boat is 30 feet and there is no maximum; however, the largest vessel currently licensed to operate as a party boat is 100 feet long. Department records indicate that there are 81 party boats of between 30 and 41 feet in length (59.5%), 33 party boats of between 41 and 51 feet in length (24.2%), nine party boats of between 51 and 61 feet in length (6.6%), three party boats of between 61 and 71 feet in length (2.2%), two party boats of between 71 and 81 feet in length (1.4%), five party boats of between 81 and 91 feet in length (3.7%), and two party boats of between 91 and 100 feet in length (1.4%). The average length of a party boat is approximately 40 feet, which is approximately 60% of the fleet. Based on observation, inquiry, and anecdotal information, the amount of time necessary to perform a stability test on a 40-foot vessel is approximately three hours. Also based on observation, inquiry, and anecdotal information, the labor cost for a stability test is approximately $120 per hour. Therefore, the department estimates the average cost for a stability analysis to be approximately $360, plus any incidentals such as travel cost, which are incident-dependent and cannot be meaningfully quantified.

The cost of performing an inspection in dry dock (removal from the water) varies, depending on where the vessel is located, the length and tonnage of the vessel, the duration of the inspection, and the business model employed by the contractor. Based on observation, inquiry, and anecdotal information, the department estimates that the cost to dry dock a vessel 40 feet or less in length is approximately $25 per foot in most locations, and the cost for vessels longer than 40 feet in length is approximately $30 per foot. Some contractors charge a flat fee of anywhere from $1,500 to $2,400 to remove vessels from the water. Again, based on observation, inquiry, and anecdotal information, the cost of the actual inspection is estimated to be approximately $190 hour and that most if not all inspections are conducted in less than three hours. Therefore, the department estimates the cost of compliance for inspection, for a 40-foot vessel (the average vessel length in the current fleet), could range from approximately $1,570 to $2,970, consisting of a $1,000 to $2,400 dry-dock fee and $570 for a three-hour inspection at $190 per hour, plus any incidentals such as travel cost, which are incident-dependent and cannot be meaningfully quantified. For the largest party boat, the department estimates the minimum cost of compliance to be approximately $3,570, consisting of a $3,000 dry dock fee and a three-hour inspection cost of $570. The rules as proposed provide for the option of a video inspection in lieu of inspection in dry dock. Based on anecdotal information and data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the department estimates that the mean hourly rate for a commercial diver to conduct a survey of a vessel is approximately $40 per hour, to which would be added the cost for an accredited marine surveyor or naval architect to review the stored media for purposes of inspection at $190 per hour. The department anticipates that the dive-time for a survey would not exceed three hours and the time to review the stored media for inspection purposes to be not more than three hours as well; therefore, the cost of compliance with respect to a video inspection in lieu of inspection in dry dock is estimated to be approximately $690.

The proposed rules would require party boats to be equipped with a functional two-way communications apparatus and a First Aid kit in good condition. Current rule requires a party boat operator to post emergency procedures for passengers, including instructions for use of a radio-telephone and the location of First Aid equipment, which suggests that such items are necessary to pass the inspection; the proposed rules would explicitly require them. The department has determined that an appropriate First Aid kit costs approximately $50 to $200. With respect to communications equipment, the department concludes that it would be very rare for a commercial vessel taking paying passengers on trips not to be equipped with some sort of ability to communicate with the shore, especially in the age of cellular phones, but estimates the cost of compliance for two-way communications capability to be anywhere from $100 to $500.

The proposed rules would require party boat operators to carry a minimum of $500,000 of liability insurance on a per-incident coverage basis (the current requirement is for $300,000 of coverage). The department has surveyed the regulated community and determined that approximately 70 percent of party boats already meet this standard, which is to be expected, as it would be prudent business practice to acknowledges the legal risks inherent in the regulated activity; however, to ensure that a credible minimum standard exists, the rules would increase the required coverage by $200,000 to reflect the increase in the Consumer Price Index since 2007. The department estimates that the proposed rules, if adopted, would result in an additional cost of approximately $4,000 per license related to insurance. This figure is based on communications with the regulated community indicating annual premiums of approximately $3,000 for the current minimum coverage and $7,000 for licensees who are already insured at the proposed $500,000 minimum coverage. The department notes again, that most and nearly all members of the regulated community carry liability insurance with coverage of $500,000 or greater.

The department has determined that the proposed rules will not impose a direct adverse economic impact on rural communities, as the proposed rules would not directly regulate any local community.

The department considered several alternatives to the rules as proposed.

One alternative considered was status quo. The department rejected this alternative because it has determined that the current rules are insufficient in achieving a statutorily mandated duty to protect public health and safety with respect to regulation of party boats.

Another alternative considered was to increase law enforcement presence and effort on inland waters. This alternative was rejected because current department law enforcement commitments do not allow shifting of sufficient enforcement resources to party boat operations without negatively impacting other enforcement obligations.

A third alternative considered was to increase education and outreach efforts and rely upon the “honor system” to create a safe environment for the public with respect to party boat operations in the state. This alternative was rejected because the current state of affairs demonstrates that the current rules are not sufficient to discharge the agency’s statutory duty to protect the public health and safety; thus, if the “honor system” concept was efficacious, the need for the proposed rules would not exist.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of a fee;

(5) not create a new regulation, but will expand an existing regulation (by requiring third-party inspections and certifications of party boats and increasing the minimum liability insurance required for party boats);

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Assistant Commander Cody Jones, Boating Law Administrator, at 512.389.4624, email: cody.jones@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at www.tpwd.texas.gov.

