TPW Commission
Work Session, November 5, 2025
Transcript
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION
November 5, 2025
EL PASO CONVENTION CENTER
1 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
EL PASO, TEXAS 79901
OCOTILLO ROOM
COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND EXECUTIVE SESSION
CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: All right.
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to El Paso.
Before we begin, I’d like to take roll call.
I, Chairman Paul Foster, am present.
Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER ANNA GALO: Present.
Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER DR. JOHN A. McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
This meeting is called to order November 5, 2025, at 9:00 a.m.
Before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.
DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Public notice of this meeting containing all items on the proposed agendas has been filed in the Office of the Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551 Government Code referred to as The Open Meetings Act.
I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioners, as a reminder, please turn on your microphones and announce your name before you speak.
Do I read this red?
Okay.
Before we proceed, I’d like to announce that Work Session Item No. 4: Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session– House Bill 3088– Relating to the Authority of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to Procure Goods and Services Related to Items for Resale by the Department– Recommended Approval of Procurement Methods– has been withdrawn from today’s agenda.
Okay?
Now, the first order of business is the Approval of the Minutes from the previous Work Session held August 20, 2025, which have already been distributed.
Is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo, so moved.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And a second?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thank you.
Now, all in favor, say, Aye.”
[ CHORUS OF AYES ]
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries.
The next order of business is the Approval of the Minutes from the Annual Public Hearing held August 20, 2025, which have already been distributed.
Again, is there a motion for approval?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
A couple of them.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: Rowling.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And a second?
COMMISSIONER GALO: We had a second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
All in favor?
[ CHORUS OF AYES ]
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion carries.
Work Session Item No. 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.
We will have an Internal Affairs Update, Staff Recognitions, Land and Water Resources Conservation Recreation Plan Update, Fiscal Year Stocking Report, Oyster License Buyback Update, and Update on New World screwworm.
Dr. Yoskowitz?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman.
Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is David Yoskowitz, Executive Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.
Welcome to El Paso, the sun city, home to 2.5 million people in the binational metroplex, the Franklin Mountains State Park, and this being the first Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission meeting to be held here in El Paso.
So, welcome.
Glad to have you all.
I’d like to provide an update germane to the land and water related plan and functions inside the department.
And, as is customary, I will start off with the Internal Affairs Update.
Upon the start of the new fiscal year, team members from the Office of Internal Affairs have been attending various trainings around the state and country to ensure that the team is maintaining a proactive approach to topics and issues related to use of force, reporting legislative updates, court precedents, and national standards.
On September 22 through the 26th, Internal Affairs Captains Cody Hatfield and Joel Parker traveled to Fort Worth, Texas, to attend the FBI Law Enforcement Executive Development Association’s Managing and Conducting Internal Affairs Investigation seminar, which is aimed at enhancing internal control mechanisms to foster greater accountability within law enforcement agencies.
Topics covered during the training included: effective complaint process; policies and procedures; primary authority investigation of personal complaints; administrative law; disciplinary due process; and the promotion of proper decision making and defensible outcomes.
Representers and investigators traveled from all over Texas and the United States to attend.
The Office of Internal Affairs has submitted the Fiscal Year 2025 Internal Affairs Annual Report to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission for their review.
The Fiscal Year 2025 annual report includes a summary of internal affairs statistics, a case activity information, as well as Fiscal Year 2026 initiatives.
Case numbers and statistical data compiled for the annual report were collected from the Internal Affairs Report management system, identified as IAPro, and the law enforcement report management system.
And that is in your book.
During the Association of Fish and Wildlife’s agency’s conference that was held in Tucson, Arizona, in late September, TPWD’s Wildlife Division Federal Aid Coordinator, Ms. Amber Andel, was included in a group that received a special recognition award.
These awards are given to an individual, or group of individuals, who have a distinguished record of accomplishment within the conservation community and the advancement of the association’s work.
This year, the association recognized the Federal Aid Coordinators working group.
The working group is a team of dedicated proactive problem solvers that spent countless hours in the past year addressing several significant issues within wildlife and sport fish restoration programs, all of which had the potential to affect the funding of every state fish and wildlife agency.
Congratulations, Amber.
On June 7, conservation partners hosted the East Texas Fire and Nature Festival in Tyler, Texas, at the Tyler Nature Center.
This campus is operated by the Wildlife Division, and houses the East Texas regional office complex for the department.
The event’s goal was to energize the prescribed fire culture in East Texas.
Through positive exposure, outreach, and hands‑on activities, elementary‑age students and adults learned about the benefits of prescribed fire from practitioners in East Texas.
It was a targeted educational event for the community, with staff providing a unique environment for kids immersed to the outdoors.
The event was co‑hosted by the state and federal partners, with a unified message to the public that prescribed fire is an important tool that can positively impact ecosystems.
Along with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s Law Enforcement, Inland Fisheries, State Parks and Wildlife Divisions, there were 22 agencies and local organizations represented, with 277 registered public attendees.
In addition to the many presentations and activities, the department conducted two prescribed fire demonstrations for the public to observe, and one additional post‑fire footprint to see the benefits of this important land management practice.
Special thanks to Tony Aguilar and the Wildlife Division, and the inter-agency steering committee, for conceptualizing, planning, and implementing this event.
This ties to Action 10.4 of the Land and Water Conservation and Recreation Plan, which is to provide outdoor programs at TPWD sites.
It also supports several strategies within the plan that focus on using our facilities to educate work with landowners and partners with effective management of landscapes.
The Great Texas Birding Classic is a bird‑watching tournament created to increase appreciation, understanding, and conservation of birds through education, recreation, nature, tourism, and conservation fundraising.
This annual event completed its 29th year this past spring, and is open to all levels and ages of birders, from the beginning backyard birder to the competitive listener.
And event registration fees raise money for Texas bird and birding conservation project grants.
The winning teams, in fact, of this year’s tournament selected $60,000 in bird conservation projects.
Action 12.7 of the Land and Water Conservation Plan is to increase the registered number of Great Texas Birding Classic teams from 240… to 240 by 2028.
This year, the tournament broke records with 226 teams registered, comprised of more than 1,300 participants birding all over the state, achieving 63 percent growth towards the final goal of 240.
We are all well on track to reach, or possibly exceed, that goal.
Thank you to Shelly Plant and her team.
The tournament was sponsored by the Texas Ornithological Society and Toyota, and the awards ceremony by Audubon Texas.
TPWD has a long, rich history of wildlife and fisheries stocking efforts throughout Texas to promote healthy and sustainable populations.
The utilization of stocking, combined with traditional management practices, has proven to be a powerful combination in managing Texas’ natural resources.
In accordance with Texas Administrative Code, the TPWD Executive Director hereby submits the agency’s annual stock report for Fiscal Year 2025 to the TPWD Commission.
And that is also in your book.
Next, I would like to call up Robin Riechers to provide you an update on our oyster license buyback initiative that recently concluded.
And then, Alan Cain to discuss the New World screwworm.
Robin?
ROBIN RIECHERS: Good morning, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Robin Riechers, and I’m the Director of Coastal Fisheries.
Today, I’m very pleased to provide you with a brief update relating to our oyster license buyback initiative.
During the ninth round of the commercial oyster license buyback program, TPWD received 115 commercial oyster boat license applications.
And we are pleased to announce that we were able to get 112 of those across the threshold, and actually get those licenses bought.
That represents a 21 percent reduction of our total licenses that we had available in Texas.
This year, of course, instead of the reverse bid process, or Dutch auction as it’s sometimes referred to that we have used in the past, we went to a fixed‑rate offer of $30,000 for each license.
And, of course, that was made possible through outside philanthropic support.
We had originally set a target with that philanthropic support, and the people we were talking to, of an aspirational goal of 150 commercial licenses.
But we are very, very pleased with the progress of getting 112, and really making a good start, if you will, even though we’ve had the program for a while.
But really kicking that program off again, and getting some legs underneath it.
TPWD joined forces with the Parks and Wildlife Foundation to create this public‑private partnership.
And the foundation then established the S. Reed Morian Oyster Buyback Program.
The new program is named in honor of a former TPWD Commission Chairman, as you all know, who was a lifelong champion of coastal conservation.
A volunteer‑led group of conservation‑minded individuals and foundations pledged their support, with key funding being contributed by the Laurie and S. Reed Morian Foundation, the Coastal Conservation Association, former Chairman and Commissioner Jeffery and Mindy Hildebrand, former Chairman and Commissioner Beaver and Joanie Aplin, John and Mary Eeds, and Commissioner Bobby and Sherri Patton as well.
Clearly, we might have missed some of the people who contributed in big and small ways to this effort.
But we want to thank each and every one of them.
And we want to thank anyone who is going to consider to contribute in the future, as well, because it is going to make a difference, we really believe.
Improving the health of our wild oysters remains a top priority for the department.
Both the industry and various conservation groups, like the ones mentioned, have identified license buyback as a management tool which will help us reduce the overall harvest threshold on wild oyster reefs, and thus leading to recovery of both the ecosystem health, as well as the recovery of the fishery.
And so, we look forward to continuing those conversations.
Conversations have started on how we’re going to have that buyback again for this next biennium.
And so, we’re really proud of the effort that went into that with all of our contributors and our philanthropic donors.
And we look forward to the next biennium to try to remove some more licenses from that fishery.
With that, that concludes my update.
And I’ll be happy to answer any questions if you have any.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
I have a question.
Did we… do we have more… you said we were trying to get 150.
We bought 112.
Did we run out of money, or did we have reluctant sellers?
MR. RIECHERS: We only had 115 applications.
We lost three.
So, we didn’t get the number of applications getting to 150 like we had hoped.
But we do have money still available, and we’re looking to hold another round this fiscal year, and maybe even into the next fiscal year as well, assuming we have the money.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, how much money do we still… we have retained?
MR. RIECHERS: I don’t know what the philanthropic support is.
But we do intend to have that sort of same match.
And the department has available somewhere in the neighborhood where we can purchase 80‑plus licenses if we got that same support again.
So, with that I’ll turn it over to Alan then.
ALAN CAIN: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Alan Cain.
I’m the Division Director for the Wildlife Division.
And I’m going to provide a brief update, or overview, of the New World screwworm that’s on everybody’s mind lately.
So, to ensure everyone is up to speed on New World screwworms, I just want to provide with a high level of overview of the fly itself.
The New World screwworm is a parasitic fly native to the western hemisphere, and is currently endemic in Cuba, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and several South American countries.
Now, this fly lays eggs in a living tissue of fresh wounds in warm‑blooded animals.
The name “screwworm” refers to the behavior exhibited by the maggots as they burrow in, or screw into those wounds, as you can see from some of the photos.
The larvae and their feeding behavior cause extensive damage by tearing at the host live tissue with the sharp mouth hooks.
As the wounds become larger and deeper, and as more eggs hatch and additional larvae feed on the living tissue, if they’re not discovered and treated promptly this can result in serious and often deadly damage to the animal.
Again, as illustrated in some of those photos on the slide.
So, widespread and established outbreaks can have serious impacts on wildlife populations, livestock production, and operations, and the billion‑dollar economies tied to wildlife and livestock industries in the state and the United States.
Fortunately, for the United States, we have dealt with New World screwworm in the past, and have tried and true techniques that can be used again today to eradicate New World screwworms should they reappear.
That technique is known as the sterile insect technique, or sterile flies.
This method involves irradiating pupae with gamma radiation which produces a sterile adult fly.
The flies are then released into the wild, where the sterile males mate with females, wild females.
And because the wild females only mate once, they are not able to produce viable offspring, and effectively ending the life cycle of that fly.
And so, as a result, the fly populations decline and ultimately are eradicated over time.
Currently, the only fly production facility in the western hemisphere is located in Panama.
And the New World screwworm was declared eradicated from the United States in 1966, and ultimately pushed back to the Darien Gap in Panama in the early 2000s, where it’s remained contained until just recently.
And there was an outbreak in Florida, in the Florida Keys, in 2016, 2017, right around there.
But the screwworm was eradicated promptly within less than a year.
However, that outbreak had significant impact on that Florida Key deer population, which lost somewhere between 10 and 20 percent of the population.
So, for an endangered species population that can be significant in that short amount of timeframe.
And the key takeaway from the map, and just the description of the Key deer situation, is that eradicating established screwworm infestations and population takes time.
So, early detection is critical in controlling the pests quickly and effectively.
New World screwworm became a concern for Texas last November, following its detection in Chiapas, Mexico, near the Guatemala border.
Since then, Mexico has reported approximately 7,000 cases, with only about 720 of those cases currently being active throughout the range.
You can kind of see it on the map there.
The most recent cases it raised concern for Texas in the United States was a couple of detections, one… both in Nueva León, Mexico.
One was on September 21, and a case was detected about 70 miles from Laredo, near the town of Sabinas Hildalgo in Nueva León.
And another case reported on October 6, in Montemorelos, Mexico, southeast of Monterey, also within Nueva León.
Both incidents were linked to the transport of livestock, specifically cattle, to the feed lots in those locations, to and from feed lots.
In each case, infestation was limited to a single animal.
Fortunately, the larvae detected in the cattle were in early stages of development.
And treatments were promptly administered and mitigated that risk.
And those cases are considered inactive now, which is good news.
So, being a serious concern for the U.S. economy, food supply, and national security, the USDA is committed to combating the spread of New World screwworms and protecting American interest.
Earlier this summer, Secretary of Agriculture, and fellow Texan, Brooke Rollins unveiled a multipronged strategy to fight screwworms and keep the threat at bay, should it arrive.
And that plan includes several bullets you see on the slide there.
One, it’s a $100 million investment in research and innovation to accelerate promising technology, such as advanced sterilization techniques.
$8.5 million to bring a sterile fly dispersal facility online in Edinburg, Texas, hopefully by the beginning of this coming year, around the end of ’25, early ’26.
$750 million for the construction of the sterile fly facility in Edinburg– still probably a couple years out.
Continued monitoring with nearly 8,000 traps deployed in Mexico and along the U.S. southern border.
And then also, fly dispersal from COPEG, which is the U.S. Commission for the Eradication and Prevention of Screwworm Infestation there in Panama.
And that’s to continue to push those flies back south.
So, wherever that northern leading edge of the fly infestations are, they’ll continue those fly dispersals.
And lastly, $21 million committed to innovate and reactivate a facility in the top of Mexico to help with that; push those flies back.
As a state, Texas has been developing a response plan in the event that New World screwworm arrives in Texas.
This response is a multi-agency effort, with the Texas Animal Health Commission taking the lead role in coordinating the response.
The department will support Animal Health Commission with the primary focus on addressing New World screwworm infestations in native wildlife species within affected areas.
Other agencies involved include: AgriLife; the Department of State Health and Human Services, or the State Health Services; the Department of Agriculture, Texas Department of AG; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; National Park Service; Wildlife Services; the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab; and USDA APHIS.
Additionally, Governor Abbott directed the department, as well as Texas Animal Health Commission, to form a New World screwworm response team representing not only the various state agencies, but also a range of key stakeholder groups that include: the Texas and Southwest Cattle Rangers Association; Texas Cattle Feeders Association; Texas Wildlife Association; Exotic Wildlife Association; Texas Deer Association; swine producers; sheep and goat raisers; the Texas Farm Bureau; and a number of other private individuals.
So, a large group there.
And an inaugural meeting for this response team was held on September 4, at Parks and Wildlife headquarters, bringing the group together to learn about screwworms and the response plans being developed by the department, as well as Animal Health Commission.
This response team will play a critical role in disseminating factual and timely information from credible sources, as well as serving as a sounding board for agency strategies and approaches as we move forward.
So, effective communication not only with that group, but all of these agencies, is essential.
And the department participates in weekly calls with Texas Animal Health Commission and a number of those other agencies, as well as industry groups.
And so, those response plans being developed by us and the Animal Health Commission will also be guided by the USDA response guidelines, or their playbook, which just came out a couple of weeks ago.
And so, up until that point, we’ve been working on our own response plans, and will continue to modify that as we investigate and learn more about the USDA’s playbook and how that fits in.
And then, lastly, the department’s response plan focuses on four key areas, first one being outreach and education.
And a group of our internal staff, just kind of an internal working group, has developed a range of information and materials, kind of like you see on the slide there, targeting various user groups, including: hunters; landowners; general public; deer‑breeders; wildlife rehabilitators; taxidermists; and deer processors to make sure we have information we can get out into their hands, and how they need to respond.
We also continue to present numerous stakeholder and public meetings, as well as legislative hearings and listening sessions.