5. Statutory Authority.

The repeals, amendments, and new sections are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.176, which requires the commission to promulgate rules regarding the requirements and procedures for the issuance and renewal of a party boat operator license to protect the public health and safety, and §31.180, which requires the commission to adopt and enforce rules necessary to implement Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31, Subchapter G.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31.

6. Rule Text.

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

(1) Inland waters — all public waters of this state that lie:

(A) entirely within the state; and

(B) are not designated as navigable waters by the United States Coast Guard (USCG)[on the landward side of the coastal waters boundary as defined in §65.3(15) of this title (relating to Definitions)].

(2) Party boat — a vessel meeting the definition of "party boat" established in Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.171(2).

(3) Passenger — a person carried on board a party boat, but does not include:

(A) the vessel owner or the owner’s agent;

(B) the vessel’s operator or crew members, if they have not provided a consideration for their transportation before, during, or after the voyage; or

(4) Owner’s Agent – Any person engaged, authorized, or otherwise allowed, directly or indirectly via an intermediary, to operate a vessel that is not owned by the person but is subject to the provisions of this subchapter.

(5) Accredited Marine Surveyor — A person accredited by one of the following organizations:

(A) National Association of Marine Surveyors (NAMSGlobal);

(B) Society of Accredited Marine Surveyors (SAMS);

(C) Association of Certified Marine Surveyors (ACMS); or

(D) United States Surveyors Association (USSA) / NAVTECH.

(6) Accredited Naval Architect—A person accredited by one of the following organizations:

(A) Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME); or

(B) American Society of Naval Engineers (ASNE).

(7) Stability Letter—An affidavit from a naval architect or accredited marine surveyor attesting to the loading limits necessary for the safe operation of a vessel used as a party boat. For the purposes of this subchapter, a stability letter must specifically identify the number of persons that may be aboard the vessel without compromising vessel stability with respect to capsizing (hereinafter, “occupancy limit”).

§55.402. Applicability and Exceptions.

(a) This subchapter applies to a party boat that operates on inland waters of this state.

(b) The annual water safety inspection required by this §55.406(c) of this title (relating to Inspections and Certifications)[§55.405(a) of this title (relating to Employer/Owner Responsibilities)] is not required for a vessel that:

(1) is carrying passengers for hire; and

(2) carries a valid and current certificate of inspection issued pursuant to federal law.

[(1)] a valid and current federal pilot’s or captain’s license issued by the United States Coast Guard or other federal agency.[; or]

[(2) a valid license, issued by a state that shares a body of water with Texas, that is substantively similar in effect and scope to the party boat operator license required by this subchapter, provided:]

[(A) the issuing state allows Texas vessels to operate in the shared waters under the same conditions; and]

[(B) the party boat is operated only in waters shared by the issuing state and the state of Texas.]

(d) This subchapter does not apply to:

(1) a boat that is less than 30 feet in length;

(2) a sailboat; or

[(3) a vessel rented out for profit under a written contract by a vessel livery, as defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.003(8), where all responsibility and liability for operating and provisioning the vessel is assumed by the party renting the vessel; or]

(3)[(4)] any vessel used for training or instructional purposes while it is not being used as a party boat.

§55.403. License Required.

(a) A person may not operate a party boat unless the person:

(1) has in the person’s immediate possession:

(A) a party boat operator’s license issued by the department; or

(B) a current and valid USCG pilot or captain’s license; or

(2) is learning to operate the party boat for the purpose of acquiring a party boat operator’s license and:

(A) is an employee of the owner of the party boat or the owner’s agent; and

(B) is accompanied by a holder of a party boat operator’s license issued by the department and the license holder occupies a space beside the unlicensed operator for the purpose of giving instruction on operating the party boat.

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under subsection (a)(1) of this section that the person charged produces in court:

(1) a party boat operator’s license that was issued to the person and was valid when the offense was committed; or

(2) a current and valid pilot or captain’s license issue by the USCG [a valid license, issued by a state that shares a body of water with Texas, that is substantively similar in effect and scope to the party boat operator license required by this subchapter, provided:]

[(A) the issuing state allows Texas vessels to operate in the shared waters under the same conditions; and]

[(B) the party boat is operated only in waters shared by the issuing state and the state of Texas.]

§55.405. Employer/Owner Responsibilities.

(a) The owner of a vessel meeting the definition of a party boat may not operate or allow the operation of that vessel[a boat] as a party boat unless:

(1) the vessel and the owner are in compliance with the provisions of this subchapter with regard to inspections and certifications required under this subchapter[it has passed an annual water safety inspection conducted or authorized by the department within the previous 12 months]; or

(2) a current, valid, applicable USGS Certificate of Inspection as provided in 46 CFR Subchapter K or T has been issued for the vessel.

(b) The owner of a party boat shall maintain liability insurance of at least $500,000 per incident from an insurance provider authorized to do business in Texas. Proof of insurance must be:

(1) kept aboard the party boat at all times; and

(2) made available for inspection during normal business hours at the request of any department employee acting within the scope of official duties. [The owner of a party boat must maintain at least a minimum of $300,000 of liability insurance from an insurer licensed to do business in this state.]

(1) permit a person to operate a party boat at any time that the person is prohibited under the provisions of this subchapter from operating a party boat; or

(2) train a person to operate a party boat for purposes of obtaining a party boat operator’s license unless the person is employed by the owner and has completed a boating safety course approved by the department. This paragraph does not apply if six or fewer passengers are aboard at the time a person is being trained.

(d) All documentation required by this subchapter shall be retained for a period of two years from the date the document or digital media is created and made available for inspection during normal business hours at the request of any department employee acting within the scope of official duties.

[(d) The owner of a party boat shall ensure that a list of emergency procedures is posted in a conspicuous location on a party boat at all times that paying passengers are aboard the vessel. The list shall set forth, at a minimum, procedures or instructions for the following:]

[(1) use of radio-telephone, if the vessel is equipped with a radio-telephone;]

[(2) man overboard;]

[(3) fire or explosion;]

[(4) leaks or damage control;]

[(5) location of personal flotation devices;]

[(6) location of escape hatches and escape routes;]

[(7) abandoning ship; and]

[(8) location of first-aid kit.]

[(e) On vessels that do not have or are not required to have a vessel capacity plate, the passenger capacity may be determined from the application of any one of the following formulae to the vessel:]

[(1) one passenger per 30 inches of rail space available to passengers at the vessel’s sides and across the transom;]

[(2) one passenger per 10 square feet of deck area available for passenger use, not including concession stands, toilets, washrooms, companionways, or stairways; and]

[(3) one passenger per 18 inches of width of fixed seating area provided.]

§55.406. Inspections and Certifications.

(a) General.

(1) It is an offense for a party boat owner to operate or allow the operation of a party boat unless the vessel has been inspected and certified as suitable for use as a party boat as prescribed in this section.

(2) The owner of a party boat shall ensure that a stability test is performed by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor if:

(A) the vessel’s structure or equipment (including, but not limited to, engines, generators, motors, air conditioning units or other major electrical or mechanical systems or components) have been modified to the extent that the weight or weight distribution of the vessel affects or could affect the stability of the vessel under normal operating conditions; or

(B) the vessel is involved in a reportable incident described by Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.105. This subparagraph does not apply to a reportable incident that does not involve physical damage to the party boat.

(C) A vessel subject to the provisions of this paragraph may not be used as a party boat until:

(i) the stability test required under this paragraph has been performed by an accredited naval architect or surveyor; and

(ii) the owner or owner’s agent has submitted the resulting stability letter to the department and received written authorization to resume operation of the vessel as a party boat.

(b) Initial and Continuing Inspection/Certification. A vessel that has never been inspected for use as a party boat must undergo an initial inspection as provided in this paragraph before being used as a party boat. The initial inspection shall be conducted by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor and shall consist of:

(1) an examination of the vessel in dry dock (including, but not limited to an assessment of the integrity of the vessel’s hull and the external steerage and propulsion system components);

(2) a USCG-approved stability test for the type and size of boat, which must be compliant with the current Assumed Average Weight per Person standard adopted by the USCG for the type and size of boat; and

(3) a statement signed by the accredited naval architect or marine surveyor who conducted the inspection attesting to:

(A) the suitability and safety of the vessel for use as a party boat; and

(B) the occupancy limit of the vessel, to include, if the vessel has multiple decks, the maximum number of persons the boat can safely carry on each deck, together and separately.

(4) A vessel may not be used as a party boat until:

(A) the statement required by paragraph (3) of this paragraph has been submitted to the department; and

(B) the owner or owner’s agent has received acknowledgment from the department that the statement has been received.

(C) The acknowledgment required by this paragraph must be maintained by the owner or agent and made available at the request of any department employee acting within the scope of official duties.

(5) In lieu of an examination in dry dock, the inspection required by this subsection may be performed on the vessel while it is in the water, provided the entire examination is recorded on digital media in such a fashion as to provide visual clarity of detail necessary to determine the seaworthiness of the hull and the integrity of all mechanical components of the vessel that are below the waterline.

(c) Annual Water Safety Compliance Inspection and Certification.

(1) Following the inspection and certification required under subsection (a) of this section and continuing for as long as the vessel is used as a party boat, a party boat shall undergo an annual water safety compliance inspection as prescribed in this subsection.

(2) The inspection required under this subsection shall consist of the department’s verification of:

(A) All applicable requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31, relating or applicable to boat registration, titling, lighting, signaling, and safety equipment;

(B) a current stability letter posted aboard the vessel in compliance with the provisions of this subchapter;

(C) a First Aid kit in good condition aboard the vessel;

(D) an effectively functional two-way communication device (VHF radio or cellular phone with service) aboard the vessel;

(E) the list of emergency procedures enumerated in §55.408 of this title (relating to Passenger Safety), prominently posted in a conspicuous place for the benefit of passengers;

(F) all documentation, including proof of liability insurance, required by this subchapter and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31; and

(G) the log or records required under the provisions of §55.408(b) of this title indicating that emergency procedures have been communicated to passengers.

(3) The annual water safety inspection required by this subsection shall be conducted not more than 30 days prior to the immediately following anniversary of the initial inspection and certification required under subsection (a) of this section.

(4) A permitee must schedule the annual water safety inspection with the department in advance by completing and submitting a request to the department on a form supplied or provided by the department for that purpose.

(A) The request shall be submitted to the department not more than 60 days nor less than 30 days prior to the repetition of the anniversary of the initial inspection required under subsection (a) of this section. The department will establish a mutually acceptable date for the annual water safety inspection.

(B) The department will not conduct an annual water safety inspection if the owner or representative is not present at the place, date, and time established for the annual water safety inspection under the provisions of subparagraph (A) of this paragraph.

(C) When an annual water safety inspection required by this subsection reflects compliance with the applicable requirements of this subchapter and Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 31, the department will provide the owner or representative with documentation of the inspection and the vessel may then be lawfully used as a party boat. Such documentation shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous location aboard the vessel.

(5) If the annual water safety inspection required by this subsection is not performed before one year has passed since the date of the previous annual inspection, the vessel may not be used as a party boat until an inspection meeting the requirements of subsection (b) of this section has been performed.

(d) Five-year Inspection and Certification.