We also have targeted outreach when we have different trigger points that are reached.
For example, when the recent detection was 70 miles from the border, we sent E-blasts to the landowners located in that, kind of, two-tired county, from Del Rio down to the Gulf, informing them of potential… you know, detection down there, and then also providing them information such as you see there, especially for deer breeders and rehabbers in that particular area.
Staff are also actively engaged in surveillance efforts across state parks and wildlife management areas, monitoring both free range animals and hunter harvested animals.
Currently, the USDA has deployed fly traps on seven units of the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area in the Rio Grande Valley
Staff also respond to reports from landowners and hunters regarding suspected cases.
We have a process in place to collect and submit samples to the National Veterinary Services Lab for confirmation.
Data collection is critical for documenting the distribution and extent of these infestations, which will be essential in establishing management zones, should they get here.
And should screwworms arrive, the department will aid in live animal movement, inspections, coordination and guidance using approved protocols, a lot of that related to the USDA playbook.
And these include best management practices for things like carcass disposal, destruction of the larvae, and mechanism for the removal of live animals with suspected infestation, whether it’s in a pen or in a pasture.
So, live animal movement… or live animal removal would require authorization for take, or by the department, for a specific property with strict conditions for those guidelines to take.
And this approach is really intended if we just have a small, localized outbreak, and we can deal with individual properties.
If this outbreak becomes widespread and large‑scale, a special screwworm hunting season for deer may be necessary.
And such a season would require Commission approval through the standard commission process, or potentially an emergency rule.
The department continues to, like I said, work through the playbook that recently came out from the
USDA regarding live animal inspection requirements and treatment options.
And we are also in ongoing discussions with F.D.A. and E.P.A. about potential injectable or topical treatments for captive wildlife, as well as possible– therapeutics that could be administered through feed.
And so, that concludes my update.
I’d be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I have a few.
Do we have any kind of estimate as to how long it will take to push these things back down?
I guess the ultimate objective would be to eradicate it altogether, all the way down through South America.
MR. CAIN: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But that’s going to take a very long.
MR. CAIN: That will take a long time.
And I’d have to go back to one of these slides here.
That one.
You can see it can take years to push it back down south.
You know, once they eradicated it from the U.S., or declared it eradicated, in ’66, it took, well, from then to nearly 2000, early 2000, to get it back to Panama.
And so, that’s 40 years.
But there is extensive flies everywhere.
If we can get ahold of it now, and we can keep… boost fly production, hopefully it doesn’t take nearly that long.
So, but I don’t have a good timeline on exactly how long that will take.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And there haven’t been any detections in Texas or in the U.S., other than Florida… in the Keys there, in Florida?
MR. CAIN: That’s correct.
And recently, nothing…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. CAIN: …with this recent outbreak in Mexico.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And they’ve stopped allowing imports of cattle from Mexico?
Is that still in place?
MR. CAIN: That’s my understanding, so…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.
MR. CAIN: Yes.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
What about other animals, like horses or even dogs?
I’m just curious.
MR. CAIN: That I don’t know.
Definitely livestock.
Maybe horses.
I’m not sure about pets.
I don’t know what… USDA is the one that regulates that interstate or intra… inter-country movement.
So, we can… I can find out and get back to you with that.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
And…
So, these fly traps.
Is the idea that you capture flies and test them?
Or what do you do with a fly trap?
MR. CAIN: So those are…
Yeah, I mean, there’s fly traps for surveillance, for one.
And then you probably heard about the Department of AG, Texas Department of AG using fly traps as a way to try to eradicate screwworms or prevent movement.
But, really, that’s not a very proven technique, I guess.
The sterile insect technique is the way we’re going to eradicate flies.
The fly trapping there really along the border is for surveillance.
But yeah, and so those flies land in there and kill them, and then…
Yeah, they will take those, and once they are caught in the trap, and then we can assess, you know, what the fly is, if it’s a New World screwworm fly.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay, thank you.
Other questions?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question.
I think you said, Alan, it’s going to be two years before the facility in Edinburg is going to be operational?
MR. CAIN: A couple of years at least.
I don’t have an exact timeline, and I don’t know how the federal shutdown will impact that.
Certainly could be delayed longer.
So…
And so, that’s why Brooke Rollins committed that initial money to get the distribution facility.
So, what would happen is they would bring the pupae up from Mexico or Panama and then finish them out here.
And, then you know, they would release flies or pupae out there in these boxes in areas if it got here.
So, we have a way to combat it if it gets here soon.
But it will be a little while for the production facility.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay.
In your opinion, is that going to be fast enough given the movement?
MR. CAIN: I don’t know.
I’m optimistic that it’s never going to get here, so…
But I will say this.
If it does get here, the USDA, what they’ve said is they’ll take those flies from Panama,.
Instead of dropping them in Mexico, they’ll bring them up here to the States.
And we’ll have that full resource available to try to push that back.
The problem is if you are not pushing them back down south and you are trying to hold the line here, then they can continue to spread and march from there, so….
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Is the Panamanian facility, is that a U.S. facility?
MR. CAIN: It’s a U.S. facility that USDA oversees.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman, just a tag on that, Alan.
When we get that facility in Edinburg, did you say that they were going to ship some of those… they’re going to transport those flies down or release them here prophylactically just to…
MR. CAIN: No, the only time they would release flies here is if we have an infestation in the States.
But right now, they don’t have a production facility, obviously.
And so, we have to get those flies from Panama.
And you can’t send the adult flies up there.
They wouldn’t make the trip.
And so, they’ve got to send the pupae up here, and then they’ll finish out that process, the lifecycle process, so they can begin to release those– if it gets here.
But we’re not going to preemptively try to disperse flies.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Gotcha.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, thank you.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Mr, Chairman, that concludes our presentation.
I’ll be happy to take any questions if there is any from the Commission.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anybody?
All right, thank you.
Next, is Work Session Item No. 2: Internal Audit Update.
And Brandy Meeks is with us.
Thank you.
BRANDY MEEKS: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Brandy Meeks.
I’m the Chief Auditor.
This morning, I’d like to update you on last year’s Internal Audit Plan.
I’d also like to present to you the progress that we’ve made on our Internal Audit Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year ‘25.
I’d also like to update you on the status of our current audit plan, as well as recent external audits and assessments.
And I guess I should have put that up, sorry.
So, this and the next slide show the status of last year’s Internal Audit Plan.
And, as you can see, we have just about completed last year’s plan.
We completed the CPA post payment P-CARD follow-up.
And since last we met, please take note at the statuses in yellow.
Those are the ones we’ve made progress on since last we met.
We are also in the reporting final phase for the audit of the Friends Group, as well as the audit of Selected Field Transactions.
This slide just shows that we have completed all of our advisory and administrative projects for last year.
And now, I’d like to update you on the progress that we’ve made on our Internal Audit Strategic Plan.
So, Principle 9.2 of the Global Internal Audit Standards requires that the chief auditor work with the governing board to develop an internal audit strategy.
In March of this past year, the Audit Subcommittee approved Internal Audit Strategic Plan.
This and the next five slides present our strategic plan, and how well we met that plan.
Our plan consisted of four objectives.
The first two are shown above.
Objective 1 was to ensure alignment of the Annual Audit Plan with the highest risks to the agency’s strategic plan.
We met this objective via the methodology that we used to perform our annual risk assessment.
The tables on our division’s… on our annual risk assessment questionnaire to all of our division directors start with the identification of the division’s strategic objectives, and then we work with management to understand the activities and processes implemented to meet those objectives.
Next, we identify risks to those activities and processes, and the impacts to the agencies should those risks occur.
Although I believe that we met this objective with our current risk assessment methodology,
I do have some ideas on how we might be able to improve that methodology going forward.
And I plan to work with my team this year, as well as the COO, to revise that methodology, if needed.
And then, of course, present that to the Audit Subcommittee if any changes are made prior to starting that process this next year.
The second objective is to ensure sufficient completion of the internal audit plan commensurate with internal audit resources.
The goal is to be within plus or minus 10 percent of the target.
So, for example, if we stay fully staffed all year, then the target is 100% of our plan to be complete by the end of the fiscal year.
This year, we did lose one auditor in May, so we had a vacancy of 520 hours.
The target, therefore, was 95.83 percent of our plan.
We looked at the metric for both inputs and outputs.
Inputs were the hours to complete the projects.
And outputs were the actual audit reports.
We completed 92 percent of our projects last year, which is within 10 percent of the 95.83 percent target. And we also used 92 percent of our hours.
So, we were well within our 10 percent.
Therefore, we met Objective 2.
Objective 3 was to hire, retain, improve, and ensure the proficiency of our auditors.
For hiring and retaining, our goal was to provide executive management and the audit subcommittee with resource analysis for consideration in salary adjustments and resource adjustments.
This was provided to the audit subcommittee and to executive management in July.
The analysis showed that with the exception of our Internal Auditor 2 position, all auditors made below the average pay for the state auditor classifications and for Article 6 agencies.
And, in fact, we posted our Internal Auditor 2 position that was vacated in May of this year, and we only got 11 applicants for that position.
Also, just last week, I did lose a senior internal auditor who went to work for another state agency doing accounting, instead of auditing, for more pay.
So, I do think it’s going to be challenging for us to fill our current positions with the budget that we have.
And this, of course, might impact the completion of our plan this year.
But I have been working with HR and the COO, and we’ve come up with some ways to maybe mitigate this shortfall, as well as to retain our current auditors– I don’t want to lose anymore– given these very limited resources.
Let me go back.
As far as improving our auditors and insuring proficiency, we had a goal of at least 14 in-person continued professional education hours, versus strictly online, as well as the expectation that all auditors meet their individually required CPEs, which could differ based on the different certifications and license that each auditor holds.
The Yellow Book also requires 80 hours of CPE for every auditor to get every two years.
And for Fiscal Year ‘25, all auditors met the 14 hours of in-person CPEs, and five of the six auditors met the requisite 80 hour CPEs over the last biennium.
The one auditor that did not was actually out a lot on FMLA.
So, starting in this… starting with this fiscal year, we will continue to have that same goal, but we are also adding a goal of taking at least two hours of CPE in artificial intelligence and in data analytics each, and in using artificial intelligence on at least one phase of our audit engagements this next year.
My opinion: we partially met this requirement, this objective.
For evaluating the proficiency of our auditors, each audit engagement requires a knowledge skills and ability statement to be completed prior to starting the engagement.
If it’s determined that we do not have the expertise to perform the engagement, we will not proceed.
Every engagement this year attested to the requisite KSAs prior to the commencement of the project.
The fact that we met this proficiency objective was also depicted on the post-audit surveys, where 88 percent of respondents answered in the affirmative when asked if audit… if the auditor was knowledgeable.
We also asked a handful of questions on the post-audit survey to ascertain our professionalism, ethics, and if our work product, our audit reports, are viewed as value added by the auditee.
85 percent of post‑audit survey responses answered in the affirmative to these questions.
So, in seeing the results from this first year, me and the COO have discussed this, and we believe that 85 percent is a good target to aim for.
And, of course, we will try to improve on those numbers as well.
Just wanted to point out, though, that there is a correlation between a favorable audit rating and a favorable post‑audit survey.
So, we always have to keep that in mind.
And for the last objective.
To continuously improve the chief auditor’s office through a robust quality assurance and improvement program, we totally revised our standards and compliance tool used at the end of every project to evaluate whether the engagement was conducted in compliance with the newly revised standards.
This tool will be used on all projects starting this fiscal year.
And this past year, we continued to follow our current QIIP process as stated in our strategic plan, which we will also continue to do, which is a review of all of our work papers by the project manager.
I review all of our issues and supporting documentation, any evidence for those, as well as the reports.
The project manager completes the standard compliance review.
And now, we are going to assign a new QA reviewer to look over that at the end of the project.
And then, of course, we have a quality assurance review every three years, as required by the Yellow Book, which will take place in the first quarter of next fiscal year.
So, in summary, for this first year of our Internal Audit Strategic Plan I do feel like we met Objectives 1, 2, and 4, and partially met Objective 3.
And we will continue to improve on that strategic plan.
So, just to recap Fiscal Year ’25:
The chief auditor’s office successfully updated our processes for compliance with the new Global Internal Audit Standards.
We developed our Internal Audit Strategic Plan and our… and we developed the audit and issue rating methodology that we currently use.
We met our strategic plan’s KPIs for Fiscal Year ‘25, including completing 92 percent of our audit plan.
We performed a quality assurance review for DIRs internal audit function, earning the requisite points for our peer review due in Q1 of next year.
We participated in two team‑building activities with HR.
And we continued to represent the agency by serving on the board of governors for the local chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditors.
Now, I would like to provide you the status of this year’s audit plan.
As you can see, the top two projects are those that rolled forward from last year, which are currently in the reporting phase.
We have also made progress on five of the eight assurance projects for this year.
We are currently in the planning phase for our three state park fiscal control audits.
We are in the reporting phase for our audit of our law enforcement and communication key performance
measures.
And we are in the planning phase for the audit of TPWD’s surplus processes.
And then, we’ve also completed some of our administrative projects.
We’ve completed our Fiscal Year ’25 Annual Report, our Chapter 59 Review of Law Enforcement Seizures and Forfeitures, and the Semiannual Report that came out in the first quarter of this year for all audit items due in Q3 and Q4 of Fiscal Year ’25.
And, of course, we are following up on all items due during the first quarter of this year.
As far as external audits and assessments, ongoing is the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s 2025 Expenditure Verification Program for the non‑federal Gulf Environmental Benefit Fund, or the Dagger Island Project.
That is ongoing.
And no external audits or assessments have been completed since last we met.
And this completes my presentation.
I’m happy to take any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Brandy.
Any questions from anybody?
Your issue that you raised about our pay scale and the inability to attract interested auditors is concerning, to say the least.
Do you feel like it’s preventing you from completing your audits to the quality that you would like to achieve…
MS. MEEKS: The senior auditor…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …or that we’re headed that way?
MS. MEEKS: Yeah, the senior that we just lost was a CPA.
It’s very hard to attract CPAs and those with professional designations with the pay scale that we have.
So, yeah, eventually it probably will impact the quality of engagements that we can perform; that we have the expertise to perform.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And, in your experience, other government agencies in Texas, some of them have higher pay scales for the same… similar positions?
MS. MEEKS: Yes.
Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MS. MEEKS: I think this is not just an issue in audit, but…
CRAIG BONDS: Chairman, if I may.
For the record, Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer.
So… we’ve foreseen this issue.
And as part of our legislative appropriation request for the previous session, we asked for some salary compensation dollars for the entire agency.
And so, we were fortunate enough the legislature did provide us with $5 million over this biennium, so $2.5 million a year.
And our HR division, in consultation with us, has undertaken a data‑driven, very objective approach to this.
So, they’ve looked at a two‑variable approach, where we’ve compared classifications to the SAO’s midpoint for the salary range for that classification.
We have also compared their salary to the average salary of their peer classifications in Article 6 agencies, which are the other natural resource agencies.
So, what we’ve done is we’ve looked at that gap analysis, and we have a two‑phase approach to try to address those gaps.
I mean, obviously, the demand and the need across the agency is greater than the amount of money that we were able to have this biennium.
And, of course, looking forward, we will continue to try to address that.
But our auditors, first of all, we got to make sure that they are appropriately classified.
And then once we know that, then we need to look at that gap.
And we’ve already taken a Phase 1 approach that was effective November 1.
And there’s a second phase that we are going to be looking at in the new calendar year.
And so, I think most, if not all, of our auditors, including our chief auditor, those salary adjustments have been made as far as the Phase 1, and then we’re looking at opportunities for a Phase 2 adjustment.
But clearly, the need is going to remain for us to continue making progress into the future as well.
MS. MEEKS: There may be a position where I think we are kind of using some of the salary from one of my positions to help with some of… to retain some of my current positions.
So, we may be down.
After we post the Senior Auditor, we still may be down an auditor this next fiscal year.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And then you have this quality assurance review coming up in the first quarter that you mentioned?
MS. MEEKS: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Does this issue impact that?
MS. MEEKS: What that’s going to look at is just to make sure that the projects that we are able to do, and that we do, we do correctly, in accordance with the standards.
They are not going to come in and say, “You didn’t do enough.”
They are going to come and look at the quality of our work.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
Question.
Do you think this field, this area of auditing, is going to be an area that we’re going to see changes as a result of implementing A.I.‑type strategies?
Are you seeing that in other areas?
MS. MEEKS: Absolutely.
We see that artificial intelligence is used in data analytics, it’s used in report‑writing, it’s used in so many different areas.
It’s definitely going to change the way we do our job.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: At this point, then, are we actively implementing anything, or just kind of looking at it?
MS. MEEKS: At this point, we are under, of course, the policy of our agency, which we just rolled out an artificial intelligence policy.
We will be working with Jamie McClanahan’s team, the A.I. team, to develop some of those ways that we might be able to improve our processes and increase efficiency in an audit.
But, yeah, we are definitely looking at different ways this is going to change the way we work.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question.
Timmerman.
LCRA, when I was on the board there, most recently.
I guess about two years ago, we outsourced a lot of our internal audit which was kind of revolutionary for a state agency.
And it was really focused on data analytics.
And so, I was wondering if that is something that we can at least maybe take some of our function and outsource some of this?
We found some… a lot of the external expertise that we did not have on our internal staff, especially with this new A.I.‑driven and data analytics that are coming to force.
So, I was just wondering, is that something that we’ve looked into?
Maybe some sort of an outsourcing at least some of our function?
Especially since we are having trouble with our… with finding all the personnel we need?
MS. MEEKS: So, I would say when we do have a high‑risk area that we need to audit, such as active directory was one particular area that I felt like we needed to audit, we did get permission from executive management and the Audit Subcommittee to outsource that particular engagement because we did not have the expertise in-house to do that.
So, I definitely think that needs to be an option for areas where we do not have the expertise in‑house.
But I do think there is a lot to internal audit and just learning the agency…
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Right.
MS. MEEKS: ...which when you hire from outside you do not get.
You are trying to educate them on, “What do we do? “What is our agency all about?”
And so, I think there’s probably a lot of inefficiencies around that.
So, it’s probably just a good balance.
In my opinion, I just audited DIRs Internal Audit Function.
And they outsource all of their projects.
And the director is still responsible for every single… doing that annual risk assessment, making sure that they are outsourcing to vendors that have the expertise to do those particular audits.
And then educating them on, “This is our agency, this is what we do.”
And so, I don’t know.
I’m… I think definitely you need to have the ability to outsource when you don’t have the expertise.
But we are all, like I said, one of the challenges that… or one of the goals this next year for my team is to start getting educated in artificial intelligence.
Start using it.
Start using data analytics tools.
Because that’s where it’s all headed.
And, yeah, I definitely think it’s going to change the way we do it.
And maybe it can, you know, cause enough efficiency where being down an auditor is not an issue.
But I will say that during the last legislative appropriation request, I did ask for another FTE.
Because we are responsible for auditing all the high‑risks in the agency.
We didn’t get it.
But… so then now we are down an Auditor 2.
We are down two auditors, so…
But hopefully we learn how to do things more efficiently using A.I. and data analytics.
That’s the goal.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Anything else?
Thank you, Brandy.
MS. MEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Next is Work Session Item No. 3: Nonprofit Partner Rules– Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Mutual Association– Requests Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.
Mr. James Murphy.
JAMES MURPHY: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.
I’m James Murphy, General Counsel for the department.
And I’m here today to present on a proposed rule change to our nonprofit partner rules related to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Mutual Association.
So, the Mutual Association was founded in 1956.
It is an independent tax‑exempt nonprofit organization.
It has a mission to provide benefits to the families of deceased members.
Members are current and retired Parks and Wildlife Department employees, as well as their spouses if signed up.
And, essentially, it’s a very immediate death benefit to those families.
Try to get $5,000 to them within two days, and it provides that little bit of bridge money that can help in those moments of sadness.
And so, we have a board that is effectively current and former employees.
That changes a little bit depending on, you know, who all has signed up to be the president.
But these are voluntary positions.
And what we have identified is that we need to make a rule change in order to improve the standing of the Mutual Association.
They are in the need to do a pretty significant membership drive to grow the membership of the department.
They wanted to do that.
They want to do some work to our website.
They want to do… use email addresses.
The board would work on their own time during break hours, but using state property.
And that’s something that’s allowed by our Nonprofit Partnership Authority and the Parks and Wildlife Code, if there’s a benefit to the department from that.
We see a clear benefit to the department from the Mutual Association.
There is a Conflict-of-Interest rule in the current rules that prohibit a current department employee from serving on the board of directors for a nonprofit partner.
We performed a conflict of interest review for the Mutual Association and determined that we don’t really think that there is a conflict here for this organization.
It’s an automatic payment of an automatic amount.
There’s really no discretion or opportunity for this volunteer board of current and former employees to misuse any funds.
And so, we have made a determination, and an exception, to this nonprofit Conflict of Interest rules appropriate for the Mutual Association.
And so with that, staff requests permission to publish proposed rules in the Texas Register for public comment.
Certainly happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anybody have any questions or comments?
Thank you.
MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Work Session Item No. 4: Implementation of Legislation During the…
Oops, this is the item that’s been withdrawn, correct?
Okay.
Work Session Item No. 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.
Mr. Kory Gann is going to present.
KORY GANN: All righty.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Kory Gann, and I’m the Big‑Game Program Director in the Wildlife Division.
Today, I will present proposed amendments to rules relating to the take of aoudad sheep by using a helicopter, as a requirement of Senate Bill 1245, which was adopted during the 89th Texas Legislative Session.
The 89th Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1245, which amended Texas Parks and Wildlife Code 41.1075, requiring the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules to allow a qualified landowner, or a landowner’s agent, to contract directly with the helicopter owner or pilot with an aerial wildlife management permit– which I will refer to as AWMP from here forward– issued by the department to act as an hunter or observer to take depredating Aoudad sheep.
Prior to the amendment, a landowner, or landowner’s agent, was only allowed to contract directly with the helicopter owner or pilot with an AWMP to act as a hunter or observer to take depredating feral hogs and coyotes from a helicopter.
This bill went into effect as of September 1, 2025.
Aoudad are an exotic and invasive species that was introduced to Texas in the 1950s.
They were originally released into areas like Palo Duro Canyon, and have since established populations across the state, particularly in the Trans‑Pecos region, where they can degrade fragile habitats at high population densities.
Not only do they directly compete with our native desert bighorn sheep and mule deer for resources, but they also pose significant threat of transmitting mycoplasma ovipneumoniae, or (M. ovi) , a bacteria that causes pneumonia to desert bighorn sheep.
This disease has had devastating impacts on bighorn sheep populations throughout the western United States, and has caused significant declines in the Texas desert bighorn sheep population.
Aoudad are one of the limiting factors to the successful restoration of desert bighorn sheep in Texas, and could ultimately result in their demise if aoudad populations is not intensively managed.
The implementation of Senate Bill 1245 will provide landowners with an additional tool to manage aoudad populations, as well as provide relief to landowners from the cost of controlling depredating aoudad on their land.
To implement Senate Bill 1245, the proposed amendment adds aoudad sheep, where necessary, to make the provisions of the subchapter functional, with respect to the management of depredating aoudad sheep by means of aircraft.
Such changes are made throughout the rules, as necessary.
At this time, staff requests permission to publish the proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
And I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Questions or comments?
I think it’s… I’m very much in favor of this, and I hope we can get it over the finish line, so…
Thank you.
MR. GANN: Yes, Sir.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you.
If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in Texas Register.
Okay.
And…
Ah, Mr. Gann’s up again.
Work Session Item No. 6: Chronic Wasting Disease Detection and Response Rules again Request Permission to publish proposed changes in the Texas Register.
Mr. Kory Gann.
MR. GANN: Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Kory Gann.
And I’m the Big Game Program Director in the Wildlife Division.
Today, I will present proposed changes to rules governing chronic wasting disease detection and response.
As the Commission is aware, chronic wasting disease is a serious disease impacting both native and exotic susceptible service species in captive and free‑ranging populations.
Both the Texas Animal Health Commission and TPWD have shared responsibility for monitoring and managing CWD in Texas for over two decades, although their primary function as a state agency are dramatically different.
TPWD is a state agency responsible for the management and protection of native wildlife in the state, while The Texas Animal Health Commission is the state agency responsible for protecting animal agriculture by mitigating disease, ensuring marketability of Texas livestock, and protecting human health from animal‑borne diseases.
Both TPWD and TAHC remain committed to maintaining strong working relationships when it comes to managing diseases that affect both wildlife and livestock, whether that is CWD, New World screwworm, highly pathogenic avian influenza, or any other animal disease.
Recently, TAHC adopted rules in August of 2025 that repealed Texas’ participation in the voluntary USDA herd certification program, or HCP, and additional rules regarding CWD management, particularly the allowance of discretionary hold orders, rather than mandatory hold orders.
Withdrawing from HCP also allows for greater flexibility for both agencies to incorporate new technologies to assess and manage disease risk, and to develop customized disease management plans that take into account the uniqueness and risk specific to each facility.
Along with legislative guidance and withdrawal from the HCP, the adoption of these rules by TAHC has facilitated the separation of CWD management responsibilities between TPWD and TAHC.
Moving forward, TAHC’s responsibility will focus on exotics; CWD, susceptible species under their jurisdiction.
And TPWD’s responsibility for CWD management will focus on native CWD susceptible species under TPWD regulatory authority.
The separation of responsibilities necessitates the need to amend TPWD regulations to ensure the department is able to maintain the integrity of CWD management that otherwise may have been addressed by TAHC authority or regulation.
TPWD will continue to maintain a strong partnership with TAHC going forward, particularly at the nexus of livestock and wildlife disease management.
The proposed amendments in this rule package include changes to disease detection and response, and deer breeder permit rules, and can be grouped into four general categories, including:
carcass disposal rules changes; removal and cleanup of references to Texas Animal Health Commission; definition modifications; and rule language clarifications.
The remaining slides describe the proposed changes associated with each of these categories.
The proposed amendment concerning deer carcass movement restrictions would apply current carcass disposal rules to all dead deer, or parts of deer, in a person’s possession– not just deer killed by hunting– and address the disposal of deer that die within breeding facilities.
Current statewide carcass disposal rules require burial, disposal in a landfill, or returning unused carcass parts to the property where the animal was harvested.
Improper disposal of carcasses of deer that died within a CWD exposed or positive deer breeding facility are a concern for a potential spread of CWD, and had been managed through TAHC hold orders or quarantines.
Because TAHC will no longer be applying hold orders or quarantines for native white-tail or mule deer exposed or positive facilities, staff are also proposing carcass disposal to address this risk.
The proposal would require the deer that die in these facilities to be buried or disposed of in a landfill.
Additionally, the proposed amendment would require persons transporting carcasses of dead breeder deer to a landfill to possess a completed disposition document on a form approved or supplied by the department, which would be required to accompany deer carcasses during transport and until the carcasses are accepted at the landfill.
The proposed amendment is necessary for law enforcement, should the need arise, to document the identification of deer that no longer bear permanent identification due to the permanent identification being submitted, along with tissue samples, as part of postmortem CWD testing requirements.
The proposed amendment updates definitions to reflect the withdrawal of TAHC from participation in CWD management and wildlife context, and to promote clarity and consistency across rule language.
The proposed amendment would also make changes affecting terminology related to administrative mechanisms for authorizing the movement of breeder deer.
The term "exposed facility" is defined as a facility that has received an exposed deer, and extend existing rules to all facility types, not just deer breeding facilities.
The term "disease management plan" is defined as a set of requirements for disease testing and management developed by the department.
The term "transfer" is defined as the movement of breeder deer under a transfer permit executed as provided in Subchapter T of this chapter: “from or to another breeding facility, or from a breeding facility to another facility type.”
A central component of the joint strategy for CWD management was the department’s reference to TAHC hold orders and quarantines and TPWD rules as a regulatory mechanism for isolating and restricting the movement of infected or potentially infected animals.
Because TAHC will no longer be implementing hold orders or quarantines on facilities with respect to white‑tailed deer or mule deer, the proposed amendments would remove references to TAHC, where appropriate, and replace references to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans with rules that prohibit movements, or apply movement status for traces, suspect, or positive detections.
References to hold orders, quarantines, and herd plans will be replaced, as appropriate, with references to disease management plan, which is necessary to create and implement a similar mechanism administered solely by TPWD, and applicable only to white‑tailed and mule deer.
Although the term "facility" has long been defined by rule to apply to any location required to be registered in TWIMS, the term has become synonymous with deer breeding facility.
To promote clarity and consistency across rule language, the proposed amendments would remove all references to release sites, and replace them with references to release facility.
Similarly, under current rules, “movement qualified” and “non‑movement qualified” apply only to breeding facilities.
However, these terms have been mistakenly used for other facility types.
Originally intended to reflect compliance with disease testing for deer transfers involving breeders, the terms are now so widely used for release sites that the department proposes formally expanding their use to all facility types for clarity and consistency.
Current rule prohibits the transfer of deer to or from a facility with a CWD test result of suspect or positive, but does not reference NMQ status.
The proposed amendments seek to clarify rule language by automatically setting such facility to NMQ status, unless authorized by a disease management plan.
Staff propose additional amendments that prohibit the movement of deer from breeder facilities located on a property subject to a TAHC hold order, or a TAHC quarantine for exotic CWD susceptible species, such as elk or red deer, unless authorized under a disease testing plan or based on a department epidemiological assessment.
This would address unique scenarios of traces on a property due to exotic CWD susceptible species.
An additional amendment introduces an exception that would permit the transfer of deer to or from a facility designated as non‑movement qualified, provided such transfers are authorized under an approved disease management plan.
TPWD recognizes that there may be unique or unforeseen circumstances in which adherence to a disease management plan offers sufficient epidemiological assurance.
In such cases, allowing the movement of deer from a facility that would otherwise be restricted may be justified to support broader disease control and management objectives.
The next proposed amendment clarifies that when a facility receives a CWD test of suspect or positive, all trace facilities will be set to NMQ.
This prevents the transfer of movement of deer by automatically applying NMQ status to a facility that receives a suspect or positive test result, unless authorized by a disease management plan.
Currently, the rule does not reference NMQ status, only the test result, as preventing movement, and specifically references a CWD suspect test result, but not a CWD positive test result.
Additionally, staff seek to clarify that a facility is automatically designated NMQ upon notification that CWD is suspected or confirmed as a result of antemortem testing.
Current rule language only references suspect test results, not confirmed test results.
The proposed amendment to the breeding facility minimum movement qualification removes references to TAHC, and would allow department biologists, in addition to veterinarians and epidemiologists, to make determinations with respect to retaining not movement‑qualified status and additional testing requirements for breeder facilities that are not able to meet testing requirements.
After receiving feedback, staff are recommending modifying the language to limit the decision regarding NMQ status and additional testing requirements to the Wildlife Division director or designee.
The proposed amendment concerning movement of breeder deer clarifies that a trace‑out facility remains a trace‑out facility… a trace‑out release facility remains a trace‑out release facility unless that release facility has satisfied requirements of a disease management plan for that property.
In addition, the proposed changes would stipulate in rule that changes in land ownership do not affect the status of a property as a trace-out release facility.
Additional amendments make non substantive conforming and housekeeping type changes as appropriate and necessary.
I would like to mention that staff received a letter from TPWD Chairman Emeritus Lee Bass expressing support from both the White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee and the Private Lands Advisory Committee for this rule… for these rule changes.
At this time, staff requests permission to publish the proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
And I’m happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.
I have a question.
I don’t know if you can go back to the previous… I think it’s where it says, "allows for a TPW biologist," and you struck it.
And instead it says, “a Wildlife Division director or designee, in addition to veterinarians and epidemiologists.”
So, are all three going to make the decision, or can be one independent of the others?
MR. GANN: It would allow any of those individuals to be able to make that decision.
It would give us a little more flexibility on staffing with the removal of the Texas Animal Health Commission from… from the equation there.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Because I think we received a letter from John Silovsky… I can never say his last name correctly.
And he recommended… and I’ve had calls that it should not just be one person.
It should be "and a veterinarian,” “and an epidemiologist.”
I didn’t know you were going to strike the biologist.
And it just… there was a question to whether how much training that biologist would have.
And so, does a Wildlife Division director or designee have that knowledge that a trained biologist would have?
Do you see where I’m going with that?
MR. GANN: Yes, ma’am.
And maybe I can clear a little of the confusion up.
And so, Subsection E there describes requirements for someone that owes more CWD tests than deer they have in their facility.
And so, typically they would be required to have two rounds of whole-herd testing to get movement qualified.
The specific language here removes reference to Texas Animal Health Commission, and adds “Wildlife Division Director or designee,” in addition to “veterinarian or epidemiologist.”
And this person would be allowed to make recommendations for additional testing to keep that facility non-movement qualified.