(1) Beginning the date of the initial inspection, stability test, and certification required by subsection (b) of this section or the effective date of this section, the owner of a party boat shall ensure that an examination of the vessel meeting the requirements of subsection (b) of this section is conducted by an accredited naval architect or marine surveyor not less than once every five years, as applicable.

(2) A statement signed by the accredited naval architect or marine surveyor who conducted the inspection, attesting to whether the vessel is or is not suitable for use as a party boat, must be submitted to the department within 30 days of the inspection required by this subsection. A vessel may not be used as a party boat until:

(A) the statement required by this paragraph has been submitted to the department; and

(B) the owner or owner’s agent has received acknowledgment from the department that the statement has been received.

(C) The acknowledgment required under this paragraph must be maintained by the owner or agent and made available at the request of any department employee acting within the scope of official duties.

(3) A vessel may not be operated as a party boat if the vessel or owner is not in compliance with the provisions of this subsection, if applicable, and must be inspected and certified as described by subsection (b) of this section before being used as a party boat again.

(4) In lieu of an examination in dry dock, the inspection required by this subsection may be performed on the vessel while it is in the water, provided the entire examination is recorded on digital media in such a fashion as to provide visual clarity of detail necessary to determine the seaworthiness of the hull and the integrity of all mechanical components of the vessel that are below the waterline.

§55.408. Passenger Safety.

(a) Personal flotation devices. It is unlawful to operate a party boat unless it carries:

(1) serviceable USCG-approved, wearable personal flotation devices meeting the requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code §31.066, in a number equivalent to the occupancy limit indicated on the annual inspection certificate issued by the department under this subchapter; and

(2) an additional number of personal flotation devices suitable for children equal to at least 10 percent of the occupancy limit established for the vessel under this subchapter. If more than 10% of the passengers on any voyage are children, a personal flotation device appropriate for children must be present for each child. For purposes of this subchapter, a child is any person younger than 13 years of age.

(b) Emergency Procedures.

(1) The owner of a party boat shall ensure, prior to the departure of the party boat from the dock, pier, or mooring where passengers board the vessel, that the safety procedures enumerated in paragraph (2) of this subsection have been presented and explained, verbally or in written form, to each passenger aboard the vessel, and that each passenger signs and dates an affidavit or log attesting to that fact.

(2) At all times that passengers are aboard a party boat, a list of emergency procedures shall be prominently displayed in a conspicuous place on the vessel. The list required by this subparagraph shall set forth, at a minimum, the procedures or instructions for:

(A) use of radio or telephone;

(B) man overboard;

(C) fire or explosion;

(D) leaks or damage control;

(E) location of personal flotation devices;

(F) location of escape hatches and escape routes;

(G) abandoning ship; and

(H) location of first-aid kit.

§55.410. Violations and Penalties. A violation of any provision of this subchapter is punishable as prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.127.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 10

Presenter: Michael Tennant

Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants
Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed changes to rules governing harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, and aquatic plants. The proposed changes would authorize and create special provisions for the commercial cultivation of dotted duckweed (Landoltia punctata) in specifically permitted facilities.

II. Discussion: Under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapter 66, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission is authorized to designate nonindigenous (exotic) species of plants as harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic species and regulate their importation, possession, sale, and introduction of such species into public waters.

Under current rule, it is unlawful to possess or cultivate dotted duckweed. The department recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting modification of current rules to allow the cultivation of dotted duckweed for production of a food protein product. Staff conducted a risk analysis and determined that with appropriate facility standards and biosecurity measures in place, the likelihood of dotted duckweed’s escape and proliferation would be acceptably low. The proposed changes would allow commercial aquaculture facilities to grow, process, sell, and transport dotted duckweed under appropriate containment and biosecurity measures, such as requiring all culture and processing to take place within approved enclosures, and the imposition of pond treatment and drainage standards to ensure that all water discharges are free of viable plant life.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Harmful and Potentially Harmful Exotic Aquatic Plants – Cultivation of Dotted Duckweed

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

HARMFUL AND POTENTIALLY HARMFUL EXOTIC AQUATIC PLANTS

CULTIVATION OF DOTTED DUCKWEED

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to 31 TAC §57.114 and new §57.129, concerning Harmful and Potentially Harmful Exotic Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants. The proposed rules would authorize the issuance of permits for the possession, cultivation, sale, and transport of dotted duckweed (Landoltia punctata) under specific conditions.

Under current rule (§57.112(3)(C)(i)), dotted duckweed is designated a prohibited harmful or potentially harmful exotic aquatic plant and cannot be cultivated for commercial purposes. The department recently received a petition for rulemaking requesting the alteration of current rules to create an exception allowing the commercial cultivation of dotted duckweed under the existing commercial aquaculture permit. After comprehensive analysis of all significant parameters, the department determined that dotted duckweed can be safely cultivated, provided all culture and handling occurs in fully enclosed facilities under appropriate biosecurity standards. Dotted duckweed is a small, floating exotic aquatic plant native to Australia and Southeast Asia that is distributed easily via multiple transport pathways, has a high growth and propagation rate, and is known to outcompete native plant species. Climate match analysis indicates it could survive and become established in public waters throughout most of Texas should it escape culture, and it is deemed likely to have potential to become particularly problematic in smaller water bodies because it forms dense mats capable of suppressing native plants and potential degradation of sportfish habitat. Dotted duckweed can be easily transported to new water bodies by waterfowl, watercraft, and aquarium dumping, presenting a high spread potential should it escape. Notwithstanding, based on careful consideration of biosecurity risks associated with the proposed activity and escapement risk mitigation feasibility, staff has determined that under appropriate biosecurity and monitoring provisions there is an acceptably minimal, though not zero, risk of escape.