So, on top of the two rounds of whole-herd testing, if there are additional perceived risks we would require additional testing on top of that.
And so, that would be the only authority given in this situation.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Well, I guess it’s just kind of vague because it says, "or designee."
So, you don’t really know who is making that decision.
MR. GANN: Yes, ma’am.
COMMISSIONER GALO: And do they have the proper training to… and expertise to make the best decision in this kind of circumstance?
MR. GANN: Yes, ma’am.
COMMISSIONER GALO: And so, I don’t know if the Commission would… or leadership would want to add, you know, someone else.
Because here it’s very vague, in my opinion.
MR. CAIN: For the record, Alan Cain, Wildlife Division Director.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And Patton.
I think it’s a good catch.
I mean, “designee” is about as vague as it could possibly be.
And I didn’t catch that.
And that was what was in that letter.
I did read that letter.
And I wasn’t quite sure what it was going to,
But I don’t understand why we would have such a vague reference in there for an important role like this.
MR. CAIN: Yeah.
So, it was… when we originally had a biologist in there, we couldn’t capture whether it was the big game program director or myself, or the wildlife permits– the deer‑breeding program leader– that are dealing with this stuff day in and day out, and have knowledge and expertise to make some of these decisions.
So, for example, if somebody that’s in the proverbial mouse trap that didn’t have enough deer to meet their test requirements– or, in their view, two rounds of whole‑herd testing– but they miss some of the eligible deer in there, they didn’t test his mortalities, or something along those lines, or some mortalities that occurred.
Those are things where we don’t need to go and ask the veterinarian or epidemiologist, like, “Hey, we need to require additional tests.”
Those are things that our permits office staff, or Claudia, our program leader, that she could handle that, or Kory, or myself.
Those are simple changes.
But if the Commission likes, we can either strike it or add "in consultation with."
I mean, there are some options to handle that.
But I don’t think that’s necessary when we’re talking about all these situations.
But understood where your concern is.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I just think it needs to…
Excuse me, Commissioner Galo.
I just think that it needs to be a little bit more defined.
Because looking at that, I mean, we are not going to be here forever.
Y’all aren’t going to be there forever.
And someone else can come in and just kind of decide on their own, and without much consultation with, you know, the experts.
I mean, this is…
You know.
MR. CAIN: Well, our staff do deal with this every day.
I mean, I understand…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Yeah, I understand.
MR. CAIN: …where you are coming from.
But If the Commission would like, we can strike the language.
We can remove this.
I mean, if ya’ll have some guidance, we’ll…
COMMISSIONER GALO: I just don’t think one person should have all that power.
I think they should have to, or be required to, you know, consult with a veterinarian or epidemiologist.
I mean, we don’t want our standard of care, now that we don’t have Texas Animal Health Commission as our partner for our standards, to be more lax.
Actually, I almost think that they should be… now that we’re really responsible on our own.
And we should just make very sure what we’re doing when we’re making these types of very important decisions.
I just feel it’s very vague.
I just feel this should be up to a team, more than just to one person, to make that determination.
MR. CAIN: So we could add the… just if it would help clarify, maybe we add the word “Law Enforcement Division Director” or”designee” in consultation with the veterinarian or epidemiologist.”
Would that satisfy?
COMMISSIONER GALO: And… I mean, I don’t think you have to put “in consultation.”just put "and a veterinarian and an epidemiologist."
MR. CAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I mean, that’s…
But, I mean, what do you think, Bobby?
Or anyone else?
I mean…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, I think I’m more concerned about just the vague “designee.”
Because that could be anything.
And then the…
But to Commissioner Galo’s point, it would be the Wildlife Division director and a veterinarian.
I just don’t think unilaterally, even if it is our Wildlife Division director, should make this… should make this decision.
It seems like it should be, you know, some type of redundancy, some type of safeguard there.
Because it implies it, but it doesn’t require it.
The way I read it.
MR. CAIN: Yeah.
So, we could strike the word "designee."
COMMISSIONER PATTON: That would solve my issue.
But then if we were implying that we want in addition to vets and epidemiologists, then maybe we should say, "and."
MR. CAIN: We can do that.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Yep.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Well, I think that’s worth looking at.
And then, of course, it would be something we’d vote on tomorrow, right?
MR. CAIN: No, this is just…
Again…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: To publish.
MR. CAIN: …this is just permission to publish to go out for public comments.
So, we’ll come back in January.
COMMISSION PATTON: But we come back tomorrow to get permission to publish?
MR. CAIN: No, that’s today.
COMMISSIONER GALO: That’s right now.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right.
MR. CAIN: So, what we can do is, if that’s all where y’all want to go, we can make that adjustment before it goes to the Register for public comment.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I think so.
I think it would be prudent.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And then I guess this is for my clarification.
Patton.
When you use the word "designee," what were you contemplating?
Who’s the designee?
MR. CAIN: It would be big game program director, the deer breeder permits program lead that deals with this every day, day in and day out, white-tailed deer program leader.
Those three.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And if you wanted to name them, you add them.
You know, I think that might satisfy me.
But just having this designee, I…
MR. CAIN: Understood.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Yeah.
Commissioner McCall.
Mine was on another little area when you talked about having a release site, changing that facility.
That’s semantics.
I don’t really care about that.
But recently, and I talked to David about this, we had five deer that were taken to a release facility, tested negative.
And then later on, from the place they came from, there was a positive testing.
So, now, I suppose that becomes the suspect site that’s out there because those five deer were there.
And they were told to… if they could eliminate those five deer, that would be okay.
Which we all know they can rub noses.
And we’ve got the double fence line, and all of that.
So, I guess the question, and it is large facility, a large release site.
If it is a small one, it’s a little easier.
If it’s large, sometimes you can’t even find those deer again, even though they’re tagged.
So, is there a standard way that, you know, those five deer may be, you know, as sterile from this disease as they could possibly be?
Is there a standard way under this that a suspect site could become a non‑suspect site?
And what are the plans for that to happen?
I mean, you can’t just be suspect forever.
MR. CAIN: Yeah, good question, Commissioner McCall.
So, in those instances what you are talking about is somebody that received exposed deer and then went to the release site.
We’d consider those trace release sites.
And so, they either got to remove those trace deer, which is actually required under our rules right now– they need to try to remove those.
If for some reason they can’t, they would enter into a disease management plan, that Kory’s referenced here, that would have testing criteria in there.
They would need to test certain number of deer to provide confidence that the disease is not out there.
And once they meet those testing thresholds, they would be able to be cleared from that trace designation.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: So, they would be testing postmortem deer that they’ve taken for a period of time.
MR. CAIN: Yes, harvested deer.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And then once they are all cleared, then they can be removed from that suspect category.
MR. CAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: So, it doesn’t necessarily change what they’re doing other than there’s no transportation of deer out of that facility until that is removed.
MR. CAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Am I right on that?
MR. CAIN: So, yeah.
So, on release sites, in the pasture, you can’t… there’s no mechanism to move deer off of there.
We don’t allow that.
Triple T permits suspended.
So, If they wanted to move deer on, like, release more deer, say they were harvesting bucks, they could do that.
But they need to have a signed disease management plan that would outline that.
But the bottom line is, they still have to test hunter-harvested deer.
If they find a dead deer in the pasture, they’re supposed to collect the tissue sample if it’s still viable, and get those tested until they achieve that testing criteria, the standards.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Is there a designated time period?
A couple of years, so many deer?
What designates when you say, “Okay, we are going to take you off the suspect now?”
MR. CAIN: Yeah, so, it’s whatever the testing for that particular site is.
For example, if you want to test it at a rate of 95/5, you’ve got to test with 95 percent confidence that I can detect disease at 5 percent prevalence.
I have to test X number of deer based on either the population out there, or just the maximum number of deer for that, for an infinite population.
They test that rate.
And if they’re all not detected tests, then we’d evaluate and clear them from that status.
And so, it doesn’t impact their operation.
They can still hunt, they can still do everything they want to do.
They just have to test.
And that may take… they may be able to get it done in one year.
It may take five years.
It may take seven years.
It’s just however long it takes for them to test those deer that they are required to test.
And just so we’re clear, if you are a trace release site and I received deer yesterday, I have to wait 24 months post‑exposure.
So, when those deer arrived on my facility before the tests start counting– just because the disease has a long incubation period– and so, that’s when they start counting.
But once they start counting to get them out from under the disease management plan and the trace, it’s just how long it takes for them to harvest those deer.
It could be one year.
It could be three years.
It could be five.
You know, it just depends on how much they want to harvest.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Right, I just want to make sure we’ve got to have some consistency.
We want to contain the disease, obviously.
But then again, hypothetically, this could be as sterile as any other facility out there.
And there just has to be a way to prove that to get them off the list.
We just want to make sure we’ve got some consistency on that under this plan.
MR. CAIN: Yup, we will.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: All right.
Thank you, Alan.
MR. CAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.
I have one more question.
Am I reading everything correct?
Are we still, like, when we were under Texas Animal Health Commission and we find positive deer, they’re not going to be able to be released into nonadjacent release sites.
Is that correct?
Or is… now, with this management plan, are they going to be able to release positive deer to nonadjacent release sites?
MR. GANN: So, I guess we have an example of deer already moving to a nonadjacent release site under a signed herd plan with Texas Animal Health Commission.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Oh, we do?
MR. GANN: So, we don’t have anything specific to that in the rules package.
Obviously, any time we are moving deer out of a positive facility, the adjacent release site, if applicable, their feasible would be our suggested location.
Obviously, we have some facilities that do not have adjacent release sites that are going to require some hard conversations on potentially how those are handled in the future.
But there’s nothing specific to that in the rules package.
COMMISSIONER GALO: So, what happens when a breeder that has a nonadjacent release site comes to you and wants to transfer their deer to that?
If we’re not going to address it here, what’s going to happen?
Or maybe we should address it.
MR. GANN: So, typically, it’s been addressed in a herd plan.
And they are making… They are doing specific testing in their breeding facility.
They are usually… The example I can tell you, they are working towards the genetic resistance to CWD in their deer herd.
And they are conducting annual whole herd testing to give us, hopefully give us some assurances that CWD doesn’t exist in the facility at any high prevalence rate.
MR. CAIN: Alan Cain, again.
Wildlife Division Director.
I will just add, too, that in those situations, they are also doing intensive culling.
So, to Kory’s point, they’re removing the herd, they are doing whole‑herd testing every year before they release in those spots.
And a lot of times, working through those processes– which we’ve already been doing, he listed some examples– it helps us move these facilities off‑center so they’re not sitting there cooking for two or three years in the facility letting more positives go, or build up in there without having any mitigation.
So, we can get a herd plan signed.
We can start testing.
We can start culling.
We’re reducing risk significantly.
And then in most of these, they are going to release… They are going to adjacent release sites.
So, there’s been the one example, the facility in Uvalde County that’s moved into a nonadjacent release site.
But that facility is going on their end of their fifth year right now.
They’ve had zero positives other than that initial detection.
So, the program seems to be working.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.
So, they’re the only ones, or they’re going to be the first to release into a nonadjacent release site?
MR. CAIN: No, we’ve had others…
COMMISSIONER GALO: You’ve had others?
MR. CAIN: …released to nonadjacent release sites.
That’s the only one.
We have had other release sites under herd plans…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Oh, no, I understand.
I’m talking about nonadjacent release sites.
I know that…
MR. CAIN: That’s the first and only one so far.
COMMISSIONER GALO: This is going to be the first one.
So…
MR. CAIN: It has been.
COMMISSIONER GALO: I’m sorry?
MR. CAIN: Yes, it’s the only one right now that’s under that plan.
We haven’t had anybody else that’s come to us yet.
COMMISSIONER GALO: But don’t you think once you let one, it kind of opens the door to have everybody want to… you know, because there’s a lot of breeders that don’t have, you know, adjacent release sites.
And so, don’t you think that maybe we should put a process, you know, some kind of criteria that if, you know, certain things are met then you qualify to move to a nonadjacent release site?
I mean, I totally understand releasing to an adjacent release site.
But this is options that’s given to people who don’t want to depopulate, right?
MR. CAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.
MR. CAIN: To be clear, those criteria in place, and those herd plans or disease management plans, the property that’s doing this, they have to cull all the deer.
They have to do annual whole‑herd testing.
They’re already doing those things.
And that’s the model we would use for other places if there is a nonadjacent release site being considered.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And how long ago was that one done?
MR. CAIN: 2020?
I mean, this is going into their fifth hunting season.
And if they finish up…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: If they were already released into a nonadjacent five years ago…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Five years ago they were released into a nonadjacent, you said?
MR. CAIN: Well, no.
They went two years.
In this initial plan, they waited two years.
And then beginning the third year, they started releasing into nonadjacent release sites.
So, they have been releasing for three years on this nonadjacent release site.
It’s about 30 miles away.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: But they… I guess what I’m saying, I understand what they do.
But don’t you think that that should be written somewhere, or not?
MR. CAIN: It’s written in the herd plan.
COMMISSIONER GALO: In their herd plan or in all herd plans?
MR. CAIN: It’s in their herd plans.
You have to look at each facility as unique and different, right?
So, risk may be different in one.
And the testing may be different in one.
We may utilize new technology, RT-QuIC identification procedures.
Different things like that.
And so those are sent… supposed to be customized to each of those specific disease management plans.
If you write things in… and what I’m gathering you say is that if you put it in regulation, it removes the flexibility to deal with each situation uniquely in the disease management plan.
And we need that.
We have to be nimble to move things.
And so, we have had these models in place, or these plans, kind of templates, and we’re using those moving forward.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.
But you all agree since it’s only one, this is like a new area of releasing into non-adjacent release sites.
MR. CAIN: I don’t know that I would call it “new.”
They have been doing this for three years, and so we have a template.
COMMISSIONER GALO: But they’re the only ones, correct?
MR. CAIN: Yeah, because we have had everybody else that’s had adjacent release site.
So…
COMMISSIONER GALO: But I think it’s new if it’s only one individual.
MR. CAIN: I guess my point is…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Whether it’s been three years or whether it’s been longer, it’s not really tested to see…
And just in light of, you know, everything that has happened recently with the ghost deer, and all that, I mean, we need to be really careful.
Because we don’t really know if other deer were moved around the state that were positive, right?
So, I’m just saying that I would rather be, you know, safe than sorry.
I would rather be careful up front, than regret, you know, down the line that maybe we were too nimble, you know?
I guess that’s my concern.
Because…
MR. CAIN: Understood.
And we can address those in the disease management plans, so,
COMMISSIONER GALO: Okay.
MR. CAIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, do we have any other comments or questions?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, I just want to make sure that we captured…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That’s what I was going to say.
[ LAUGHTER ]
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, what I hear is identifying instead of “designee,” identify specific positions within the Wildlife Division.
So, it would be Division Director, Big‑Game Coordinator, is what I heard.
And what other… and the…
MR. GANN: Big Game Program Director.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay.
MR. GANN: Deer Breeder Program Leader.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: And then that, and then… not in…
So, then what is the additional language, then, to the veterinarians and epidemiologists?
COMMISSIONER GALO: "And."
DR. YOSKOWITZ: “And...”
Okay, so “in addition” and "and" to…
COMMISSIONER GALO: Correct.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay, I just want to make sure we’re grabbing that.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Yes.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And we’re going to continue to…
We’re not going to add “biologist” back in?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: No, “biologist” is out.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yep, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, is everybody good with that?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: So, then come back in January.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: You will see that in the…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay, good.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules as amended, as we discussed, in the Texas Register.
COMMISSIONER GALO: Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Next is Work Session Item No. 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.
And Mr. Kevin Mote will join us.
KEVIN MOTE: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name’s Kevin Mote.
I’m the Private Lands and Public Hunting Program Director for the Wildlife Division.
Today, I’ll be presenting recommended changes to regulations necessary for the implementation of legislation passed during the 89th Legislative session.
Senate Bill 2801 directs the department to establish rules necessary for implementing a permit for hunting dog field trials where dogs chase or pursue squirrels, fur bears, or non‑game animals under field conditions.
The department currently administers two field trial permits.
One for private bird‑hunting areas limited to banded pen‑raised birds only, and can only be issued on private lands permitted as a private game bird area.
And the other for competitive hunting dog events on numbered units of public hunting lands.
Senate Bill 2801 directs the department to create a new permit type that allows for pursuit of squirrels, fur bears, and non-game animals.
This permit will be available in private land and designated units of public land.
For the purpose of creating this new permit, staff propose new rules which would establish provisions for application and issuance of the new field trial permit.