The amendment to §57.114, concerning Controlled Exotic Species Permit, would provide for the issuance of a commercial aquaculture facility permit for the possession, culture, sale, and transport of dotted duckweed.

Proposed new §57.129, concerning Special Provisions — Dotted Duckweed, would establish facility and processing standards that specifically apply to the cultivation of dotted duckweed.

Proposed new subsection (a)(1) would stipulate that the provisions of the proposed new section would be in addition to the minimum facility requirements already imposed by the subchapter, which is necessary to prevent confusion or misunderstanding. The proposed new section also would define the term “culture pond” as “any reservoir of water used as media for the cultivation and harvest of dotted duckweed in a facility permitted to do so under this subchapter,” which is necessary to provide an unambiguous meaning of that term for purposes of compliance, administration, and enforcement.

Proposed new subsection (a)(2) would provide that the department will not issue a permit under the section for a facility located in a part of the state that is both south of SH 21 and east of I-35. The proposed provision is necessary because there is a significant portion of the state that regularly experiences, has experienced, or is at risk of experiencing inundation during hurricane events, which could result in escapement of dotted duckweed to surrounding aquatic systems. The department has determined that there is a significant enough potential threat to native species and systems to justify restricting the culture of dotted duckweed to areas of the state not likely to be affected by hurricane-related inundation events.

Proposed new subsection (b) would set forth the requirements for water handling within facilities permitted to culture dotted duckweed to minimize escape risks. New subsection (b)(1) would prohibit the draining of any water from culture ponds unless it has been chemically treated in accordance with applicable law to kill all dotted duckweed that may be present. The provision is necessary, in concert with the provisions of proposed new subsection (b)(2), to ensure that water leaving any facility is free of viable dotted duckweed. Proposed new subsection (b)(2) would require all water leaving a facility to be passed through equipment that reduces plant material to a size of 100 micrometers or smaller (based upon seed size), which must be maintained to meet the regulatory standard at all times. The department has determined that the combination of chemical and physical treatments of culture media result in reasonable confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not escape from facilities where it is cultivated. Proposed new paragraph (b)(3) would explicitly state that it is an offense for any person to allow or cause culture pond water to drain into any ditch, storm drain, channel, conduit, stream, or other pathway that drains into or could drain into public water to provide reasonable confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not be spread to the environment. The department wishes to make absolutely and unmistakably clear that failure to contain dotted duckweed as a result of pond draining procedures is a crime.

Proposed new subsection (c) would establish facility standards where dotted duckweed is authorized to be cultured. Proposed new subsection (c)(1) would require all facilities and infrastructure used for the culture, harvesting, and packaging of dotted duckweed to be completely enclosed within a permanent, department-approved structure. The provision is necessary to ensure that there is a physical barrier at all times between viable dotted duckweed and the external environment. Proposed new subsection (c)(2) would require all points of entry or access to structures containing viable dotted duckweed to be kept closed except for immediate use for ingress or egress of personnel, equipment, or machinery. The provision is necessary to minimize, to the greatest extent practicable, the opportunity for waterfowl or other vectors to transport dotted duckweed from facilities to the external environment.

Proposed new subsection (d) would prescribe best practices for the processing and transport of dotted duckweed. Proposed new subsection (d)(1) would stipulate that the processing of dotted duckweed occur only within permitted facilities, and reiterate that allowing dotted duckweed to leave a facility except as provided by rule is a criminal offense. The provision is necessary to make it abundantly clear that dotted duckweed cannot be removed or allowed to leave a facility except as specifically provided by rule.

Proposed new subsection (d)(2) would prohibit the removal of dotted duckweed and any byproducts of the processing of dotted duckweed from a facility unless it has been passed through at least one department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers, and for all such equipment to be constantly maintained to achieve this standard. As noted previously in this preamble, the department has determined that physical treatment of organic material to render it non-viable is necessary to provide reasonable confidence that viable dotted duckweed will not be spread to the environment from facilities where it is cultivated.

Proposed new subsection (d)(3) would specifically authorize the possession, transport, sale, and export of non-viable dotted duckweed remnants and plant material byproducts. The department has determined that upon satisfaction of the various provisions of the rules, there is no longer a need to regulate the possession of materials that are incapable of negative impacts to native ecosystems.

Proposed new subsection (e) would require a permittee to ensure that all water and wastewater discharges at a facility are compliant with applicable rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, which is necessary because such requirements may differ from animal aquaculture wastewater discharge authorization requirements applicable to other permitted aquaculture facilities.

2. Fiscal Note.

Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be minimal fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the rules. The department estimates that at least one controlled exotic species commercial aquaculture permit will be issued for dotted duckweed, resulting in first-year revenue to the department of $263. For each year after initial permit issuance, a permit may be renewed for one year at $74, three years at $168, or five years at $263, contingent upon compliance history.

There will be no fiscal implications for other units of state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be adequate protection of public natural resources.

There will be adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed, which are addressed later in this preamble in the analysis of the effect of the rules on small business, microbusiness, and rural communities. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, the department is aware of one entity that would engage in the culture of dotted duckweed if the rules as proposed are adopted, and that entity already meets the requirements of the proposed rules; thus, the estimated adverse economic effects of the rules would apply only to future applicants, if there are any.