The proposed new language would prescribe requirements for on‑site supervision and documentation during permitted events, and identify the units of public lands where field trial permits may be issued.
In addition to those changes, it is necessary to make a few non‑substantive housekeeping-type changes to the public hunting proclamation for the purpose of reducing potential confusion, enhancing efficiency of the administration, and promoting effective enforcement.
And so, Chairman, we’d like to make you aware that we have made a change to the proposal before you to remove the across the board fee reduction on other field trial permits.
Staff supports this reduction.
But we intend to address the fee reduction as a part of the comprehensive review of the field trial permits next year, associated with the Texas Regulatory Efficiency office.
To be clear, the fee for the new squirrel, fur bear, non‑game field trial permit will be $50, as required by statute.
And the other field trial permits will remain at $63 until next year’s comprehensive efficiency review.
And with that change, staff requests permission to publish the proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment.
And that concludes my presentation.
I’ll be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Mote.
Any…
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling.
Kevin, I’m sure you received a letter that I’m sure you read as well that, in short, said this doesn’t accomplish what the Senate bill was intended for.
It really didn’t say much more than that.
It didn’t explain what he meant by that.
Are you aware of the letter, and can you elaborate on that?
MR. MOTE: I am.
We’re working with those individuals to not only help them understand it’s primarily a conflict on public… on our public lands.
And there is just certain things that, you know, we are required to do on public land.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: So, they are just wanting to use WMA’s parks, whatever may be, differently than what this will allow?
Or…
MR. MOTE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: I mean, that letter was pretty vague.
So, I just didn’t know what they were getting at in their letter.
MR. MOTE: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anything else?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Commissioner McCall.
Yes.
On that same letter, I read that.
Is there… evidently, our rules on public land are different than other states on public land?
Is that what I understand?
Is that what the disconnect was between the person that wrote that letter and their perception of what the senate bill was supposed to do and what we’re actually doing?
MR. MOTE: So, there’s a lot wrapped up in that.
So, yes.
Our regulations and our requirements on our state lands in Texas are probably different than a lot of states.
But our public lands, our WMA’s, in particular, are used as research and demonstration and wildlife habitat management areas.
And so, we do the best we can to try and accommodate other outdoor recreational opportunities as those other priorities will allow.
So, there’s a number of points that this individual raises that we’re working on, we’re trying to accommodate.
But in the end, you know, we still have to do what’s right for the resources and for our properties in Texas.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I understand.
And given what you just said, is this ready to publish now?
Or will there be… do you anticipate there will be additional changes to this?
MR. MOTE: I believe it’s ready to publish now.
I’m not saying that we won’t come to you with some minor changes in January, to what’s published.
But I believe we are ready to publish and go to the Texas Register now.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
That’s fine.
Just let us know if there’s any changes.
I’m sure you will.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, Commissioner McCall, I would just say, it’s ready to publish.
It’s ready to go.
But in consultation, we may come with some logical outgrowths in January.
But nothing that I would imagine would be significantly different.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Quick question.
Timmerman.
If we make changes in January, does that start the whole process over again with republishing?
Or… where does that… I’m a…
I know it’s a rookie question, but I’m a rookie.
MR. MURPHY: Commissioner Timmerman, this is James Murphy, General Counsel, for the record.
And no, it’s a very good question, and one that is the subject of litigation here in Texas.
The legal standard is that anything that we propose that’s different from what was published in the Texas Register for public comment needs to be a logical outgrowth of the original proposal, and it can’t regulate a new class of persons that were not on notice in the original rule package.
And so, that was what Director Yoskowitz was referring to, as, you know, those types of changes.
One way to describe it would be kind of minor changes that aren’t, you know, changing the full scope of this.
But legal performs an analysis of each of those changes that we proposed to you on the adoption meeting, and we will certainly do that here if there is anything significant.
And certainly there have been a few instances with this Commission where we have had to say that that is not a logical outgrowth, and we would have to start over with a new proposal sent to the Register for public comment.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Anything else?
Thank you, Mr. Mote.
If there are no further questions I will authorize staff to publish the rules, with the amendment that Mr. Mote mentioned at the beginning, in the Texas Register.
Thank you.
Next, Work Session Item No. 8: 2026-2027 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Review… Preview.
Mr. Shaun Oldenburger, please.
SHAUN OLDENBURGER: All right.
Good morning, Chairman Foster and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Shaun Oldenburger.
I’m the Small Game Program Director in the Wildlife Division.
This morning, myself and Mr. Blaise Korzekwa, our white-tail deer Program Leader will be giving you a preview of potential changes to our ‘26-‘27 hunting season regulations.
As a reminder, staff will bring proposals in front of you during the January Commission Meeting.
We will begin discussing potential changes to the migratory game bird hunting seasons for the ‘26‑’27 hunting season.
As a reminder, under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Secretary of the Interior has ultimate federal statutory responsibility for managing migratory birds in populations and hunting seasons in the United States.
However, Texas Parks and Wildlife, which are one of ten states that are members of the Central Flyway Council, works very closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff on migratory game birds in their hunting seasons.
Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not yet finally approved the federal frameworks, season lengths and daily bag limits are maintained for the next hunting season, during the ‘26-’27 hunting season, based on their status and existing harvest strategies.
I should note, with regards to this slide, as of earlier this week the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations committee that was scheduled to occur next week in Bloomington, Minnesota, has been canceled due to the federal shutdown.
So, therefore, our regulatory process will be delayed this year.
I’m not sure if that will impact our process yet.
But stay tuned for that.
Additionally, the Migratory Game Bird Technical Committee and the Migratory Game Bird Advisory Committee will meet in early December to develop specific proposals to bring forward to you in January.
Next, we’ll provide a brief update on duck population trends based on the 2025 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service waterfowl breeding population and habitat survey from this last spring and summer
As illustrated here, duck populations have generally declined over the past decade.
This trend aligns with deteriorating habitat conditions across the parklands, particularly reflected in reduced pond counts.
Additionally, we continue to see widespread grassland conversion and wetland drainage in both United States and Canada, further impacting breeding habitat in the long term.
In May, pond numbers declined by 19 percent, dropping to approximately 4.18 million.
While we observed increases in species, such as widgeon, pintails, and canvasbacks, most other species remain stable or show declines compared to the previous year.
As you may recall, if hunted during September teal season, we only had a nine‑day teal season for the first time in nearly two decades, compared to the usual 16-day season we had in previous.
Unfortunately, due to the status of blue-winged teal populations, that shorter teal season will continue, as breeding population of blue-winged teal once again fell below the 4.7 million threshold required for a full 16‑day season.
This year’s estimate came in at 4.432 million, triggering the nine‑day season under the current harvest strategy approved by Flyway Councils and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
As a reminder for the Commission, these days must be consecutive.
Turning to doves.
For the past 15 years, the department has consistently requested reduction in regulatory restrictions from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service for the south zone dove‑hunting regulations.
This year, we submitted a formal proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to remove the September 14 opening day restriction in the south zone.
While we are still awaiting a decision, we believe the department has provided robust biological evidence, showing additional hunting days in September pose no threat to dove populations in South Texas.
In fact, survey data collected by our Wildlife Division biologists showed that both white-winged and mourning dove populations have steadily increased since monitoring began in 2008, even as we gradually expanded the hunting opportunity in both space and time across the south zone.
Additionally, banding data indicates harvest rates for both species in South Texas remain low and within acceptable limits.
All right, moving on to the statewide hunting proclamation.
This past March, this Commission approved our recommendation to change the quail hunting season structure to November 1, until the last day in February.
This proclamation obviously took impact this last Saturday, with the opening of quail season.
The staff have consistently tried to remain consistent and simplify regulations across the state.
We recommend adjusting the Chachalaca hunting season dates to match that same time frame, from November 1 to the last day in February, to once again align as they previously had, occurred to last year’s change.
Moving on to turkey regulations.
Mandatory reporting has been in place in Matagorda and Wharton County since 2002, in the 1 Western Gobbler Zone.
The rule is… traditionally, the rule has been to close the season if one or fewer turkeys are reported harvested in a county over a three‑year period.
Both counties now meet that threshold.
No wild turkeys have been reported in Matagorda County as take, and only one, a banded bird released under a Triple T permit in Wharton County.
With these closures, staff will explore opportunities to restock wild turkeys in these areas, focusing on private lands for landowners who are interested in suitable habitat exist.
As shown here, recent two minute wild distribution maps indicate Matagorda County has no, or minimal, wild turkeys. And Wharton County only shows presence near a previous Triple T release site, as previously mentioned.
These occupancy surveys are regularly conducted by our Wildlife Division biologists.
And as we discussed previously, estimating wild turkey abundance is challenging.
So, we rely on multiple data resources, including occupancy surveys, brood sightings, breeding bird surveys, and other available information to monitor wild turkey populations across the State of Texas.
Moving on to looking at wild turkeys on a statewide basis.
As you can see here, this is breeding bird survey data that started in 1966 from across the state.
We have actually observed an alarming decline in wild turkeys here over the last decade, in response to some of the habitat conditions that have occurred in the state.
Regulations represent only one means that TPWD has to impact populations, and hopefully improve recruitment into the next hunting season.
The staff have discussed removing unbearded hens from all legal harvest in the State of Texas.
Recent research suggests hens going into the nesting season is the most critical variable to long-term sustainability.
Based on recent mandatory reporting, hens accounted for 41 percent of the overall fall harvest in 2024; with only 9 percent of the hens harvested in 2024 fall season were bearded.
Conversely, hens only accounted for 1 percent of the overall harvest during the spring season.
With this population potential change, we would reduce overall hen harvest in the state, especially during the fall season.
Here is a map of the current regulations.
As you can see, with this potential change, impacts all counties in TPWD’s wild turkey north zone during the fall season.
And the special south zone fall season is where those impacts would be seen.
In 2015, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department closed Angelina National Forest in Jasper County to support an eastern wild turkey restoration project there, and additional research.
One of TPWD’s decision variables is a minimum of five years post‑stocking before an area can be considered for reopening for a wild turkey hunting season.
Angelina National Forest has met that threshold with the last wild turkeys being released in 2017.
This is the only landscape in Jasper County that does not open to the spring turkey hunting season.
Staff proposed to reopen the portion of Angelina National Forest in Jasper County, but propose a conservative approach utilizing a draw hunt through TPWD’s public hunting program on this national forest.
Staff will look at developing a turkey management unit in other portions of Angelina National Forest that fall within Angelina County, which is currently closed to turkey hunting, which we will discuss in the next slides.
TPWD resumed wild turkey stocking efforts in East Texas in 2014.
Since then, 2,448 wild turkeys have been released at 13 sites.
Additionally, those turkeys come from outside states since we don’t have a source population of eastern wild turkeys within the state.
In addition, cost assistance to private landowners has been provided for habitat management impacting over 34,000 acres in these focal areas.
Where wild turkey restorations efforts have been determined to be successful by the department, we’d like to offer localized hunting opportunities.
However, current regulations only allow us to manage harvest at a county level.
To address this, staff may request the authority to develop and modify turkey management units.
These would allow private landowners and public land managers to receive, use, and transfer authorization to harvest surplus male wild turkeys within approved property values and season dates, and establish turkey management units.
To show you a hypothetical area where we have overlaid a two‑minute wild turkey occupancy grid, outlined in black, with the major roadways to indicate the boundaries of a hypothetical turkey management unit in East Texas.
Currently, staff are discussing details with regional staff and our Upland Game Bird Advisory Committee in how this would be completed.
At this time, staff see it as more of an adaptive approach to authorize harvest in these areas, if approved by the Commission for implementation in future years.
That concludes my portion of the presentation.
I’d be happy to take any questions before I turn it over to Mr. Blaise Korzekwa.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I have a question.
Two, actually.
One on our duck population.
I understand it has been down.
That might explain why my duck hunt has been so bad the last three years.
The other is…
I know we have a federal framework, and we have to go within that… follow within that.
Are we… Does our season in Texas push to the last day of the federal framework?
MR. OLDENBURGER: So, yes, for general duck seasons we are allowed to go… federal framework says to go to January 31.
Traditionally, the department commission have decided the last Sunday in January would be the last day to go.
And the reason we do that is to maximize weekend hunting opportunity.
When we look at harvest throughout any migratory game hunting season, those weekends, especially Friday through Sunday, really pop up in harvest.
And so, if we went to the last day in the federal frameworks, which would be January 31 in some years, we would actually lose a weekend of hunting.
So, those are the reasons we have proposed going to the last Sunday in January in previous years.
Now, for the next hunting season, for the ’26‑’27 hunting season, it just happens the last Sunday in January is January 31.
So, it will happen one out of seven years.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
The other question…
I really enjoyed your turkey presentation.
My ranch is on the… is Northern Houston County, almost touching Anderson County, right on the Trinity River.
And this last year, on camera and visual sights, you know, we saw turkeys on three different occasions.
So, where are they coming from?
MR. OLDENBERGER: Well, so, the department staff have actually been working along the Trinity River farther north of you, obviously.
But we have actually been putting Rio Grande turkeys from South Texas and actually Central Texas in that area to hopefully get turkey populations connected in that part of the world.
When we actually look at Texas, we kind of see that is kind of a hybridization area historically, where we had Rios and Easterns coming.
So, we put a bunch of Rios along Trinity River, and hopefully those birds will expand in future years.
So, you may have seen some of those birds.
It all depends what they look like.
If they were Easterns coming from the east or if they were Rios coming from, basically, the north.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay, well, I’m not sure where they are coming from.
But we’re happy to see them.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah.
We are happy you saw them, too.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So I have… when you look at the decline in bird population, the breeding bird population, what drives that?
Is that weather?
Is that environmental?
Is it… What kind of causes the declines, or increases?
MR. OLDENBURGER: Let me back up.
I assume you are referring to this Slide 10 here.
So, this is breeding bird survey.
This is roadside data collected by volunteers across the state.
There is well over a hundred of these routes that are conducted.
So, this is a general population trend we see throughout the state.
If you’ll notice, obviously wild turkey populations were fairly suppressed in Texas basically up until the 90s.
And then we saw a very large increase in wild turkey populations over the decades preceding that.
When you look back and you see… basically, we saw a decline in basically the mid‑2000s.
And then we saw a rapid increase.
That rapid increase coincided with those 2015, ‘16 years, which were generally very wet across the state.
And so, we saw lots of birds in places where we’d never seen birds, actually, in Texas.
So, we had a large expansion.
If you hunted those years, there was a lot of gobbling going on those years if you happened to get out and hunt those years.
And then obviously, after that, we actually saw a decline, mostly due to the drought that we have seen across the Rio Grande population area of Central Texas, and even South Texas.
And so, really right now, habitat continues to be an issue.
We work with private landowners with technical guidance to improve habitat.
And we have done that for years.
But ultimately, some of this is mostly related to rainfall and habitat conditions, much like we see with quail and other species.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, Yeah.
Apologies.
But I was actually referring to the ducks…
MR. OLDENBURGER: Oh, yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …on the Slide 3.
MR. OLDENBURGER: My apologies.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Right there.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Yeah, so, once again, we’ve seen general… a very similar story.
We’ve seen general drought conditions across South Dakota and North Dakota and the provinces, being Alberta or Saskatchewan, to Manitoba.
There’s pockets of good weather in a regular year.
Also, winter snow amounts have actually declined through the last decade or so in there.
And obviously those, when we talk about pond counts in the prairies, it’s really temporary wetlands that we’re looking at.
They are very productive for dabbling ducks.
And so, they are very small wetlands.
Not the big ones.
And so, those tend to be very productive near those with nesting habitat.
So, that has declined over the last decade.
We also see large drainages across… in provinces across Canada, which is reducing those number of ponds.
That is occurring.
And then, the drought seems to be pretty strong for the last decade in that part of the world, as well.
So, we get pockets of really good precipitation and snowfall in areas.
And carryover precipitation increases the ponds in certain areas.
But then, drought has been kind of overtaking a lot of the area for the last decade.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, thank you.
Anybody else?
All right.
Thank you.
Work Session Item No. 9: Party Boat Rules– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register.
MR. OLDENBURGER: Mr. Chairman, Blaise Korzekwa will finish the previous presentation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, my apologies.
You’re exactly right.
Mr. Kor… Korzekwa?
BLAISE KORZEKWA: Yes sir, Korzekwa.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
MR. KORZEKWA: Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Blaise Korzekwa, White‑Tailed Deer Program Leader.
And this morning, I will provide a preview of the proposed big‑game hunting regulations that we will consider bringing forward to the Commission in January.
We currently have two big‑game regulation proposals that I will go into more detail in on the following slides.
But those proposals are to expand doe days in 21 counties, and to modify the definition of “muzzleloader.”
Both of those proposals are meant to expand hunting opportunities, and have no negative biological impact.
The State of Texas is divided into deer management units, which the department uses to estimate populations and to recommend regulations.
Those 21 counties shown in blue on the map are located in deer management units 11 and 12.
Based on the department’s deer surveys, these deer management units have seen an increase in deer density, as well as a skewed sex ratio of four does per buck.
Staff have also received feedback from landowners, hunters, and farmers that have concern with the increasing deer population, and have also requested to increase doe days.
Although doe harvest is permitted throughout most of the state for the entire duration of the general season, there are currently 89 counties that have some form of doe days.
These counties with doe days have restricted season dates in which does may be harvested with a firearm, which allows for a conservative harvest while still allowing for hunting opportunity.
Those 21 counties shown in blue on the map are mostly located in the Post Oak Savannah ecoregion, and currently have a four‑day doe season that runs from Thanksgiving day through the Sunday following Thanksgiving.
Those counties have an annual bag limit of two antlerless deer in which they may be harvested during the special doe season, as well as during archery, youth-only, and muzzleloader seasons.
After harvest, hunters have 24 hours to complete mandatory reporting requirements in the Texas Hunt and Fish app.
Staff are proposing that these 21 counties be expanded to a 16‑day doe season.
This proposed 16-day doe season would begin the second Saturday of general season and close the Sunday following Thanksgiving.
Although it’s called a 16‑day doe season, due to calendar progression and the week that Thanksgiving may actually fall on, some years may have a season length of 23 days.
As mentioned earlier, the bag limit of two antlerless deer and mandatory reporting requirements would remain in place.
Staff will also conduct public scoping meetings in these 21 counties to inform hunters and landowners of the proposed changes and receive feedback.
The final proposal would be to modify the definition of “muzzleloader.”
The current definition is shown there on the slide, and is defined as: “any firearm designed such that both the propellant and the bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle.”
However, there is new muzzleloader technology in which the propellent is a self‑contained powder charge.
The hunter will load this charge into the breach of the rifle and insert a primer.
The projectile is then loaded through the muzzle.
This technology allows for the safe unloading of the firearm by simply opening the breach and removing the charge.
The use of this new technology during muzzleloader season is currently allowed in those 29 states shown in green on the map.
Those states shown in yellow are also looking at modifying their definition of “muzzleloader” to include use of this new technology.
Staff are proposing that the definition of “muzzleloader” be modified to any firearm design such that the
bullet or projectile can be loaded only through the muzzle.
Muzzleloaders average only around 1 percent of the statewide harvest each year, and this modification would expand hunting opportunities during muzzleloader season.
Both of these proposals are supported by the White‑Tailed Deer Technical Committee, as well as the White‑Tailed Deer Advisory Committee.
That concludes my presentation, and I’m willing to answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. McCall.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Commissioner McCall.
One thing we struggle with, when they first came out with the 13‑inch limit I thought that was a bad idea.
And I was wrong.
That has really helped with the population.
It’s obvious that just taking them out back and killing the yearlings and the two-and-a-half-year-old bucks, and everything.
We still see very immature deer that are less than 12 inches.
And even though they can have six on one side, six points on one side, and become legal.
I just always wondered if there was a way, just kind of like in Africa importing lions, it has to be exportable, it has to be a five-and-a-half-year‑old lion.
Well, you don’t know that until you get them on the ground.
So, I’m not sure how we would do this.
But if… we’re pretty good at aging deer because we see them all the time.
And let’s say we look at, say, antlers.
But we look at the body to age them.
We’re pretty good on that.
Four and a half, and up.
If you’re seeing a four-and-a-half and up, and he’s got a 11 or 12 inch inside spread, it… you know, you scratch your head because he’s not legal to kill, but you don’t want to breed him.
So, have y’all all looked at any answers like that, where if a mature deer came in, you know, so, what do you do on a case like that?
I would like to elevate the population of deer all through Texas, especially in East Texas, because that’s where I am.
But we see that quandary every year, where we see a very immature deer with a very, very narrow rack.
And they’re just not legal deer to take.
So, have y’all done any research, or looked at that?
MR. KORZEKWA: Yes, Sir.
So, some of the research we’ve looked at, obviously the inside spread measurements, that’s how we determine the 13‑inch just because that would protect those one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half‑year‑old bucks.
Generally, around 95 to 96 percent of deer will hit a 13‑inch inside spread at one age in their life.
Obviously, that leaves 4 to 5 percent that that may occur on.
Luckily, those genetics are not passed on.
Because the bucks carry half the antler traits.
And this does actually contribute half the antler traits, to where in a wild population the odds of those bucks that are technically inside 13 inches, the odds of them producing offspring that are also going to grow up to be a narrow spread is very minimal– near zero– in a wild population.
One option for landowners is if they are enrolled in the Manage Lands Deer Program, whether it’s our conservation option that we offer or the harvest option, those permits through that just allow the take of any buck, and that’s regardless of its inside spread.
So, we’ve had ranches that may enroll in that for a few years to harvest some of those older bucks like that, and then stay in the program or perhaps opt out of the program.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Okay.
All right.
Good answer.
I like that.
MR. KORZEKWA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Half comes from the does.
[ LAUGHTER ]
So, we do like those points, too.
MR. KORZEKWA: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Anything else?
All right, thank you.
MR. KORZEKWA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Now, again, Work Session No. 9.
Work Session Item No. 9: Party Boat Rules– Request to Publish in the Texas Register.
Mr. Cody Jones.
CODY JONES: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Cody Jones.
I’m the Assistant Commander on our Law Enforcement Division and our State’s Boating Law Administrator.
I’m here today to request permission to publish proposed changes to the book of party boat rules in the Texas Register.
As it has been some time since this Commission has been presented with any rules associated with this topic, I wanted to start by giving a brief background on the inception of the program, and some historical context.
In the years leading up to 2007, there were early indications of safety risk associated with larger livery vessels with large numbers of passengers onboard, which are now defined as “party boats.”
For instance, in May of 2004, a double‑decker barge carrying some 60 passengers capsized near Hippie Hollow on Lake Travis, when the majority of the passengers were on the upper deck and all shifted to one side, destabilizing the vessel.
The vessel listed sharply, dumping everyone into 40 to 50 feet of water.
And emergency responders arrived quickly, including myself that day.
We were able to account for everyone, with only a few passengers receiving minor injuries.
Subsequently, in July of 2004, and again in July of 2006, two early‑20s females lost their lives in separate instances when each used the slide on the rear upper deck of a double-decker party barge and were subsequently struck by the maneuvering vessel at the time.
Together, these and others events prompted lawmakers to recognize the risk of these types of operations, which led to the development of House Bill 12 that was introduced and passed during the 80th Legislation Session, in 2007.
The bill added Subchapter G into Chapter 31 in the Parks and Wildlife Code, known as The Water Safety Act.
Subchapter G, titled Party Boat… titled Party Boats defines the vessels and persons to be regulated, and sets some legal frameworks in which to work from.
Importantly, it also provides this Commission with the authority to promulgate rules to implement the subchapter.
As a frame of reference, a party boat is defined as a vessel that’s 30 feet or greater in length, operated by the owner or an employee of the owner, and rendered for a group of more than six passengers with one exception: the statute excludes sailboats from being defined or regulated as party boats.
Additionally, a licensed party boat operator is someone who is at least 21 years of age, and who has completed both minimum observation and operational time on a covered vessel, and who passes a written exam administered by the department.
Upon passage of House Bill 12, this Commission promulgated rules which became effective in January of 2008, in order to implement the subchapter.
These rules included requirements for obtaining a department-issued party boat operator’s license, the annual inspection required for the covered vessels, the operational standards for covered vessels, limits on the number of passengers based on stability of the test… stability testing, proper emergency procedures, and mandatory minimum liability insurance coverage for these vessels.
Since the inception of the statute and subsequent rules, Texas has seen explosive growth, and party boat rentals have grown in popularity on many area lakes and waterways.
The party boat program started with only 31 vessels in 2008, and has grown to its current number of 135 party boats in the program currently, which is roughly 335 percent increase, or 20 percent increase growth year over year for the last 16 years.
Additionally, we have 182 licensed party boat operators in our system.
A series of recent events and incidents have caused the department to reassess the efficacy of the current rules.
In May, 2018, a woman fell from a party boat on Lake Travis, striking her head and subsequently drowning.
In August of 2021, the Conroe Queen on Lake Conroe capsized, throwing 53 passengers into the water, along with a substantial amount of diesel fuel.
This incident resulted in one death of a passenger onboard.
The vessel had a history of regulatory issues with operating under other names in other states, and was prohibited by United States Coast Guard from operating in federal waters before being renamed and relocated to Texas, unbeknownst to us.
We have subsequently rectified the Coast Guard nondisclosure issue through an MOU, and they now share vessels entering into our program that have been previously denied operational approval by them.
In July of 2022, the department arrested an operator of a party boat on Lake Austin, and also obtained a conviction for operating for boating while intoxicated.
In May and June of 2025, the department conducted saturation tolls on Lake Austin and Lake Travis, which resulted in 20 violations involving party boats, including: no evidence inspection; no proof of insurance; passengers on top decks while underway; inadequate staff training; no certifications; unlawful party boat operations; no party boat operator’s license; and other violations.
At least four boats were encountered over 30 feet were found to be operating illegally by claiming they were livery vessels, rather than party boats.
In August of 2025, the Department of Law Enforcement personnel cited a party boat operator for operating without the required insurance, which had been allowed to expire.
That same month, a party boat passenger on Lake Travis was injured by a propeller strike on one of those vessels.
The department is also aware of incidents in which party boat owners have intentionally altered vessel lengths for the sole purpose of evading the applicability of the party boat rules.
I come before you today to propose a number of amendments to existing rules to strengthen the program and address ongoing issues and concerns.
First, proposed amendments would alter definitions of “inland waters,” add new definitions for “owners agent,” “accredited marine surveyor” and “accredited naval architects,” and also for “stability letters.”
The current definition for “inland waters” is not completely accurate, as it does not exclude certain border waters with other states, or Mexico, that are considered federally navigable waters, and by that are subject to the regulations of the United States Coast Guard, which supersedes state regulations and are generally considered to be as, or more, stringent than our state regulations.
The proposed amendments would add language to make that definition completely accurate.
Additionally, proposed amendments would define “owner’s agent” as: “a person engaged, authorized, or otherwise allowed to directly or indirectly be an intermediary to operate a vessel that is not owned by the person, but is subject to the provisions of the subchapter.”
The department has encountered instances of attempts to evade regulatory compliance by persons claiming that some sort of lease or subcontracting arrangement absolved them and the owner from being used as a party boat from culpability in violations of the provisions.
The department seeks to make this abundantly clear that a business arrangement between the owner of the vessel used as a party boat and the person who is technically not an employee of the owner, but ultimately operates the vessel, is irrelevant in the context of determining responsible authorities in the course of an enforcement action.
The proposed provision would make this abundantly clear.
Additional proposed amendments would make clear definitions for “accredited marine surveyor” and “accredited naval architects.”
These persons are accredited by recognized professional trades organizations outlined in the rule.
The proposed rules would require party boats’ initial and periodic inspections to be conducted by one of these accredited inspectors.
Thus, the definitions are necessary to ensure that party boat inspections are conducted by competent parties.
Also, the definition for “stability letter” will be added.
This will be defined as an affidavit from an accredited marine naval architect or a credited marine surveyor attesting to load limits necessary for safe operations on the vessels used as party boats.
The proposed rules require every vessel operating as a party boat to be assessed initial and periodic seaworthiness assessments, and to be put in writing in the form of a “stability letter” that then can be submitted to the department.
Therefore, a definition of the term was necessary to provide guidance and context.
The proposed amendments would also create exceptions to licensed requirements for operators who possess a U.S. Coast Guard valid captain or pilot’s license.
U.S. Coast Guard requirements for such licenses meet and exceed the requirements of this subchapter; therefore, we are satisfied public safety is not going to be compromised by allowing this exception.
Also, amendments would add language to allow U.S. Coast Guard K or T class commercial boats certifications to be used in lieu of an inspection or certification required by the chapter.
Like licensing, these vessel certifications meet and exceed the standards imposed under the proposed rules, therefore exceptions… such vessels from this inspection certification requirement of the subchapter do not jeopardize public safety.
In addition, current rules require a party boat operator to maintain a minimum $300,000 liability insurance from an insured licensure business in the state.
The requirements for liability insurance was established by Parks and Wildlife Code 31.175,
Subchapter C.
However, the amount of insurance was set by the Commission.
Currently, 70 percent of all owners are carrying liability insurance that exceeds the $300,000 minimum limit.
The current value was established in 2007, and the proposed amendments would increase the required minimum to $500,000 to reflect the fact that the consumer price index has increased significantly since 2007– some 49 percent.
And the requirement would represent the bare minimum for respect to the ability to respond to incidents resulting in damage or injuries.
The proposed amendments also would clearly state that insurance required by the subchapter to be 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 them per‑fleet is therefore sufficient.
The department disagrees, and maintains that it should be intuitively obvious in which to make that clear in the rule.
The proposed amendments also would require proof of insurance to be kept onboard the party boat at all times, and made available upon request by department employees acting in the scope of their official duties.
The department believes it’s necessary to be able to quickly determine that a party boat operator is in compliance with the minimum insurance requirements at the time the vessel is being used or accommodating paying passengers.
Similarly, the proposal amendments would require that retention of all documents required by the subchapter to be maintained for a period of two years, which is the statute of limitations for Parks and Wildlife code violations under Chapter 31, Subchapter G.
Additional proposed changes would explicitly establish the number and types of personal flotation devices that must be onboard a party boat when carrying passengers, including provisions attempted to provide adequate water safety for children and minors.
It defines the requirement to carry serviceable U.S. Coast Guard approved wearable personal flotation devices in the number equivalent to the vessel’s occupancy’s limit indicated by the inspection, as well as an additional child‑sized device equal to amount at least 10 percent of the occupancy limit.
If more than 10 percent of the passengers are children on any given voyage, they must have an appropriate amount of child‑sized personal flotation devices to cover all children present.
The owner would also be required to articulate and post emergency procedures for all passengers.
Procedures would include: instructions for the use of emergency radio; man overboard procedures; response to fires and explosions; leaks or damage control procedures; location of personal flotation device; location of escape routes; abandon ship procedures; and the location of the first aid kit.
Also, the department proposal would require party boats to be inspected in dry dock or by underwater inspection at a five‑year interval by an accredited naval architect or accredited marine surveyor that determines the suitability of the vessel to continue to operate as a party boat.
As we know, party boats are not pleasure craft.
They are working vessels subject to extensive repetitive use that could impact their whole integrity, their power, and their steering systems, particularly when made fast to the shore, as they often are.
The department believes it prudent and appropriate to require party boats to be inspected in dry dock or via underwater assessment at least once every five years to ensure the integrity of such systems.
This type of regiment is consistent with Coast Guard practices and similar vessels that they regulate.
The proposal also prescribes the process for requesting, scheduling, and performing these annual assessments and inspections required in the subchapter.
The department has experienced logistical and administrative stress with respect to inspections in the current rules.
Current rules specify only that a party boat may not be operated unless an annual inspection has been performed in the previous 12 months.
The department has determined it’s necessary to provide additional structure and timelines to this process.
Therefore, we propose… the proposal provisions would require owners to schedule an assessment inspection not more than 60 days, nor less than 30 days, prior to the annual anniversary date of the inspection, and would require the department to conduct the assessment inspection no more than 30 days prior to that date.
By organizing and stratifying request for inspections, the department can impose some sort of order on the process, and avoid logjams that are occurring when multiple owners wait until the last minute to obtain inspections that are required for them to legally operate.
The proposed language also requires stability testing be performed following any subsequent alterations to the vessel’s structure or equipment, or following a reportable incident described in Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 31.105, unless such incident does not involve physical damage to the vessel.
The department reasons any development or occurrence that could fundamentally alter the seaworthiness of the vessel, or stability, merits the performance of new stability testing to determine the vessel’s ability to operate safely.
Finally, the proposed new subchapter would stipulate that when a vessel is required to be subject to a stability test in its subchapter, it’s unlawful to operate the vessel as a party boat until the results of the stability test have been submitted to the department, and the department has authorized the resumption of operation as a party boat.
The provision is necessary to provide verification mechanisms for vessels whose safety could potentially be compromised due to alterations or incidents.
With that, the staff requests permission to publish these proposed rules in the Texas Register for public comment.
And I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Questions or comments?
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: I have a question.
The insurance requirements… by the way, I think these rules are long overdue.
And we welcome them, and I think it’s the right idea.
But… how do we check their insurance?
I know when you renew your license, your inspection, you have to have your inspection and you have to send in your insurance certificate just for a typical, you know, car or truck.
MR. JONES: Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: When these licenses are renewed, I guess annually, do they send in their insurance paperwork and proof of these inspections?
Or how do we patrol this other than catching them on the lake or on the river?
MR. JONES: A great question, Mr. Timmerman.
We do require that they provide the proof of their policy… insurance policy during the annual inspection process.
Our Marine Theft Investigation Unit is the one that conducts these annual inspections.
It’s a small, very robust unit of folks that are very in tune to what the requirements are.
And so each year, as they start the process of doing the inspection, they require that all those documents be provided to them prior to coming out and being on site to review the vessel with the owner.
COMMISSIONER TIMMERMAN: Okay.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
Anything else?
All right.
Hearing no further comments or questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules in the Texas Register.
Next, Work Session Item No. 10: Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants–
Special Provisions for Dotted Duckweed– Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rules… Changes in the Texas Register.
Mr. Michael Tennant.
MICHAEL TENNANT: Good morning Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Michael Tennant, and I’m the Regulations and Policy Coordinator in the Inland Fisheries Division.
Today, I will present additional information on the risks and benefits of permitting Dotted Duckweed aquaculture, as requested during the August 20, 2025, meeting of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.
I will also review proposed changes to the rules governing harmful, or potentially harmful, aquatic plants that would authorize and create special provisions for commercial cultivation of Dotted Duckweed in specifically permitted facilities, and seek the Commission’s permission to publish the proposed rules with any changes, as necessary, in the Texas Register for public comment.
On March 14, 2025, the department received a petition for rule‑making requesting a revision of existing regulations to allow issuance of commercial exotic species aquaculture permits for the cultivation of Dotted Duckweed.
Currently designated as a controlled exotic aquatic plant, under Texas Parks and Wildlife Department rules Dotted Duckweed may not be possessed for commercial purposes.
The petitioner noted that within their secure and closed facility, and under a regulated commercial aquaculture permit, Dotted Duckweed can be safely grown without posing a risk to the environment.
Dotted Duckweed is a small floating tropical and subtropical aquatic plant.
It is non‑native to the United States, and is classified as a controlled exotic species in Texas to restrict possession, transport, and ultimately introduction and spread.
It has a high growth rate, and can quickly form dense surface mats that block sunlight and reduce oxygen levels in the water.
The plant reproduces both by budding and seeds.
Its seeds are drought‑resistant, and can persist out of water or in dried lakebeds for extended periods.
While the fronds can dry out in as little as 30 minutes to two-and-a-half hours, the seeds remain viable in dry conditions for months or more, facilitating spread and potentially making eradication difficult once established.
Dotted Duckweed is also known to spread via waterfowl, which can carry plant fragments or seeds over
significant distances between water bodies.
Dotted Duckweed has been classified as a controlled exotic aquatic plant in Texas for over 30 years.
It was first listed in the 1990s, due to its potential for dense growth, particularly in small ponds and lakes, where it could potentially quickly dominate the water surface.
At the time, there were also concerns about its ability to inhibit desirable native vegetation, which plays a critical role in aquatic ecosystems.
Additionally, there were concerns about potential negative impacts on wildlife habitat, livestock watering, recreational access, and angling opportunities, all of which contributed to its regulatory designation.
Dotted Duckweed thrives in small nutrient‑rich and still water bodies such as ponds, ditches, swamps, and backwaters where conditions support rapid growth.
It is generally unsuited to flowing waters and large reservoirs where water movement limits its ability to establish in underground aquatic systems where lack of sunlight prevents growth.
In terms of climate, Dotted Duckweed has a high survival potential across most of Texas, with a climate match score of 9 to 10, out of 10 for most of the state.
Suitability is lower only in the Trans‑Pecos region, where the score drops to 6 or 7, out of ten.
Between 1981 and 2001, there were 17 confirmed sightings, primarily in East Texas.
While it has been observed in large reservoirs and bayous, these environments are unlikely to support long‑term persistence.
Status of these introductions is unknown, due in large part to the lack of differentiation between Dotted and native duckweed species, yet there are no known instances of duckweeds of any species having become a significant problem in Texas public waters.
Dotted Duckweed has been introduced at many U.S. sites across regions with a high climate match.
The overall climate match in the United States is high.
Most areas of the United States had high climate match, except for the Great Plains, Upper Midwest, and Northwest.
According to a risk assessment by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from 2019, the risk associated with Dotted Duckweed is uncertain.
This is primarily due to significant data gaps related to frequent misidentification with other duckweed species, which complicates tracking and assessment efforts.
In the Southeastern United States, some state agencies report small‑scale control efforts, using herbicides to manage duckweed, though the specific species are typically not identified.
In some instances, these efforts were access‑related, but others were purely aesthetic.
To date, no major issues have been reported specifically with Dotted Duckweed, and it is generally considered less problematic than highly invasive species like Giant salvinia.
However, there is historical precedence for concern in small still waters.
Multi‑species duckweed mats in Florida canals that included Dotted Duckweed once led to a long‑term herbicide treatment program, highlighting the potential for overgrowth under the right conditions.
Now that we’ve reviewed the status of Dotted Duckweed, it’s important to take a broader look at permitting its use in Texas aquaculture.
In the next few slides, I will summarize a staff‑developed risk-benefit analysis, previously shared with members of the Commission, designed to objectively assess potential ecological, recreational, and management risks alongside with possible benefits, such as economic opportunities for businesses.
Our goal is to provide balanced, science‑based information to support the Commission in making an informed decision to publish the proposed rules with any changes, as necessary, in the Texas Register for public comment.
The risk assessment for Dotted Duckweed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2019 resulted in a classification of “uncertain risk.”
This assessment cited factors contributing to uncertainty as largely data deficiency on history of invasiveness, likely related to frequent lack of duckweed identification to species and consequent lack of scientifically defensible impact information.
However, there are several potential impacts that raise concern.
This species can form dense surface mats.
And some research suggests it may outcompete other small floating aquatic plants.
Dense surface mats of floating aquatic invasive plants can degrade aquatic habitat, shading out submerged vegetation and reducing oxygen levels, and negatively affect fish and other aquatic life.
In terms of ability for the species to establish persistent populations, it shows a strong climate match for Texas, although the status of the species at historically documented sites is unknown.
However, it has high reproduction potential through multiple methods, and high growth rate; and seeds are drought‑tolerant, allowing population survival in extreme conditions.
It can also be dispersed by waterfowl, increasing the likelihood of spread to new water bodies with the drying tolerance of seeds possibly facilitating long‑distance spread.
Habitat‑specific risk varies by water body type.
It poses a higher risk of thriving in… with possible harmful effects in small community fishing lakes and private ponds.
In contrast, the risk is lower in flowing waters and large reservoirs, though even small amounts persisting in these systems could still aid and spread to more favorable sites.
When considering recreational impacts, dense surface coverage of Dotted Duckweed could affect shoreline angling and access to community fishing lakes and private ponds.
This is particularly important because community fishing lakes often serve as critical local fishing access points, especially in urban communities.
And dense surface coverage may reduce the quality of bank fishing experiences in these smaller public waters.
While watercraft access would largely be unlikely to be significantly impacted, there could be potential for some limited effects of dense mats on other water recreation, such as paddleboarding and swimming, and the effects on lake experience due to water body aesthetics.
As a point of reference, the red star on the map indicates the location of the petitioner’s facility, and the blue points on the map represent 901 community fishing lakes statewide that are considered potential high‑risk public waters.
Currently, no control needs or efforts for Dotted Duckweed have been reported in Texas or other southeastern states.
Only a few small‑scale efforts for unspecified duckweed species control, some purely aesthetic, were reported for the region.
However, if control were to become necessary, the plant’s small size, which complicates quick eradication, and the potential for herbicide resistance, could translate into the potential for long‑term control costs.
That said, the most likely affected waters are small and contained, which helps limit the potential for large‑scale management risks.
Permitting Dotted Duckweed aquaculture would increase the inspection workload for staff.
Necessary stringent containment requirements increase complexity of inspections, and thus time required, and could increase potential need for follow‑up inspections.
While future facility sizes may vary, there is potential for some to be significantly larger than other permitted commercial aquaculture facilities.
As Dotted Duckweed culture is projected to be a growth industry, and each facility modification or addition requires inspection, this could further increase inspection burden.
Extra containment oversight, such as spot inspections, would be advisable, and represents a critical ongoing responsibility.
Duckweed species contain 35 to 45 percent protein, making them a promising source for sustainable plant‑based foods and animal feed.
As of 2024, the United States had 15 pilot farms, five industrial facilities, processing duckweed protein across all species.
Industry research from 2025 shows that 60 percent of output is used in plant‑based food production, 30 percent in animal feed, and 10 percent in biofuel research.
While interest is growing, the industry overall remains in early‑stage commercialization.
Dotted Duckweed is appealing for aquaculture due to its rapid growth and higher biomass production, with the petitioners citing up to 20 percent biomass increase over native species.
While production, and thus profitability, could increase with the use of Dotted Duckweed, job growth is not expected to differ significantly from native duckweed cultivation.
Globally, the duckweed all-species protein market is expanding, valued at $84 million in 2025, and projected to reach $221 million by 2034, with an 11.3 percent compound annual growth rate.
Currently, North America holds 20 percent of the market.
Exotic species aquaculture facility permits subjects all facilities to key basic facility requirements to include escape and biosecurity prevention measures, such as location at least one foot above the 100-year floodplain, department approved pond escape prevention methods, such as screens or barriers, and access limitations.
In addition, inspections by department staff are required prior to initial permit issuance for assessment of any facility modifications, and at least once per five‑year period.
In addition, all facilities must prepare and submit an emergency plan with the permit application to ensure preparedness.
The department does retain the authority for any staff to conduct discretionary additional or spot inspections at any time during business hours.
There are native species of duckweed, and they can be cultured to produce a protein food supplement.
But the higher growth rates and production potential of Dotted Duckweed makes it attractive for commercial culture, and led to the petition.
After comprehensive analysis and a site visit to the petitioner’s facility, the department determined that there are feasible facility requirements and appropriate biosecurity and escape prevention measures that could be implemented to ensure the probability of escape and subsequent spread, and potential impacts would be acceptably low.
The proposed rules would, therefore, allow issuance of commercial aquaculture facility permits for Dotted Duckweed, and establish special provisions to ensure aquaculture biosecurity.
Given small size, resistance of seeds to drying, and attractiveness to waterfowl that could result in dispersal of these plants, the department has determined that full enclosure of Dotted Duckweed culture ponds, as well as all harvesting equipment and transport or transfer equipment within greenhouses or other structures, as well as ensuring greenhouse doors remain closed at all times, is necessary to prevent escape or access by waterfowl.
Additionally, given the small size of both the plants and seeds and high potential for plants to escape even into evaporation basins accessible by waterfowl through the pond drainage pathway, the department has determined that it is necessary to ensure that all plants in a culture pond are killed by application of herbicides or other lawful chemicals prior to draining of water from ponds where Dotted Duckweed is cultured.
Further, the proposed rules would require drain water from the ponds and processing to be routed through a macerator pump or a similar department-approved device that reduces plant material to particles of a size no greater than 100 micrometers, at which point Dotted Duckweed and its seeds are nonviable.
This maceration requirement would also apply to all processing byproducts as well.
In addition to routing all drain water through a maceration device, the discharge or drainage of water into any ditch, storm drain, stream, or other conduit or pathway that drains into, or could drain into, public water would be prohibited.
The proposed rules would require all processing to occur on site.
This, in combination with the above requirement, secures the production chain from greenhouses to final product or byproduct.
Additionally, the proposed rules would, for purposes of clarity, stipulate that permitted facilities must comply with applicable regulations of the Texas Commission on environmental quality with respect to water discharge.
Lastly, as hurricane winds pose a risk for damage of greenhouses and other containment structures, and
potential for dispersal of a very small floating plant, through the abundant and interconnected surface water in the eastern half of the state, via floodwaters, special provisions would stipulate that facilities may not be located within coastal or coastal‑adjacent areas south of State Highway 21 and east of I‑35.
This area is already designated as an exclusion zone for the culture of Pacific blue shrimp under department permits or possession of this species by dealers in this zone for similar reasons.
Notably, it is the enhanced risk specific to this species, specifically disease introduction risk similar to the exceptional dispersal risk of Dotted Duckweed enhanced by storm and flood risk that necessitated this restriction for these shrimp.
Staff note that the measures imposed by the proposed rules are already present or planned at the petitioner’s facility, or the petitioner agreed were feasible, and are adequate to ensure biosecurity
and protect Texas’ public water.
However, staff acknowledged that the special provisions could be revised to provide greater biosecurity, such as increasing minimum inspection frequency to a one‑year interval, requiring the facility be located outside the 500‑year floodplain, and increasing the size of the exclusion zone.
To ride additional context for the proposed exclusion zone, and to present an alternative option for consideration, the blue points on the maps represent 901 community fishing lakes statewide considered to be potential high‑risk public waters.
The left figure shows the proposed exclusion zone in yellow, located south of State Highway 21 and
east I‑35.
This area includes 208 community fishing lakes, or 23 percent of the total.
The right figure presents a potential alternative exclusion zone in yellow, located east of I‑35 and I‑35 West.
This area includes 620 community fishing lakes, or 69 percent of the total.
Chairman, I would like to request a late addition to the rule proposal in response to a recent request received from an entity seeking to culture seaweed in public waters.
In order to efficiently evaluate the request and potential risks, and while this section of the Administrative Code is open for revisions, we ask to revise the definition of “aquatic plants” in the Administrative Code.
With your permission, we would add this definition change to the rule proposal with the opportunity for more Commission deliberation during the January Work Session prior to a vote.
With that addition, staff requests permission to publish proposed changes in the Texas Register for public comment.
Although we are not currently within the public comment period, we would like to inform the Commission that the department received letters of support for the proposed commercial exotic species aquaculture permit.
These letters were received by Mr. Wes Virdell, State Representative for House District 53, and Mr. Sid Miller, Texas Agriculture Commissioner.
Both expressed support for the cultivation of Dotted Duckweed within a regulated enclosed facility.
That concludes my presentation, and I’ll be happy to take any questions.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That was quite a robust review on Dotted Duckweed.
Do we have any comments or questions?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
I guess one question.
Yeah, it does seem a little bit outside of our normal scope.
What other permits have we issued for any other type of aquaculture plants, or whatever exotic plants where we’re talking about here?
MR. TENNANT: Water spinach is the only aquatic plant.
We do have permits for tilapia, Triploid grass carp, and Whiteleg shrimp.
Those are the four species.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And so, we have only one other plant… what did you call it, some kind of spinach?
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, water spinach.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Water spinach.
And I assume it’s not characterized as invasive or spreading or…
MR. TENNANT: It is an invasive plant, but it’s not spreading, or we don’t have any invasive populations in public waters.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Are the containment… are the same… do they have the same…
Do the rules for the spinach match the rules for the duckweed?
MR. TENNANT: Well, the culture is a little different.
It’s not termed “aquaculture.”
So, it is done in greenhouses.
But not, like, aquaponics, or within water.
So, it is done in closed greenhouses.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, the duckweed rules are going to be more burdensome, I guess, or carefully tailored to prevent…
MR. TENNANT: Yes, the special provisions are carefully tailored specific to the species.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
All right.
And we don’t have any other… how do you think we actually got some of the comments from Sid Miller and the other gentlemen prior to it being published?
I mean, we don’t get very many comments early, do we?
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, we typically don’t.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
All right.
MR. TENNANT: Since I have been in my role, I have not… that is a first time for me.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I’ll be interested to hear the public feedback on this.
So, that’s all.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So…
Commissioner McCall, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Of course, you know I’ll have a comment, Mr. Chairman.
A couple of questions.
There are 20 facilities nationwide that are currently utilizing this Dotted Duckweed.
Is that…
MR. TENNANT: No, that’s in reference to duckweed species in total.
So, most facilities, to our knowledge, are using native duckweed.
Yes, Sir.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Not this duckweed.
MR. TENNANT: Correct.
To our knowledge.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Would this be the first one in the United States?
MR. TENNANT: Possibly.
I’m not sure on that.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: And I know it’s been prohibited here for 30 years.
MR. TENNANT: I do know the petitioner’s facility, they do have a facility in California.
But I don’t know if that’s a commercial production facility or a research facility.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Right.
And I remember you said that’s where they would get it from.
MR. TENNANT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: It would come from there.
I know it’s been prohibited in Texas for 30 years.
No increase jobs.
It would increase Texas Parks and Wildlife manpower for inspections, and keeping up with it.
It’s a risk for environment.
I’m just trying to figure out why we want to be the first one when it matches so well with the environment of Texas, and the climate of Texas.
And I see the benefit to the company that’s going to be able to grow at four to five times as fast as regular duckweed and turn a profit.
I’m just not seeing what the benefit would be for the state of Texas.
But I see what the risk would be.
So, I still have reservations over it.
I mean, if it got out…
You know, we’re responsible for the waterways, the wildlife, and everything in Texas.
One of, if not, the largest, you know, Texas, you know, Parks and Wildlife.
And as far as the responsibilities of all the states, I think it’s only nine others that include Parks and Wildlife like we do.
So, it’s a big responsibility.
And if we are wrong and this gets out and starts, you know, getting into these small lakes and then it’s spread by waterfowl, somehow just saying, "I’m sorry" just doesn’t seem like enough.
So, that’s kind of where I’m coming from.
I just… I’m still not in favor of it.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Thank you.
A couple of questions.
In looking at the proposed exclusion zones.
I think, first of all, even if we go forward with it, I’m going to be in favor of bigger exclusion is better.
But it kind of causes me to ask: is Louisiana… is it permitted in Louisiana?
Or is it permitted anywhere?
Let me ask that.
MR. TENNANT: Most states it’s not listed as a prohibited or a controlled exotic species.
I believe it is in Louisiana.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It is listed as a permitted…
MR. TENNANT: It’s not… It’s listed, I think, in Louisiana as an exotic species like in Texas.
But other southeastern states, to my knowledge, it’s not.
It’s noted as an invasive aquatic plant, though.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Because I thought in our previous discussion, wasn’t there some issue, they had it in Georgia, or somewhere?
And…
Am I getting confused about something else?
MR. TENNANT: I’m not aware if it’s permitted to grow as a commercial operation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I can’t remember what that discussion was.
MR. BONDS: This is Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer.
Just to clarify your question, Chairman, are you referring to observations in the wild, or for permitted aquaculture facilities?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I don’t remember.
I just remember there was… when we were talking about it, there was some…
MR. TENNANT: I mean, there has been sightings in all the southeastern states in public waters.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
But this is wild.
This is not a commercial operation.
MR. TENNANT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, where is the proposed facility that they are proposing in Texas?
MR. TENNANT: Eldorado, Texas is the…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Michael, can you pull up your map?
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, I absolutely can.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: The red star.
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, it’s the red star.
MR. TENNANT Yeah, it’s the red star.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Got it.
All right.
Other comments or questions?
I’m hearing…
COMMISSIONER ROWLING: This is Commissioner Rowling.
I mean, I missed the last Commission meeting, so I was not up to speed on this conversation.
But you spent a long time talking about the risks and how we are going to mitigate that.
And my question the whole time was, “What’s the… what’s the benefit of this?”
And you’ve got one slide on that it’s heavy on protein and they want to be using it in foods.
But I’m still... As I try to gather all the information here, I agree with Commissioner McCall.
It just seems like, what are we doing here?
What’s the upside here, and what’s the real benefit?
And I’m not… you know, I’m ignorant to the whole subject.
I’m just trying to get up to speed.
And it doesn’t seem like, based on what I’ve got in the short time, that all the work that goes into it, the regulation of it, the risk isn’t worth the reward that I’m seeing.
But maybe I’m missing the reward side of it.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Dr. Yoskowitz, do you have a comment on this?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, I just…
This is permission to publish, so the Chairman, you can– and with input from the Commission– decide to move forward or decide not to move forward.
And so, just taking a… the temperature of the Commission.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
I’m just making you aware that you don’t have to move forward.
An option is not to move forward.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling and Commissioner McCall both kind of make the same point, and that is that there are a lot of risks.
I think if I can summarize kind of the way it’s been conveyed to me in other conversations is, really, I don’t know that there is a benefit to the state.
There’s just… we don’t necessarily want to stand in the way of commerce unnecessarily.
We want to be business‑friendly.
I think that’s probably the biggest driver.
Should that override environmental or safety or other concerns?
Not necessarily.
But I don’t know that there is a benefit to the state, other than maybe just a little bit of commercial activity and maybe tax revenue, or whatever.
But is that accurate?
Would you…
In your opinion?
MR. TENNANT: Yeah, I would agree with that assessment.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Why don’t we table this another time.
I hate to just keep kicking it down the road, but…
MR. MURPHY: Chairman, James Murphy, General Council.
We certainly can table it and consider it for a future meeting.
But I do know that the petitioner is eager for an “up” or “down” answer so they can make that business decision whether to proceed or not.
So, you know, one option that we’ve used in the past, as Director Yoskowitz mentioned, is, you know, sending it to the Register, seeing what public feedback there is, and incorporating that into your decision-making for a vote at adoption, or not.
But if there’s, you know, concern of the Commission that you’re not interested in proceeding further, you certainly can say not to proceed with it.
But I did just want to mention that, you know, I know the petitioner is eager to, you know, ultimately get a final resolution of their petition.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, I suppose one alternative, then, would be to go ahead to agree to publish it with the recognition that there doesn’t seem to be a great desire to approve it in January, but at least we’ll have that opportunity, right?
We can vote it up or down in January.
Is that what you are saying?
MR. MURPHY: The advantage of publishing is that you do get that feedback…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.
MR. MURPHY: …from the public, and it’s another factor that can go into your ultimate decision.
But certainly there have been rule packages that this Commission has deemed not a great decision, and has tabled those, or has just simply said to, you know, deny that and said, “We are not going to move forward with it.”
So, you know… but I think our tendency in recent years has been to at least get that public feedback before a final vote.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
And I agree that the public feedback is valuable.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Mr. Chairman, one other comment, if I could.
We have a representative form of government here.
You know, we have a representative and senators.
And we expect them to know more than the general public would know on an issue.
It’s hard for me to imagine on an issue like this that anybody is going to come up for support of this and still have the information that we have.
Because we’re representing, you know, Texas, parks, wildlife, and the lakes out there.
And it ultimately, the buck stops here.
It’s alarming to me that it got all the way to that Agricultural Commissioner, Sid Miller.
Because now this has become a political football.
And I just, again, Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase what you just said.
It’s a risk to the environment.
I can’t see where it’s a benefit to Texas.
I can only see where it’s a benefit to whoever puts this in.
So, that’s my reservation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER GALO: Commissioner Galo.
I was going to ask if there was other safeguards that you could put in place that might alleviate some of the concerns.
But the more I hear, the more I tend to agree with Commissioner McCall.
CHAIRMAN PATTON: And Patton.
Who is the other guy that sent the “in favor” of issuing the permit?
I don’t know… I didn’t recognize the name.
I knew Sid, but…
MR. TENNANT: Representative Wes Virdell.
House District 53, I believe.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, the Eldorado state rep?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Is that Eldorado?
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Probably.
MR. TENNANT: Yes, that’s correct.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: All right.
Is it ever appropriate to encourage people that write letters like that, that if they want to see it fairly considered maybe we would encourage them to come talk at the January meeting?
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Commissioner, were you asking about the representative?
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And…
DR. YOSKOWITZ: They are more than welcome to, and we’d be happy…
COMMISSIONER PATTON: I know they are more than welcome to.
I’m just saying, do we ever reach out to them proactively and say, you know, “If you’re really in favor of this, you might want to come talk.”
Invite them.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: If you all decide, the Chairman decides to move forward with it, we can absolutely reach out to them.
Have them come.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay.
DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Although I have my doubts about it getting across the finish line in January, I think we probably should go ahead and publish it and get this public comment that we’re talking about,
both from the Ag Commissioner and any other state reps or other officials, plus the general public, and give them a shot at a comment.
And then I think we can make a final decision.
I don’t know that this puts us at any risk, right?
So, the only downside is the more brain damage between now and then, but…
MR. MURPHY: No downside that I perceive to obtaining public input.
Ultimately, the decision will be yours in January.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: You all okay with that?
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I’d kill it right here.
But I don’t think it’s going to change me much.
But I’ll certainly go along with that as long as… as Commissioner Timmerman said, we are the two rookies here.
So, we can vote it down in January.
Am I clear on that?
MR. MURPHY: That’s correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: Up or down.
MR. MURPHY: Again, James Murphy for General Counsel here, for the record.
The thing is… the way that we structure this is we’ll have a Wednesday Work Session opportunity to have that discussion.
And if the Commission is of the same opinion at that Wednesday Work Session, we can even pull it down before a vote on Thursday, or we can let people come and hear from Commissioner Miller, and others, on Thursday, and ultimately make an “up” or “down” vote decision there.
So, absolutely, this is not the approval stage.
And you’ll have another chance to provide input on the final decision.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
COMMISSIONER McCALL: I would like to state that as a child, I did not have any bad dreams of an aquatic plant attacking me.
[ LAUGHTER ]
So, this is strictly based on the facts.
MR. MURPHY: And Chairman, the only other clarification would be the addition that Mr. Tennant had.
CHARIMAN FOSTER: Right.
MR. MURPHY: The “aquatic plant” definition.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, if there are no other further questions, I will authorize staff to publish the rules, with the definition change that Mr. Tennant mentioned at the beginning of his presentation, in the Texas Register.
Thank you.
All right?
MR. TENNANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
That went well.
Work Session Item No. 11: Disposition of Land in San Patricio County– Approximately 8.1 Acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park– Request for Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process.
Trey Vick.
TREY VICK: All right.
Chairman Foster, Commissioners.
For the record, my name’s Trey Vick.
I’m with the Land Conservation Program.
And I will be presenting today a disposition of land of approximately eight acres at Lake Corpus Christi State Park.
As you can see here, Lake Corpus Christi State Park is down where the red star is.
It’s just outside of Corpus Christi, approximately 40 miles.
Lake Corpus Christi State Park is a leased park consisting of approximately 356 acres from the city of Corpus Christi.
The park provides access to the 18,000‑acre Lake Corpus Christi, with a current lease term through 2052.
This park provides various recreational opportunities on Lake Corpus Christi, such as paddling, fishing, birding, and camping.
The city of Corpus Christi approached staff requesting the release of 8.1 acres.
This would allow the city of Corpus Christi to lease that area to the City of Mathis for the installation and maintenance of water wells adjacent to an existing City of Mathis water treatment plant.
This eight acres is comprised of two individual tracts.
One tract is approximately 5.5 acres.
The second tract is approximately 2.5 acres.
These requested tracts of land do not currently provide recreational opportunity to the public, and disposition of these tracts will not hinder current park operations.
As you can see here, Lake Corpus Christi State Park is outlined in red.
The area I’m going to show you next is circled in yellow.
As you can see here, the two individual tracts.
The tract on the left is the land… part of the land that’s being requested.
And it’s split down the middle.
And the other tract is on the right.
Staff requests permission to begin the public notice and comment process.
And be happy to answer any questions for you.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Patton.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: So, they just want us to give it to them?
You say, “Release.”
MR. VICK: Currently, the park itself is leased from Corpus Christi.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Oh, okay.
So, are we giving it to Corpus Christi to then give it to Mathis?
MR. VICK: We are releasing it from the Corpus Christi lease so they can, in turn, lease it back to the city of Mathis.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: And is the lease a low‑cost kind of lease?
It’s not…
RODNEY FRANKLIN: No-cost lease.
MR. VICK: No-cost lease.
The best.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Okay, well, that seems like a fair… that doesn’t seem like an unusual or difficult or burdensome ask.
All right.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, what are the facilities on the tract now?
It looks like…
MR. VICK: It’s a water treatment facility.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: It is.
MR. VICK: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But we don’t operate it?
MR. VICK: No, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But it’s on the land that we lease.
MR. VICK: It’s within the original leased property.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, it seems to me that it makes a lot of sense to get rid of it anyway, in terms of… so that it’s not part of our responsibility, right?
MR. VICK: Correct.
Operationally, it’s away from other recreation.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there any downside?
Anybody?
Okay.
All right.
If no further questions, I’ll authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.
And Mr. Vick is up on the next one, as well…
MR. VICK: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …which is Work Session Item No. 12: Exchange of Land in Bexar County– Approximately Three Acres at Government Canyon State National Area.
MR. VICK: Okay.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
For the record, my name’s Trey Vick.
I’m with the Land Conservation Program.
This item is an exchange of land, Bexar County, approximately three acres at Government Canyon State Natural Area.
Government Canyon State Natural Area sits there where the red star is, just within San Antonio.
You can see a close‑up map here.
Government Canyon SNA consists of approximately 12,000 acres situated along the edge of the Balcones Escarpment, the northwest side of San Antonio.
The SNA is a karst preserve protecting the quality and supply of fresh water to the Edwards aquifer.
The SNA provides thousands of acres of aquifer recharge zone, as well as portions of the contributing and artesian zones.
These crevices, fissures, and springs are home to several endangered invertebrates found nowhere else in the world.
The Bexar County Emergency Services District Number 7, ESD‑7, has requested an exchange of land with Texas Parks and Wildlife of approximately three acres to construct a new fire station to serve the Kallison Ranch neighborhood area, and the surrounding community which includes portions of the SNA.
TPWD and Bexar County ESD‑7 have worked in partnership and have identified two three‑acre parcels, one from each of us, to complete the exchange of land.
TPWD will retain access for pedestrian vehicle path for the SNA.
Here’s an overall map of Government Canyon.
The two areas that I’ll show you are circled in yellow.
This tract here is the tract that… for the fire station that ESA-7 has identified that will come to TPWD.
It sits up to the north, circled in yellow.
And here’s the tract that’s currently owned by TPWD.
You can see the surrounding rooftops.
That area has just really taken off.
So, the ESD-7 has tried to identify a spot for a fire station in the area.
This was one of the only spots available, so we have been negotiating the swap for a while now.
Staff request permission to begin the public notice comment process, plus we also have the fire chief here available if there’s any questions.
I would be glad to… happy to answer any.
COMMISSIONER PATTON: Patton.
The parcel that we’re getting in exchange, do we feel like is a fair trade, equal and fair market value?
MR. VICK: Yes, Sir.
We’ve had both parcels appraised, so.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Is there any downside?
I mean, do we lose any important access or…
MR. VICK: No, Sir.
We are going to retain the access for staff, emergency access.
We need to get in and out of there.
It’s a great asset for the area.
It’s going to supply, you know, better response times for the area, plus for the SNA.
That’s the side of the park that would…
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, staff is in favor?
TREY VICK: Yes, Sir.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Anything else?
If there are no further questions, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.
And I think that’s it.
Work Session Item Nos. 13‑21 will be heard in Executive Session.
At this time, I would like to announce that pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 551, Government Code referred to as The Open Meetings Act, an Executive Session will be held for the purpose of deliberation of real estate matters under Section 551.072, The Open Meetings Act; and seeking legal advice under Section 551.071 of The Open Meetings Act, including advice regarding pending or contemplated litigation.
And we will now recess for Executive Session, at 12:06 p.m.
Thank you.
Where’s my hammer?
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
[ EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
[ GAVEL POUNDS ]
CHAIRMAN PAUL L. FOSTER: Good afternoon.
We will now reconvene the Work Session on November 5, 2025, at 1:36 p.m.
And I will take roll again.
Paul Foster, present.
Commissioner Galo?
COMMISSIONER ANNA GALO: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner McCall?
COMMISSIONER DR. JOHN A. McCALL: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Patton?
COMMISSIONER BOBBY PATTON: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Rowling?
COMMISSIONER TRAVIS ROWLING: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Commissioner Timmerman?
COMMISSIONER TIM TIMMERMAN: Present.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
We’re now returning from the Executive Session, where we discussed the Work Session real estate Item Nos. 13‑19, Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects, No. 20, and Litigation Item No. 21.
Regarding Items Nos. 16‑19, I will authorize staff to begin the public notice and input process.
If there are no further questions, I will place Item Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the Thursday Commission meeting agenda for public comment and action.
Dr. Yoskowitz, this Commission has completed its Work Session business.
And I declare us adjourned at 1:37 p.m.