The department is aware of one small business that would be engaged in the cultivation of dotted duckweed if the rules as proposed are adopted, namely, the petitioner. The rules as proposed would require the construction of some kind of permanent structure to house culture ponds and processing areas and require chemical and mechanical treatment of plant material and culture media. The entity that has petitioned the department is already culturing similar but non-prohibited species of aquatic plants in structures that would be compliant with the requirements of the proposed rules, using maceration equipment that also is compliant with the requirements of the proposed rules, and already possesses pesticides meeting the requirements of the proposed rule; thus, for the only small or microbusiness known or expected to be affected by the rules as proposed, there would be no direct adverse economic impacts or minimal adverse economic impacts. The department has no method of determining the future demand for permits to cultivate dotted duckweed; however, initial costs for prospective permittees would consist of approximately $3,000-$12,000 per greenhouse (enclosed structure), approximately $500 per macerator pump per facility or per greenhouse (dependent upon facility operational parameters); and approximately $500 for pesticides sufficient for one water draining event per year. The department notes that the rules do not stipulate specific construction materials or design elements for greenhouses, only that whatever structure is built must completely enclose all culture ponds and, in the determination of the department, function as a credible physical barrier between the culture ponds and the external environment; therefore, there is wide variability in possible structures and associated construction costs, ranging from simple hoop structures to more complex structures, as well a variety of materials, from hardened plastic or glass to wood or metal.

The department has determined that the rules as proposed will not have any direct economic effect on any rural community.

The department considered several alternatives to the rules as proposed.

One alternative considered was to remove dotted duckweed from the list of exotic harmful or potentially harmful plants, which would allow the cultivation of dotted duckweed without regulatory oversight, including by aquarium hobbyists. This alternative was rejected because the department has an affirmative duty under the Parks and Wildlife Code to protect native systems and species from harmful exotic species and unregulated possession of dotted duckweed is highly likely to result in escape.

One alternative was to do nothing and maintain status quo, leaving the possession and cultivation of dotted duckweed illegal. This alternative was rejected because the staff recommendation regarding the petition for rulemaking was to proceed to rulemaking.

Another alternative was to prescribe more prescriptive facility requirements to absolutely and definitively preclude the possible escape of dotted duckweed. This alternative was rejected because staff has determined that the measures as proposed are believed to be an appropriate and sensible accommodation of the petitioner’s request while discharging the regulatory responsibilities of the department under the Parks and Wildlife Code.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

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

(5) not create or repeal an existing regulation, but will expand an existing regulation (by adding dotted duckweed to the list of species for which commercial culture is permitted);

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Monica McGarrity, Senior Scientist for Aquatic Invasive Species, e-mail: monica.mcgarrity@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at http://www.tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which authorizes the department to make rules necessary to authorize the import, possession, sale, or introduction of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 66.

6. Rule Text.

§57.114. Controlled Exotic Species Permit.

(a) (No change.)

(b) Commercial Aquaculture Facility Permits.

(1) Controlled exotic species facility permits may be issued for commercial aquaculture, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, only for the following species:

(A) – (C) (No change.)

(D) Dotted duckweed — (Landoltia punctata) in compliance with the provisions of §57.129 of this title (relating to Special Provisions—Dotted Duckweed).

(2) (No change.)

§57.129. Special Provisions — Dotted Duckweed.

(a) General.

(1) In addition to the requirements of the provisions of §57.119 of this title (relating to Minimum Facility Requirements), the provisions of this section apply to facilities permitted to culture dotted duckweed under the provisions of this subchapter. For the purposes of this section, a culture pond is any reservoir of water used as media for the cultivation and harvest of dotted duckweed in a facility permitted to do so under this subchapter.

(2) The department will not approve a permit under this section for any facility located in a part of the state that is both south of State Highway 21 and east of I-35.

(b) Culture ponds.

(1) Water may not be drained from a culture pond until all dotted duckweed in the culture pond has been killed in accordance with applicable law by application of pesticides or other chemicals approved for aquatic use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Texas Department of Agriculture.

(2) No water from a culture pond may be allowed to exit a greenhouse or other such confinement structure unless all culture pond water and plant material have been passed through at least one macerator pump or similar department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers. All equipment required by this subparagraph shall be maintained to ensure the particle size limit established by this subparagraph is not exceeded at any time.

(3) It is an offense for any person to allow or cause culture pond water to drain into any ditch, storm drain, channel, conduit, stream, or other pathway that drains into or could drain into public water.

(c) Facility requirements.

(1) All culture ponds and harvesting equipment (including but not limited to conveyor belts, transport infrastructure, processing infrastructure, and all other equipment or infrastructure associated with culture, harvest, and transport of dotted duckweed) within a facility shall be fully enclosed within a permanent, department-approved structure such as a greenhouse or other enclosure that the department determines is sufficient to prevent the escape of dotted duckweed.

(2) All doors and access points to greenhouses or structures used to enclose culture ponds and all access points to infrastructure used to transport dotted duckweed shall remain closed at all times except for purposes of immediate use for ingress or egress of personnel, equipment, or machinery.

(d) Processing requirements.

(1) Dotted duckweed may be processed only within a permitted aquaculture facility. Except as provided for drainwater under paragraph (1) of this subsection, it is an offense for any person to allow or cause dotted duckweed to leave a facility for any reason.

(2) No plant material, including dotted duckweed and any byproducts or remnants of processing operations, may be removed from the permitted facility for any reason unless it has been passed through at least one macerator pump or similar department-approved mechanical device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers. All equipment required by this subparagraph shall be maintained to ensure the particle size limit established by this subparagraph is not exceeded at any time.

(3) Dotted duckweed remnants and plant material byproducts that have been rendered non-viable in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph may be possessed, transported, sold, or exported without a controlled exotic species permit.

(e) Wastewater discharge. A permittee shall ensure that all discharge of wastewater from a permitted facility occurs in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Presenter: Trey Vick

Disposition of Land – San Patricio County
Approximately 8.1 Acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: The City of Corpus Christi requests a disposition of land at Lake Corpus Christi State Park to allow the City of Mathis to install and maintain water wells to meet urgent public water needs.

II. Discussion: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) operates Lake Corpus Christi State Park in San Patricio County on land leased from the City of Corpus Christi, with a current lease term through 2052. The park provides access to the 18,256-acre Lake Corpus Christi and various recreational opportunities, such as paddling, fishing, birding, and camping.

The City of Corpus Christi approached staff requesting the release of 8.1 acres from the lease, to allow the City of Corpus Christi to lease that area to the City of Mathis for the installation and maintenance of water wells adjacent to an existing City of Mathis water treatment plant. The 8.1 acres is composed of two tracts. One tract is approximately 5.5 acres, and the second tract is approximately 2.6 acres. The subject tracts of land do not currently provide recreational opportunities to the public, and disposition of the tracts will not hinder current park operations.

Staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 4

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Area Map
Exhibit D – Location of Disposition of Land

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Lake Corpus Christi State Park
San Patricio County

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Lake Corpus Christi State Park
Approximately 40 Miles Northwest of Corpus Christi

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit C

Area Map of Lake Corpus Christi State Park
Mathis, Texas

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit D

Location of Disposition of Land
Lake Corpus Christi State Park in Red
Requested Relinquishment in Yellow
City of Mathis' Current Ownership in Green

Work Session Agenda Item 12

Presenter: Trey Vick

Exchange of Land – Bexar County
Approximately 3 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff request authorization to pursue an exchange of land of approximately 3 acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area (SNA) with the Bexar County Emergency Services District 7 (ESD 7). The city has requested the exchange to facilitate the construction of a new fire station.

II. Discussion: Government Canyon SNA consists of approximately 12,000 acres situated along the edge of the Balcones Escarpment on the northwest side of San Antonio. The SNA is a karst preserve protecting the quality and supply of fresh water to the Edwards Aquifer, where topography and stratigraphy recharge the aquifer through a series of subterranean cracks and caves. The SNA protects thousands of acres of the aquifer’s recharge zone, as well as portions of the contributing and artesian zones. In addition, these crevices, fissures, and springs are home to several endangered invertebrates found nowhere else in the world.

The Bexar County ESD 7 has requested an exchange of land with Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) of approximately 3 acres to construct a new fire station to serve the Kallison Ranch neighborhood and the surrounding community. TPWD and the Bexar County ESD 7 have worked in partnership to identify the two 3-acre parcels, one from each party, to complete the exchange of land. The disposition tract is away from the main body of the park and will not affect public recreation or park operations. This transaction will provide additional fire coverage for the park and surrounding areas and is an overall benefit for the park and the public.

Staff request permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 5

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Area Map
Exhibit D – Proposed Exchange of Land Area One
Exhibit E – Proposed Exchange of Land Area Two

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit A

Location Map for Government Canyon State Natural Area
Bexar County

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Government Canyon State Natural Area
San Antonio, Texas

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit C

Area Map
Government Canyon State Natural Area Outlined in Red
Focus Areas Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit D

Proposed Exchange of Land Area One
Government Canyon State Natural Area Outlined in Red
Bexar County ESD 7 Ownership Outlined in Green
Proposed Land Swap from Bexar County ESD 7 to TPWD Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit E

Proposed Exchange of Land Area Two
Government Canyon State Natural Area Outlined in Red
Proposed Land Swap from TPWD to Bexar County ESD 7 Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 16

Presenter: Trey Vick

Land Acquisition – Brazoria County
Approximately 2,500 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point)
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue a 2,500-acre parcel that is adjacent to the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (WMA) (Peach Point). This tract is available from a willing seller. It would add operational utility and additional recreational opportunities to the WMA and further protect the habitat of the coastal prairie landscape.

II. Discussion: The Justin Hurst WMA consists of 14,771 acres of coastal prairies, bottomland hardwoods, and marshes and serves as significant habitat for several resident and migratory species, including waterfowl and wading birds. It is bordered on the north by the Village of Jones Creek, on the east by Port of Freeport lands, and on the south by the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.

The Coastal Prairie Conservancy (CPC) has identified a 2,500-acre tract adjacent to the WMA that is available from a willing seller. The current plan is for CPC to purchase the property and then donate it to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 3

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Site Map of Proposed Acquisition

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point)
Brazoria County

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point)
Approximately 60 Miles South of Houston

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit C

Site Map of Proposed Acquisition
Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point) Outlined in Red
Subject Tract Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 17

Presenter: Jacob Aston

Request for Utility Easement – El Paso County
Approximately 1 Acre at Franklin Mountains State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to grant El Paso Electric an easement of approximately 1 acre at Franklin Mountains State Park to connect a new sub-station to an existing transmission line on the park.

II. Discussion: Franklin Mountains State Park was acquired in 1981 and opened in 1987. It is one of the largest urban parks in the nation at over 26,000 acres. The park offers a variety of recreational opportunities, including hiking, camping, biking, rock climbing, and wildlife viewing. The park hosts a very robust and diverse ecosystem of reptiles, mammals, and over 100 species of birds.

El Paso Electric requests an easement crossing into the park to connect a new sub-station, located directly outside of the park, to an existing transmission line within the park. The easement would be approximately 0.25 miles in length and approximately 1 acre in total area. Staff will require the line be buried to minimize impacts to the viewshed and natural resources.

Staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 4

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Area Map
Exhibit D – Site Map of Requested Easement

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Franklin Mountains State Park
El Paso County

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Franklin Mountains State Park
El Paso County

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit C

Area Map of Franklin Mountains State Park
El Paso, Texas

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit D

Site Map of Requested Easement
Franklin Mountains State Park in Red
Requested Easement in Yellow
Proposed Sub-station and Connecting Line in Green

Work Session Agenda Item 18

Presenter: Jacob Aston

Land Acquisition – Limestone County
Approximately 6 Acres at Fort Parker State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to acquire a 6-acre parcel adjacent to Fort Parker State Park. This tract is available for acquisition from a willing seller and would add operational utility to the park, protect the park’s viewshed, and remove an inholding from the park.

II. Discussion: Fort Parker State Park sits outside of the city of Mexia along the Navasota River in Limestone County, approximately 90 miles south of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. The park totals approximately 1,500 acres of land, which was donated by three local families, and was constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in 1935. While the park was under construction, the CCC constructed a dam across the Navasota River, creating Fort Parker Lake, and built a replica of the original Fort Parker. The park opened in 1941 and currently provides recreational opportunities to the public like camping, fishing, hiking, nature viewing, and paddling.

Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and adjacent properties from willing sellers to minimize operational and management conflicts and ensure the conservation of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department public lands. Staff has identified a 6-acre tract adjacent to Fort Parker State Park that is available for acquisition from a willing seller. Currently, access to the tract is through the park on Park Road 28, so the tract is functionally a private inholding. Acquisition of the subject tract would eliminate potential access issues with future owners, prevent further development, and add operational utility to the park.

Staff requests permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 3

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Site Map of Proposed Acquisition

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit A

Location Map for Fort Parker State Park
Limestone County

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Fort Parker State Park
Approximately 40 Miles East of Waco

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit C

Site Map of Proposed Acquisition
Fort Parker State Park Outlined in Red
Subject Tract Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 19

Presenter: Zeke Sanchez

Land Acquisition – Marion County
Approximately 78 Acres at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue a 78-acre parcel that is an inholding at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area (WMA). This tract is available from a willing seller and would help provide greater continuity of ownership.

II. Discussion: Caddo Lake State Park was established in the 1930s on the south shore of Caddo Lake in Harrison County. Over time, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) expanded the park north across the lake, covering several thousand more acres. In 1997, the TPWD land holdings on the north side of the lake in Marion County were re-designated as a wildlife management area and their management assigned to the TPWD Wildlife Division. Today, the WMA consists of roughly 8,100 acres that protect much of the lake and the adjacent swamps, floodplains, slopes, and upland forests that exemplify the habitats of northeast Texas.

Staff has identified an approximately 78-acre inholding at Caddo Lake WMA that is available from a willing seller. This acquisition will provide greater continuity of ownership within the WMA and prevents future ownership of an inholding. This acquisition also helps to further protect native habitat and provides additional recreational opportunities.

Staff request permission to begin the public notice and input process.

Attachments – 3

Exhibit A – Location Map
Exhibit B – Vicinity Map
Exhibit C – Site Map of Proposed Acquisition

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit A

Location Map for Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area
Marion County

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area
Approximately 20 Miles Northeast of Marshall

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit C

Site Map of Proposed Acquisition
Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area State Outlined in Red
Subject Tract Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 20

Presenter: Zeke Sanchez

Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects

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

Work Session Agenda Item 21

Presenter: James Murphy

Litigation Update

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

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 20-21, 2025, Transcripts

Work Session Wednesday, November 5, 2025 9:00 a.m. MST

Agenda

Land and Water Plan

Financial

Natural Resources

Land Conservation

Executive Session

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 1

Update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Progress in Implementing the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Land and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation Plan

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Internal Audit Update

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Nonprofit Partner Rules – Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 3Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 5

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – Senate Bill 1245 – Relating to the Take of Aoudad Sheep by Using a Helicopter – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 5Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 6

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

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 6Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 7

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – Senate Bill 2801 Relating to a Permit Issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department for Certain Hunting Dog Field Trials; Authorizing a Fee Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachments – 3

Work Session Agenda Item 7Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 7Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 7Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 8

2026-2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 8Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 9

Party Boat RulesRequest Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 9Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 10

Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic PlantsSpecial Provisions for Dotted Duckweed Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 10Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Disposition of Land – San Patricio CountyApproximately 8.1 Acres at Lake Corpus Christi State ParkRequest Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 12

Exchange of Land – Bexar CountyApproximately 3 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural AreaRequest Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 5

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 12Exhibit E

Work Session Agenda Item 16

Land Acquisition – Brazoria CountyApproximately 2,500 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point)Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 3

Work Session Agenda Item 16Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 16Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 16Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 17

Request for Utility Easement – El Paso CountyApproximately 1 Acre at Franklin Mountains State ParkRequest Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 17Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 17Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 17Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 17Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 18

Land Acquisition – Limestone CountyApproximately 6 Acres at Fort Parker State Park Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 3

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 19

Work Session
Wednesday, November 5, 2025
9:00 a.m. MST

Work Session Agenda Item 3
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – Senate Bill 2801
Relating to a Permit Issued by the Parks and Wildlife Department for Certain Hunting Dog Field Trials; Authorizing a Fee
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 8
Exhibit A

Party Boat Rules
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants
Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed
Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

Disposition of Land – San Patricio County
Approximately 8.1 Acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit D

Exchange of Land – Bexar County
Approximately 3 Acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 12
Exhibit E

Land Acquisition – Brazoria County
Approximately 2,500 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (Peach Point)
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 16
Exhibit C

Request for Utility Easement – El Paso County
Approximately 1 Acre at Franklin Mountains State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 17
Exhibit D

Land Acquisition – Limestone County
Approximately 6 Acres at Fort Parker State Park
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit C

Land Acquisition – Marion County
Approximately 78 Acres at Caddo Lake Wildlife Management Area
Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit C