November 4-5, 2026, Commission Meeting Agenda

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 19-20, 2026, Transcripts

Work Session
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
9:00 a.m. CST

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

T&P Station
T&P Station Ballroom
221 W Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102

Agenda

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Work Session held August 19, 2026

Approval of the Previous Minutes from the Commission Annual Public Hearing held August 19, 2026

Executive Director Updates – David Yoskowitz, Ph.D.
- Internal Affairs Update
- Staff Recognitions
- Emergency Incident Response
- Red Tide in the Gulf
- Texas Hunt and Fish Day at the Capitol
- Fiscal Year 2026 Stocking Report
Financial Overview – Reggie Pegues
Internal Audit Update – Brandy Meeks

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 1

Presenter: David Yoskowitz, Ph.D.

Executive Director Updates

I. Executive Summary: Executive Director David Yoskowitz, Ph.D. will update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department operations.

II. Discussion: Dr. Yoskowitz will present information on notable agency matters, such as key organizational priorities, recent developments, and strategic initiatives.

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Presenter: Reggie Pegues

Financial Overview

I. Executive Summary: Staff will present a financial overview of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).

II. Discussion: Staff will update the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission on state park, boat registration and titling, and license fee revenues collected by TPWD for year-to-date Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. Staff will provide an update on the FY 2028-29 Legislative Appropriations Request.

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Presenter: Brandy Meeks

Internal Audit Update

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

II. Discussion: Staff will present an update on the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 and FY 2027 Internal Audit Plans, as well as an update on external audits and assessments. Staff will also present the results of Internal Audit’s FY 2026 performance metrics.

Work Session Agenda Item 5

Presenter: James Murphy

Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office Rules Chapters 65, 69 – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules in the Texas Register for public comment resulting from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office (TREO) review of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) rules.

II. Discussion: Established during the 89th Texas Legislature (Regular Session, 2025) and housed within the Office of the Governor, TREO assists state agencies in identifying outdated and redundant regulations and creating best practices to make agencies’ rulemaking processes more efficient. TREO reviews state agency rules and procedures to reduce regulatory burdens; eliminate unnecessary or ineffective rules; and increase transparency for Texas taxpayers.

TREO and TPWD collaborated to assess the department’s rules and develop a list of proposed changes that meet the above-referenced criteria, and the proposed changes have received stakeholder support. Due to the volume of the proposed changes, TPWD will bring them to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in stages. For the third stage, TPWD is proposing changes to Chapters 65 (Wildlife) and 69 (Resource Protection) in Title 31 of the Texas Administrative Code. The changes will allow the department to better serve the public by streamlining and modernizing its regulations while continuing to ensure the protection of natural and cultural resources and the viability of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Attachments – 2

Exhibit A – Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office Recommendations – Chapter 65
Exhibit B – Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office Recommendations – Chapter 69

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit A

TEXAS REGULATORY EFFICIENCY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 65. WILDLIFE

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) proposes the repeal of 31 TAC §§65.105 and 65.154, amendments to §§65.103, 65.109, 65.132 – 65.137, 65.151, 65.153, 65.160, 65.171, 65.193, 65.194, 65.202, 65.325, 65.327, 65.601, 65.602, 65.610, 65.611, 65.703, and 65.905, and new §65.335-65.340, concerning Wildlife.

In general, the proposed rules eliminate recapitulation of statutory provisions that stand alone and therefore need not be in rule, consolidate current provisions of the rules in fewer sections of the Texas Administrative Code, and make opportunistic nonsubstantive changes as needed to maintain grammatical sense, structural parallelism, or to prevent conflict with other regulatory provisions.

The proposed rules either implement or are consistent with the recommendations of the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor.

The proposed amendment to §65.103, concerning Trap, Transport, and Transplant Permit (Triple T), would incorporate appropriate provisions of §65.105, concerning Urban White-Tailed Deer Removal Permit (which is proposed for repeal), which is intended to consolidate provisions regarding similar types of Triple T permits.

The proposed amendment to §65.109, concerning Issuance of Permit, would eliminate subsections (e) and (h), which are no longer necessary because agency decisions regarding Triple T permit issuance and renewal with respect to deer are controlled by the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, and 31 TAC Chapter 65, Subchapter U, concerning Authority to Refuse to Issue or Renew Permit. The proposed amendment also would eliminate subsection (g)(1)-(5) and provide for the affected procedures to be conducted under 31 TAC Chapter 56, concerning Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit.

The proposed amendment to §65.132, concerning Permit Application, would remove language regarding the application process from subsection (a) in order to accommodate the proposed amendments to §65.133, concerning General Provisions; §65.135, concerning Detention of Deer; §65.136, concerning Release of Deer; and §65.137, concerning Disposition of Mortalities, which would add language to explicitly require the use of the department’s online system for Deer Management Permit (DMP) program administration.

The proposed amendment to §65.134, concerning Facility Standards, would eliminate subsection (c), which is a time-dependent provision created for and applicable to a very small number of legacy facilities.

The proposed amendment to §65.151, concerning Definitions, would replace the current definition of “aircraft” with a reference to the definition in the controlling statute.

The proposed amendment to §65.153, concerning Application for Permit, would add the contents of current §65.154, concerning Issuance of Permit; Amendment and Renewal (which is proposed for repeal), in order to condense and streamline similar provisions in fewer sections.

The proposed amendment to 65.160, concerning Landowner Authorization (LOA), would explicitly clarify that an LOA is invalid if the ownership of the property for which it is issued is changed.

The proposed amendment to §65.171, concerning General Provisions, would add language to allow digital proof of legal possession (in addition to hardcopy/physical proof).

The proposed amendment to §65.193, concerning Access Permit Required and Fees, would alter subsection (b) to acknowledge the existence of digital license products and modernize language to acknowledge their use.

The proposed amendment to §65.194, concerning Competitive Hunting Dog Event and Fees, would eliminate the provisions of paragraph (2)(A)-(G), regarding liability insurance and performance bonds, in order to align the rules with other department rules regarding field trials on public lands.

The proposed amendment to §65.202, concerning Youth Hunting on Public Hunting Lands, would correct a typographical error regarding the minimum age for participation.

The proposed amendment to §65.325, concerning Applicability, would eliminate subsection (c), which sets forth transition provisions that are no longer applicable because they are obsolete.

The proposed amendment to §65.327, concerning Permit Required, would eliminate internal citations that are no longer accurate and should have been removed in a previous rulemaking.

Proposed new §§65.335-65.340, concerning Coatimundi, would relocate the provisions of current Chapter 69, Subchapter K, concerning Sale of Nongame Species, condensed and modified to accommodate a reference to the provisions of Chapter 56 (concerning Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit), which is proposed for repeal in another proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register. The department’s intent is to locate provisions regarding commercial activity involving nongame wildlife in a single subchapter.

The proposed amendment to §65.601, regarding Definitions, would eliminate time-dependent conditions imposed in paragraph (2), which have expired on their own terms and are no longer necessary. The proposed amendment also would alter a reference to a statutory definition to refer to statutory definitions generally.

The proposed amendment to §65.602, concerning Permit Requirement and Permit Privileges; General Provisions, would eliminate provisions of current rule that recapitulate statutory provisions and thus are superfluous.

The proposed amendment to §65.610, concerning Transfer of Deer, would remove the provisions of subsection (e)(5), which are proposed for relocation to §65.611, concerning Prohibited Acts, for purposes of consolidation.

The proposed amendment to §65.703, concerning Proscription of Certain Agents and Surrogates, would add references to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G (Permits to Manage Wildlife and Exotic Animals from Aircraft) and Subchapter H (Permits to Control Wildlife Protected by This Code) to the applicability of the rules, which is intended to assure comprehensive incorporation of violations that warrant prohibition of certain persons from acting as an agent for a permittee.

The proposed amendment to §65.905, concerning Interstate Transport of Deer through Texas, would eliminate an outdated reference to the rules of the Texas Animal Health Commission and replace it with a reference to the department’s rules governing wildlife health.

2. Fiscal Note.

3. Public Benefit — Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be execution of the recommendations of the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor.

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

(C) Under provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule’s potential adverse economic impact on small and microbusinesses and rural communities. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule’s "direct adverse economic impacts" to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services. The department has determined that the proposed rules will not result in any direct economic costs to any small businesses, micro-businesses, or rural communities; therefore, neither the economic impact statement nor the regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006, is required.

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

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not expand or limit an existing regulation, but will repeal several;

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

(8) neither positively nor adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, at robert.macdonald@tpwd.texas.gov or via the department website at https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61.

6. Rule Text.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, which requires the commission to adopt rules for the content of wildlife stocking plans, certification of wildlife trappers, and the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds.

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

§65.103. Trap, Transport, and Transplant Permit (Triple T).

(a) The department may establish trapping periods, based on biological criteria, when the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E[under this section] by individuals will be permitted.

(b) – (d) (No change.)

§65.109. Issuance of Permit.

(a) – (d) (No change.)

[(e) The department may refuse to issue a permit under this subchapter relating to game birds and any game animal other than deer to any person who has been finally convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication, or assessed an administrative penalty for a violation of:]

[(1) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, E, F, G, H, L, or R;]

[(2) a provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code that is not described by paragraph (1) of this subsection that is punishable as a Parks and Wildlife Code:]

[(A) Class A or B misdemeanor;]

[(B) state jail felony; or]

[(C) felony;]

[(3) Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]

[(4) the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378).]

(e)[(f)] The department may refuse to issue a permit under this subchapter relating to game birds and any game animal other than deer to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this subchapter from obtaining a permit.

(f)[(g)] An applicant for a permit under this subchapter relating to game birds and any game animal other than deer may request a review of a decision of the department to refuse issuance of a permit, which shall be conducted as provided by Chapter 56 of this title (relating to Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit).

[(1) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department with respect to the issuance or renewal of a permit must request the review within 10 working days of being notified by the department that the application has been denied.]

[(2) Within 10 working days of receiving a request for review under this section, the department shall establish a date and time for the review.]

[(3) The department shall conduct the review within 30 days of receipt of the request required by paragraph (2) of this subsection, unless another date is established in writing by mutual agreement between the department and the requestor.]

[(4) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of three department managers with expertise in wildlife management, appointed or approved by the executive director, or designee.]

[(5) The decision of the review panel is final.]

[(h) No person who has been finally convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication for, or assessed an administrative penalty for an offense listed in this section may participate, assist, or be involved with an activity authorized under this subchapter.]

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The repeal is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, which requires the commission to adopt rules for the content of wildlife stocking plans, certification of wildlife trappers, and the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of game animals and game birds.

The proposed repeal affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E.

§65.105. Urban White-tailed Deer Removal Permit.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.603, which authorizes the commission to establish the conditions under which deer may be held under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R; and Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.605, which requires the commission to adopt procedures for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew a permit issued under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter R.

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

§65.132. Permit Application.

(a) Applicants for a DMP shall complete and submit an application to the department, [on a form supplied by the department. Applications for a DMP shall be] accompanied by a deer management plan containing the information stipulated by the application form and the nonrefundable fee as specified in Chapter 53, Subchapter A, of this title (relating to Fees). Incomplete applications will not be processed until complete. A DMP will not be issued unless the applicant’s deer management plan has been approved by a Wildlife Division technician or biologist assigned to write wildlife management plans.

(b) – (e) (No change.)

§65.133. General Provisions.

(a) – (g) (No change.)

(h) All applications and notifications required by this subchapter shall be made electronically via the department’s online system provided for that purpose.

§65.134. Facility Standards.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

[(c) Exceptions.]

[(1) The department may issue a DMP for a property that includes a pen of less than five acres in area, provided:]

[(A) the pen contains at least 50,000 square feet of natural vegetation of the type typically used by white-tailed deer for concealment and cover;]

[(B) the pen was authorized under a DMP in the 2010 — 2011 permit year; and]

[(C) the property for which the DMP is sought is owned by one of the following:]

[(i) the same person who owned the property as of September 1, 2011; or]

[(ii) a spouse or child (including a legal entity through which a spouse or child has an ownership interest in the property) of the person who owned the property as of September 1, 2011, if the spouse or child obtained their ownership interest in the property by inheritance, will, intestate succession, gift, transfer, or sale from the person who owned the property as of September 1, 2011.]

[(2) The department may issue a DMP for a property that includes a pen containing less than 50,000 square feet of natural vegetation of the type typically used by white-tailed deer for concealment and cover, provided:]

[(A) the pen includes at least five acres in area;]

[(B) the pen was part of an approved facility in the 2010 — 2011 permit year;]

[(C) the property for which the DMP is sought is owned by one of the following:]

[(i) the same person who owned the property as of September 1, 2011; or]

[(3) The provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section apply to all applications that do not qualify for an exception under the provisions of subsection (c) of this section.]

(c)[(d)] Except for fawns born in a DMP facility during the current permit year, no pen at any time shall contain more than:

(1) – (2) (No change.)

§65.135. Detention of Deer.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(c) The replacement of a buck deer under the provisions of subsection (b) of this section may not take place until after the department has been notified[via the department’s Internet-based notification system] that:

(1) – (2) (No change.)

§65.136. Release of Deer.

(a) – (d) (No change.)

(e) The holder of a DMP shall notify the department no later than 48 hours following the release of deer under this section. [The notification shall be via the department’s Internet-based notification application.]

§65.137. Disposition of Mortalities. A permittee shall notify the department[,] within ten days of disposing of any deer under the provisions of this section[, complete and forward to the department a department-issued or department-approved disposition receipt form accounting for each deer disposed of under the provisions of this section]. All deer that die as a result or in the course of activities conducted under a DMP shall be kept in an edible condition and disposed of by one of the following methods:

(1) – (3) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G, which provides the commission with authority to make regulations governing the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft, including forms and procedures for permit applications; procedures for the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft; limitations on the time and the place for which a permit is valid; establishment of prohibited acts; and rules to require, limit, or prohibit any activity as necessary to implement Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G.

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

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

(1) (No change.)

(2) Aircraft—As defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.103[A mechanical or other device used for flight in the air].

(3) – (13) (No change.)

§65.153. Application for Permit; Issuance.

(a) An applicant for an AMP shall complete and submit an application on a form prescribed by the department. The application shall contain the description, including make, model, color, and registration number of each aircraft to be used. The name of each pilot shall be shown exactly as it appears on the pilot’s FAA license, along with a current address and date of birth of the applicant (date of birth not applicable if corporation), Social Security number, and the name, address, hunting license number or driver’s license number, and date of birth of each pilot.

(b) Upon the filing of a properly executed application and payment of the fee specified by §53.15 of this title (relating to Miscellaneous Fisheries and Wildlife Licenses and Permits), the department may issue or renew an AMP to an individual if:

(1) the applicant will use the AMP only for the purpose of protecting or aiding in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops; and

(2) the AMP requested, in the judgment of the department, will aid in the management of wildlife and exotic animals and will not have a deleterious effect on indigenous species.

(c) The permit shall include the following information:

(1) the name and address of the individual applicant;

(2) the authorized pilot’s name, address, date of birth, and FAA Certificate number;

(3) the authorized aircraft; and

(4) the issue and expiration date of the permit.

(d) The department may amend an AMP following the completion and submission of a form provided by the department. An application for amendment is subject to the same issuance criteria as the original application for an AMP.

(e) No person who has been finally convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication for, or assessed an administrative penalty for an offense listed in this section may act or contract to act as a gunner for an AMP holder.

(f) An AMP is not transferable or assignable.

§65.160. Landowner Authorization (LOA).

(a) – (f) (No change.)

(g) An LOA is automatically invalid if the real property for which it is issued changes ownership in any way.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The repeal is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G, which provides the commission with authority to make regulations governing the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft, including forms and procedures for permit applications; procedures for the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft; limitations on the time and the place for which a permit is valid; establishment of prohibited acts; and rules to require, limit, or prohibit any activity as necessary to implement Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G.

The proposed repeal affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter G.

§65.154. Issuance of Permit; Amendment and Renewal.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67, which requires the commission to establish any limits on the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, or offering for sale of nongame fish or wildlife that the department considers necessary to manage the species, and Chapter 68, which requires regulations necessary to administer the provisions of Chapter 68 and to attain its objectives, including regulations to govern the publication and distribution of lists of species and subspecies of endangered fish or wildlife and their products and limitations on the capture, trapping, taking, or killing, or attempting to capture, trap, take, or kill, and the possession, transportation, exportation, sale, and offering for sale of endangered species.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 67 and 68.

§65.171. General Provisions.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(c) Any person may possess, transport, import, export, sell, or offer for sale goods made from fish or wildlife listed in this subchapter as threatened, provided the person possesses (physically or digitally):

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(d) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter A, which provides that a tract of land purchased primarily for a purpose authorized by the code may be used for any authorized function of the department if the commission determines that multiple use is the best utilization of the land’s resources, and Chapter 81, Subchapter E, which provides the Parks and Wildlife Commission with authority to adopt rules governing recreational activities in wildlife management areas and to prescribe conditions by rule for a permit authorizing access to public hunting land or for specific hunting, fishing, recreational, or other use (and to impose a fee).

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 12 and 81.

§65.193. Access Permit Required and Fees.

(a) (No change.)

(b) Annual Public Hunting (APH) Permit and Limited Public Use (LPU) Permit.

(1) – (4) (No change.)

(5) The permit required by paragraphs (1) — (3) of this subsection is not valid unless:

(A) the signature of the holder appears on the permit; or

(B) the holder presents an applicable valid digital product as provided by §53.18 of this title (relating to Digital Products).

(6) A person, by [signature of the permit and by] payment of a permit fee and either signature of the permit or presentation of a digital product for purposes of exercising permit privileges, waives all liability towards the landowner (licensor) and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (licensee).

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

(1) (No change.)

(2) An application for a Competitive Hunting Dog Event Permit shall be submitted at least 30 days in advance of the proposed event to the Wildlife Division regional director in whose region the proposed event would take place. The application shall include, at a minimum:

(A) – (G) (No change.)

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

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

[(J) The provisions of subparagraphs (H) and (I) of this paragraph do not apply to an applicant seeking authorization to pursue squirrels, fur-bearing animals, and nongame wildlife under a permit pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter J.]

(H)[(K)] All officials, participants, and spectators at permitted activities occurring on public hunting lands under a permit issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter J, shall obtain and be in physical possession of a valid Limited Public Use Permit or Annual Public Hunting Permit issued by the department at all times such persons are present on public hunting lands.

(3) – (9) (No change.)

§65.202. Youth Hunting on Public Hunting Lands.

(a) Youth participating in public hunts by special permit must be eight[eighteen] years of age or older at the time of application.

(b) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §67.004, which requires the commission to establish any limits on the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, or offering for sale of nongame fish or wildlife that the department considers necessary to manage the species; and §67.0041, which authorizes the department to issue permits for the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, sale, importation, or exportation of a nongame species of fish or wildlife if necessary to properly manage that species.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67.

§65.325. Applicability.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

[(c) Transitional Provisions for Possession of Certain Nongame Wildlife. A person in lawful possession of nongame wildlife listed in §65.331(e) of this title (relating to Commercial Activity) prior to October 21, 2007 who possesses the nongame wildlife for personal, noncommercial use may continue to possess the nongame wildlife and any increase, provided:]

[(1) the person contacts the department by no later than November 1, 2010 and reports the person’s name and address, and the species and number of the nongame wildlife in possession; and]

[(2) the person does not engage in any commercial activity involving the nongame wildlife possessed under this section.]

§65.327. Permit Required.

(a) General Requirement. Except as provided in this subchapter, no person may collect, acquire, possess, import, export, cause the import or export of, or engage in a commercial activity involving nongame wildlife.

(b) Permit Privileges and Restrictions.

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(4) A permit is not required for any person to sell nongame wildlife listed in §65.331[(b) or] (d) of this title for and ready for immediate consumption in individual portion servings, and which are subject to limited sales or use tax, provided the person maintains a receipt identifying the source of the nongame wildlife.

(5) – (6) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The new sections are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §67.004, which authorizes the commission to establish any limits on the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, importation, exportation, sale, or offering for sale of nongame fish or wildlife that the department considers necessary to manage the species; and §67.0041, which authorizes the department to issue permits for the taking, possession, propagation, transportation, sale, importation, or exportation of a nongame species of fish or wildlife if necessary to properly manage that species.

The proposed new sections affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67.

§65.335. Applicability.

(a) Where the provisions of Chapter 65, Subchapter G of this title (relating to Threatened and Endangered Nongame Species) conflict with this subchapter, this subchapter prevails.

(b) For the purposes of this subchapter, the following words and terms shall have the following meanings, except in cases where the context clearly indicates otherwise: Coatimundi — Any coatimundi of the species Nasua narica.

§65.336. Permit Required.

(a) Any person who possesses a coatimundi and distributes, sells, or offers for sale such coatimundi must possess a Protected Nongame Sales Permit.

(b) Any person may possess a captive-bred coatimundi in this state, provided that person also possesses proof that the coatimundi was acquired from a lawful source.

(c) No person may take or possess a coatimundi from the wild in this state, except as provided for elsewhere in this title.

§65.337. Permit Application, Issuance, and Fees; Renewal.

(a) Application. A person may apply for a sales permit by submitting a completed department-supplied application form and the permit fee specified in §53.15 of this title (relating to Miscellaneous Fisheries and Wildlife Licenses and Permits).

(b) Issuance. The department may issue a permit under this subchapter if:

(1) the applicant has complied with subsection (a) of this section; and

(2) the applicant has not violated the laws of the United States, this state, or another state with respect to the acquisition of coatimundi.

(3) A permit is valid from September 1 to August 31 of the following year.

(4) If an applicant possesses coatimundi under a valid permit issued prior to the effective date of this subchapter under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, the department shall, for the purposes of determining fees and expiration dates, treat the new permit as an extension of the Chapter 68 permit.

(c) Renewal. A person possessing a permit issued under this section may renew that permit by submitting a completed permit renewal form to the department, accompanied by a permit renewal fee specified in §53.15 of this title (relating to Miscellaneous Fisheries and Wildlife Licenses and Permits. A permit renewal shall be valid for one year.

(d) Refusal to Issue or Renew. The department may refuse to issue or renew any permit as provided by Chapter 56 of this title (relating to Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit).

§65.338. Reports and Recordkeeping.

(a) A person holding a permit under this subchapter shall submit an annual report by August 15 of each year. The report shall be on a form supplied by the department and shall be fully completed.

(b) A permittee shall maintain on file and available for examination by authorized department employees:

(1) documentation proving that all coatimundi possessed under a permit issued under this subchapter were captive-bred; and

(2) documentation listing:

(A) the dates that any coatimundi were purchased, sold, or distributed;

(B) the numbers of any coatimundi that were purchased, sold, or distributed; and

(C) the name, address, and telephone number of any person receiving from or supplying coatimundi to the permittee.

§65.339. Disposition of Stock. A person who ceases to hold a permit under this chapter shall, by the expiration or cancellation of the permit, dispose of all coatimundi according to the provisions specified in the permit.

§65.340. Violations and Penalties. Unless specifically exempted by another provision of this code, it is an offense for any person to violate a provision of this subchapter. Penalties for a violation of this subchapter are as provided by Parks and Wildlife Code, §67.005.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the commission to make regulations governing the possession, transfer, purchase, and sale of breeder deer held under the authority of the subchapter; and §61.021, which provides that no person may possess a game animal at any time or in any place except as permitted under a proclamation of the commission.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, and Chapter 61.

§65.601. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All other words and terms shall have the meanings assigned by Parks and Wildlife Code.

(1) (No change.)

(2) Facility —

[(A) Until May 15, 2021, one or more enclosures, in the aggregate and including additions, that are the site of deer breeding operations under a single deer breeder’s permit.]

[(B)] One [On and after May 15, 2021, one] or more contiguous enclosures, in the aggregate and including additions, that are the site of deer breeding operations under a single deer breeder’s permit.

(3) – (5) (No change.)

(6) Unique identifier — As defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561[(a)(5)].

§65.602. Permit Requirement and Permit Privileges; General Provisions.

(a) (No change.)

(b) In addition to the provisions of[accordance with] Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.357, a person who possesses a valid deer breeder’s permit may, [:]

[(1) engage in the business of breeding legally possessed breeder deer within the facility for which the permit was issued;]

[(2) take possession of breeder deer transferred from another facility in compliance with the provisions of this chapter;]

[(3) transfer breeder deer that are in the legal possession of the permittee; and]

[(4)] except as provided by this subchapter or Subchapter B of this chapter, recapture lawfully possessed breeder deer that have been marked in accordance with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.3561 that have escaped from a permitted facility.

§65.610. Transfer of Deer.
(a) – (d) (No change.)

(e) Release.

(1) – (4) (No change.)

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

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

[(B) remove the identification tag required by this section from such deer except as a consequence of reducing the deer to possession following lawful take under a hunting license.]

(f) – (g) (No change.)

§65.611. Prohibited Acts.

(a) – (k) (No change.)

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

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

(2) remove the identification tag required by this section from such deer except as a consequence of reducing the deer to possession following lawful take under a hunting license.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.605, which requires the commission to adopt procedures by rule that are consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12, Subchapter G, for the department’s review of a refusal to issue or renew certain permits.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapters 12.

§65.703. Proscription of Certain Agents and Surrogates.

(a) The department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of any permittee if the person has a final conviction or has been assessed an administrative penalty for a violation of:

(1) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, E, (G), (H), L, R, or R-1;

(2) – (4) (No change.)

(b) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.021, which prohibits the possession of a game animal except by proclamation of the commission; and §61.052, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to possess game animals and the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to possess game animals.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61.

§65.905. Interstate Transport of Deer through Texas. Only to the extent that department rules regarding the importation and/or transport through the state of white-tailed and mule deer not possessed under a permit issued by the department are preempted under the provisions of 9 CFR §81.5, this section shall apply.

(1) A person without a permit issued by the department may transit the state while in possession of live deer lawfully obtained in another state, provided:

(A)- (C) (No change.)

(D) the deer are not commingled with any other susceptible species, as defined in §65.90 of this title (relating to Definitions)[4 TAC §40.3(a)(3) (relating to Herd Status Plans for Cervidae)] while in the state of Texas;

(E) – (F) (No change.)

(2) – (3) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit B

TEXAS REGULATORY EFFICIENCY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 69. RESOURCE PROTECTION

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) proposes the repeal of 31 TAC §§69.93, 69.107, 69.112, 69.116, 69.119, and 69.401-69.408, and amendments to §§69.2, 69.6, 69.91, 69.101, 69.102, 69.105, 69.106, 69.111, 69.114, 69.115, and 69.120, concerning Resource Protection.

The proposed rules either implement or are consistent with the recommendations of the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor.

The proposed amendment to §69.2, concerning Scientific Plant Permit, would condense two provisions governing qualifications for applicants into a single provision.

The proposed amendment to §69.6, concerning Refusal of Issuance or Renewal of Permit; Review of Agency Decision, would replace the contents of the section with a reference to a specific chapter of TAC governing the subject matter.

The proposed amendment to §69.91, concerning Consistency, would incorporate the provisions of §69.93, concerning Thresholds for Action (which is proposed for repeal), reworded for clarity (including removal of outdated citations) and simplicity, and retitled accordingly. The proposed amendment replaces archaic references to “oyster leases” with references to “certificates of location,” which reflects current terminology used by the department in other rules.

The proposed amendment to §69.101, concerning Management and Protection, would modernize citations and language.

The proposed amendment to §69.102, concerning Definitions, would update an obsolete legal citation.

The proposed amendment to §69.105, concerning Application Procedures, would remove subsections (d) – (g), which would be relocated to §69.106, concerning Public Comment; Hearing Procedures, in order to consolidate all provisions governing the solicitation and conduct of department outreach and contact activities related to processing of applications for sand and gravel permits.

The proposed amendment to §69.106, concerning Public Comment; Hearing Procedures, would incorporate current §69.105 (d) – (g) and §69.107, concerning Contested Case Hearings, which is proposed for repeal.

The proposed amendment to §69.111, concerning Permit Requirements and Restrictions, would alter subsection (a)(1) to modernize language referring to statutory provisions, clarify that bond requirements are restricted to permittees engaged in commercial activities, and add new subsection (b), which consists of the contents of current §69.112, concerning Restrictions.

The proposed amendment to §69.114, concerning Sedimentary Material Permit Application Fees, would incorporate the contents of §69.119, concerning Fees (which is proposed for repeal), to consolidate all fee amounts in a single section, and make changes as appropriate for the sake of clarity.

The proposed amendment to §69.115, concerning General Permits, would remove language that repeats statutory provisions and incorporate the provisions of §69.116, concerning Conditions.

The proposed amendment to §65.120, concerning Exemptions, would correct a misspelling.

The proposed repeals of §§69.401-69.408 are necessary because the provisions of those sections are proposed for relocation to Chapter 65 in another proposed rulemaking published elsewhere in this issue of the Texas Register.

The proposed amendments also make changes as necessary to modernize archaic language.

2. Fiscal Note.

3. Public Benefit — Cost Note.

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

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

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not expand or limit an existing regulation, but will repeal several;

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

(8) neither positively nor adversely affect the state’s economy.

4. Request for Public Comment.

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §88.006, which requires the commission to adopt regulations to administer the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 88.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 88.

6. Rule Text.

§69.2. Scientific Plant Permit.

(a) (No change.)

(b) Qualifications. A scientific plant permit shall be issued only to a person who provides evidence to the department’s satisfaction that:

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(4) the applicant possesses:

(A) a degree or certification in a botanical or horticultural discipline; or [possesses]

(B) letters of recommendation from two acknowledged authorities in a botanical or horticultural discipline attesting to the applicant’s professional status or competence to conduct the research; and

(5) (No change.)

(c) Application requirements. Prior to permit issuance, an applicant for a scientific plant permit shall submit to the department:

(1) (No change.)

[(2) a letter of recommendation from each of two people in the field of botany or horticulture attesting to the professional status or competence that qualifies the applicant to conduct the proposed research;]

(2)[(3)] a letter of permission from an agency or entity to take plants on lands under the jurisdiction of the agency or entity; and

(3)[(4)] the name of each person assisting in the collecting and transporting of endangered, threatened, or protected plants.

(d) (No change.)

§69.6. Refusal of Issuance or Renewal of Permit; Review of Agency Decision. [(a)] The department may refuse permit issuance or renewal to any person as provided by Chapter 56 of this title (relating to Agency Decision to Refuse License or Permit Issuance or Renewal and Agency Decision to Suspend or Revoke Affected License or Permit[who has been finally convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication, or assessed an administrative penalty for a violation of:]

[(1) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, or R;]

[(2) Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67;]

[(3) a provision of the Parks and Wildlife Code that is punishable as a Class A or B Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor, a Parks and Wildlife Code state jail felony, or a Parks and Wildlife Code felony;]

[(4) Parks and Wildlife Code, §63.002; or]

[(5) the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§3371-3378).]

[(b) The department may prohibit any person from acting as an agent of any permittee if the person has been convicted of, pleaded nolo contendere to, received deferred adjudication, or assessed an administrative penalty for an offense listed in subsection (a) of this section.]

[(c) The department may refuse to issue a permit to any person the department has evidence is acting on behalf of or as a surrogate for another person who is prohibited by the provisions of this section from engaging in permitted activities.]

[(d) The department may refuse to issue or renew a permit to any person who is not in compliance with applicable reporting or recordkeeping requirements.]

[(e) An applicant for a permit or permit renewal may request a review of a decision of the department to refuse issuance of a permit or permit renewal (as applicable).]

[(f) An applicant seeking review of a decision of the department with respect to permit issuance must request the review within 10 working days of being notified by the department that the application for a permit or permit renewal has been denied.]

[(1) Within 10 working days of receiving a request for review under this section, the department shall establish a date and time for the review.]

[(2) The department shall conduct the review within 30 days of receipt of the request required by subsection (e) of this section, unless another date is established in writing by mutual agreement between the department and the requestor.]

[(3) The request for review shall be presented to a review panel. The review panel shall consist of three department managers with expertise in the subject of the permit, appointed or approved by the executive director, or designee.]

[(4) The decision of the review panel is final.]

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is proposed under authority of Natural Resources Code, §33.2052, which authorizes the department by rule to establish a process by which the agency may submit rules to the council for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the coastal management program.

The proposed amendment affects Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33.

§69.91. Consistency; Thresholds for Action.

(a) The[Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 501 of this title (relating to Coastal Management Program), the] actions and rules of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department [with regard to the items listed in § 505.11(7)(A)-(D) of this title (relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program)] shall be consistent with the applicable provisions of Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter F, and applicable rules adopted under the authority of Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter F[goals, policies, and procedures set forth by the Coastal Coordination Council in Chapters 501 and 505 of this title (relating to Council Procedures for State Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Policies), when such actions or rules may adversely affect a coastal natural resource area as defined in § 503.1 of this title (relating to Coastal Management Program Boundary). Specifically, permits or actions authorized by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department related to activities listed in § 505.11(7)(A)-(D) shall include the statements and determinations required by § 505.30 of this title (relating to Agency Consistency Determination).]

(b) The threshold for referral of actions of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department listed in §29.11 of this title (relating to Actions and Rules Subject to Coastal Management Program) shall be as follows.

(1) For certificates of location issued pursuant to §58.30 of this title (relating to Certificate of Location), the threshold for referral shall be an administratively complete application for a certificate of location.

(2) An administratively complete application shall be the threshold for approval with respect to department permits issued under the applicable provisions of:

(A) Chapter 65, Subchapter G, of this title (relating to Threatened and Endangered Nongame Species);

(B) Chapter 69, Subchapter A, of this title (relating to Endangered, Threatened, and Protected Native Plants);

(C) Chapter 69, Subchapter C, of this title (relating to Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits);

(D) Chapter 69, Subchapter I, of this title (relating to Shell Dredging on the Texas Gulf Coast);

(E) Chapter 69, Subchapter H, of this title, (relating to Issuance of Marl, Sand, and Gravel Permits): and

(D) Chapter 69, Subchapter J, of this title (relating to Scientific, Educational and Zoological Permits).

(3) For approval of development that requires the use or taking of any public land in state parks, wildlife management areas, and preserves by a person or entity other than the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and that would be subject to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 26, and the applicable provisions of Chapter 59 of this title (relating to Parks), the threshold for referral shall be initial approval of the project concept by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The repeal is proposed under Natural Resources Code, §33.2051, which authorizes the department by rule to establish a process by which the agency may submit rules and rule to the council for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the coastal management program.

The proposed repeal affects Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33.

§65.93. Thresholds for Action.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §86.020, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules governing applications, fees, and permits to disturb, take or carry away marl, sand, gravel, shell or mudshell.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 86.

§69.101. Management and Protection.

(a) This subchapter governs[These rules establish the procedures for] the issuance of permits for the taking of sedimentary materials from the public waters of this state.

(b) Permits issued under this subchapter[pursuant to these rules] are not contracts, but [are] evidence of permission granted by the commission, acting through the executive director of the department, to operate strictly in accordance with the terms of the permit.

(c) Prior to issuing a permit under this section for the disturbance of marl, sand and gravel within the Coastal Management Program Boundary as defined in Chapter 27[§503.1] of this title (relating to Coastal Management Program Boundary) the department shall comply with the requirements of §69.91 [and §69.93] of this title (relating to Consistency; [Thresholds for Action]) and the applicable provisions of Chapter 29 of this title (relating to Procedures for Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Policies)[§505.30 of this title (relating to Agency Consistency Determination)]. Grant or denial of an application for a permit under this section is not a final agency action appealable for purposes of judicial review under the Texas Administrative Procedure Act, Texas Government Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, §2001.171, until the jurisdiction of the Coastal Coordination Council has lapsed.

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

(1) – (9) (No change.)

(10) Waters — All of the salt and fresh water of the area of this state under the jurisdiction and trusteeship or ownership of the government of the State of Texas, all the volume of such water area, and all lands underlying such water area, and all lands subject to the jurisdiction of the commission underlying the beds of navigable streams, whether containing water or not, as defined in Natural Resources Code, §21.001[Texas Civil Statutes, Article 5302].

§69.105. Application Procedures.

(a) – (b) (No change.)

(c) The public notice shall set forth a time and place for a public comment hearing to receive public comment on the application.

[(d) Within 30 days of receipt of an administratively complete application, the department shall:]

[(1) publish notice of the public comment hearing in the Texas Register at least 20 days prior to the hearing date; and]

[(2) mail a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for forwarding of this information, and shall notify the applicant;]

[(e) The public notice shall set forth in full any trade or corporate name used by the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for prompt and full payment for all newspaper notice required.]

[(f) A completed publisher’s affidavit for all required newspaper notice shall be required prior to commencement of a contested case hearing.]

[(g) The department shall set a 30-day public comment period to begin on the date of publication in the Texas Register or the newspaper(s), whichever is later. All relevant public comment shall be presented to the executive director or the commission at the time the permit application is presented for decision.]

§69.106. Public Comment; Hearing Procedures.

(a) Within 30 days of receipt of an administratively complete application, the department shall:

(1) publish notice of the public comment hearing in the Texas Register at least 20 days prior to the hearing date; and

(2) mail a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for forwarding of this information, and shall notify the applicant;

(b) The public notice shall set forth in full any trade or corporate name used by the applicant. The applicant shall be responsible for prompt and full payment for all newspaper notice required.

(c) A completed publisher’s affidavit for all required newspaper notice shall be required prior to commencement of a contested case hearing.

(d) The department shall set a 30-day public comment period to begin on the date of publication in the Texas Register or the newspaper(s), whichever is later. All relevant public comment shall be presented to the executive director or the commission at the time the permit application is presented for decision.

(e) The director or other authorized employee shall preside and hear relevant public comment offered by the applicant or any other interested person. Public comment may be presented orally or in writing.

(f) A written request for a contested case hearing from an applicant or a person with a justifiable interest must be received prior to the close of the public comment period and shall be referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) within 45 days after the close of the public comment period. Proposed activities shall not commence or continue after the date on which an application is referred to the OAH until a valid permit is issued.

(1) Contested cases shall be conducted pursuant to the Procedural Rules of the commission and any applicable rules of the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

(2) The applicant shall be responsible for all hearing costs to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, transcript costs incurred by the department, and court reporting costs incurred by the department and no permit may be issued pursuant to this section before full payment of all proper costs have been made to the department by the applicant.

§69.111. Permit Requirements and Restrictions.

(a) Permit Requirements.

(1) The director may establish permit conditions as necessary to administer Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 86[make such reasonable requirements of the permittee as required to effectuate the intent of Chapter 86 of the Parks and Wildlife Code].

(2)[(b)] For individual permits the director shall require permittees engaged in commercial activities[the permittee] to make a good and sufficient bond payable to the department, and conditioned upon the prompt payment of charges for sedimentary materials and any damage done to property under the ownership or trusteeship of the state.

(3)[(c)] The director shall require the permittee to:

(A)[(1)] for individual permits, make a sworn report no later than the tenth of each month on all materials removed from public waters during the preceding month at the approved location or locations;

(B)[(2)] maintain permanent records of all materials removed, stockpiled, or sold;

(C)[(3)] make such records available to department representatives any time; and

(D)[(4)] make a monthly report whether or not any materials are removed.

(4)[(d)] All permittees shall submit a report no later than the 30th day after the permit expiration date. The report shall:

(A)[(1)] be made by certified mail to: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Sand and Gravel Program, 4200 Smith School Rd., Austin, TX 78744;

(B)[(2)] contain a sworn, notarized verification that the contents of the report are true and correct;

(C)[(3)] be mailed no later than 30 days from the date of permit expiration; and

(D)[(4)] state the total volume of marl, sand, gravel, shell, or mudshell removed during the term of the permit.

(5)[(e)] The director shall require the permittee to remit to the department the established price on sedimentary materials removed during the month for which each monthly report is made. These prices are subject to change by the commission with the approval of the Governor of the State of Texas.

(6)[(f)] The director shall require that the permittee not interfere with state or federal improvements, navigation, fish life, or riparian rights of landowners in or along any navigable stream or public body of water.

(b) Restrictions.

(1) Following a determination that the use of excessive equipment is causing siltation or other damage to oysters, oyster beds, or fish-inhabiting waters thereof or adjacent thereto, the director may limit the quantity or type or both quantity and type of equipment used in any particular area.

(2) A failure or refusal of the holder of the permit to comply with the terms and conditions of such permit or the violation of any law or condition pertaining to the taking of sedimentary materials shall operate as an immediate termination or revocation of all rights conferred in or claimed under the permit; and such permit may be canceled by the director.

§69.114. Sedimentary Material Permit Application Fees.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, applications for permits to take or disturb sedimentary material shall be accompanied by the following nonrefundable application fees:

(1) (No change.)

(2) $500 for all other individual permit applications.

(b) – (c) (No change.)

(d) The department shall charge a nonrefundable fee of $250 for general permit applications. If the department determines that a general permit is not authorized for an activity, the application fee shall be applied to the application fee for an individual permit.

§69.115. General Permits.

(a) A general permit may be authorized for[Under the terms of a general permit, the executive director may authorize the following activities:]

[(1)] pipeline construction,[;]

[(2)] pipeline maintenance, or[; and]

[(3)] other activities that necessitate the disturbance or removal of less than 1,000 cubic yards of sedimentary material, provided the proposed activity:

(1) will have no significant adverse effects on a natural resource of the state as set forth in Parks and Wildlife Code, §86.004;

(2) is minimal in scope and duration; and

(3) will be conducted in compliance with the best management practices set forth in §69.118 of this title (relating to Best Management Practices).

(b) Activities that[which] do not qualify for a general permit may [only] be authorized only by an individual permit issued pursuant to §69.105 of this title (relating to Application Procedures[: Individual Permit]).

§69.120. Exemptions. The commission finds that the state will not be deprived of significant revenue and there will be no significant adverse effects on navigation, the coastal sediment budget, riverine hydrology, erosion, or fish and wildlife resources or their habitat, and the following activities are therefore exempt from any permit requirement of the department or payment to the department for sedimentary material removed from the public waters of this state:

(1) – (3) (No change.)

(4) projects resulting in insignificant takings or disturbances of marl, sand, gravel[grave], shell or mudshell as defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §86.021(b-1).

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The repeals are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §86.020, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules governing applications, fees, and permits to disturb, take or carry away marl, sand, gravel, shell or mudshell.

The proposed repeals affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 86.

§69.107. Contested Case Hearings.

§69.112. Restrictions.

§69.116. Conditions.

§69.119. Fees.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The repeals are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67, which requires the commission to establish any limitation on the taking, possession, transportation, exportation, sale, and offering for sale of nongame fish and wildlife.

The proposed repeals affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 67.

§69.401. Applicability.

§69.402. Definitions.

§69.403. Permit Required.

§69.404. Permit Application, Issuance, and Fees.

§69.405. Permit Renewal.

§69.406. Reports.

§69.407. Disposition of Stock.

§69.408. Violations and Penalties.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 6

Presenter: Laura Zebehazy

Implementation of Legislation During the 89th Texas Legislative Session – House Bill 3556 – Relating to the Construction of Structures Exceeding a Certain Height in Certain Counties Containing National Wildlife Refuges and in Adjacent Counties – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Rules in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed rules to implement House Bill (H.B.) 3556, enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature, in the Texas Register for public comment. The proposed rules would establish a process for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) review of tall structure construction projects in certain counties to minimize impacts to migratory birds.

II. Discussion: H.B. 3556 enacted Texas Parks and Wildlife Code section 12.023, which requires developers planning to construct structures taller than 575 feet in 22 Texas coastal counties to coordinate with TPWD regarding potential migratory bird impacts. The statute creates an administrative process and timeline for TPWD to provide recommendations on how to minimize migratory bird impacts and requires a developer to accept the recommendations or propose alternative minimization measures, which TPWD may object to. H.B. 3556 further authorizes the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules to implement the statute.

The proposed rules describe the factors TPWD will consider in developing minimization measure recommendations and evaluating developer-proposed alternative minimization measures, and how TPWD will determine the minimization measures a developer must implement. The rules also establish requirements for a developer to request a contested case hearing with the State Office of Administrative Hearings if TPWD requires compliance with a minimization measure that a developer disagrees with.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Rules Governing Environmental Review of Certain Tall Structures

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

RULES GOVERNING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN TALL STRUCTURES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes new 31 TAC §69.501 and §69.502, concerning Review of Tall Structures. The proposed new rules would constitute new Chapter 69, Subchapter L, and would implement provisions required or authorized under House Bill 3556, enacted during the Regular Session of the 89th Texas Legislature, which amended the Parks and Wildlife Code by adding new §12.023, to require developers in certain counties to request review of structures greater than 575 feet prior to beginning construction, and to establish a timeline for the department to provide measures to minimize the impact of such structures on migratory birds.

Proposed new §69.501, concerning Review Process, would create the procedures for the review required by H.B. 3556 and provide factors for the department to utilize in identifying and evaluating minimization measures. The proposed new rule would also implement timelines imposed by H.B. 3556.

Proposed new subsection (a) would require submission of an administratively complete request for review no later than 90 days before any construction. The department encourages developers to begin discussions with the department for guidance prior to submitting a request for review.

Proposed new subsection (b) would list the factors the department would consider in the development of the initial migratory bird impact minimization measures provided to the developer. The factors consist of the scientific, biological, logistical, and legal parameters the department deems relevant to an effective and thorough evaluation of a project and/or structure. The department will utilize the relevant factors, science, and guidelines to tailor the minimization measures to the specific project.

Proposed new subsection (c) would require the developer to either accept the minimization measures provided by the department or reject them and would create a pathway for proposal of alternative minimization measures. The proposed new subsection also would provide that measures not addressed or responded to will be deemed to have been accepted by default by the developer.

Proposed new subsection (d) would establish the factors the department may use to evaluate any proposed alternative minimization measures provided by the developer. The department could consider the anticipated project effects, conservation adequacy, and feasibility of the proposed alternative measures as compared to the initial measures provided by the department. The department will determine the final minimization measures that the structure must utilize.

Proposed new §69.502, concerning Contested Case Hearing, would establish the procedure for requesting a contested case hearing at the State Office of Administrative Hearings if the developer rejects the final minimization measures provided by the department. The developer is responsible for all hearing, transcript, and court reporting costs incurred. This section also would require construction of the structure to pause until minimization measures are determined and all costs have been paid.

2. Fiscal Note.

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

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

There could be adverse economic effects on persons required to comply with the rule as proposed, which would consist of the costs associated with avoidance and minimization measures (AMM) recommended by the department in response to the notice required by statute. The department does not have access to the private, proprietary financial data necessary to accurately project cost of compliance estimates. In some and perhaps most cases, the developer will already have considered and voluntarily implemented satisfactory industry best-practice AMM and there would be no need for the department to make additional recommendations and thus no cost of compliance. In other cases, the department recommendation could contain a variety of measures, such as surveys, specialized building materials, compliance with avoidance periods for clearing and construction, time-bound operational constraints, facility monitoring and reporting, or a combination of these or other AMM, which are dependent on the type of industry, project location, and project-specific details. Additionally, the statute provides for developers to present alternative AMMs to the department before the department makes a final decision regarding AMM. Thus, the extremely high variability of possible AMMs makes meaningful estimates of potential costs difficult if not impossible; therefore, the department estimates the cost of compliance to be anywhere from nothing (for projects that contain adequate AMM and for which the department does not recommend additional AMM) to tens of thousands of dollars (for projects that require minimal additional AMM) to perhaps millions of dollars (for projects for which the department recommends substantial additional AMM). The department notes that developers in some cases will incur the cost of analyzing and evaluating AMM recommended by the department, which the department estimates at between $10,000 and $30,000 per project. The department notes that the applicability of the rules is limited by statute to counties that border the Gulf of Mexico, have a population of less than 500,000 but do not contain a municipality with a population greater than 300,000, and wholly or partially contain a national wildlife refuge, and counties bordering such counties, which means at the date of this proposal the rules would affect potential projects in 22 counties.

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

(C) The department is aware that although there are business entities affected by the proposed new rule, it is difficult if not impossible to ascertain how many there are or could be, or if those entities qualify as small or microbusinesses for the purposes of this analysis. The department is aware of one entity at the current time that could be affected by the proposed rule, and it does not qualify as a small or microbusiness. A search of developers of projects within one specific energy sector already constructed in Texas shows only entities that do not qualify as small or microbusinesses.

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

(D) The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies at the current time, as the rules are not retroactive and department has not received any notice from any developer as required by statute.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) create new regulations (to establish a process for reviewing certain proposed structures and providing measures to minimize the impact to migratory birds);

(6) increase the number of individuals subject to regulation (because the department currently does not regulate structures); and

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments concerning the proposed rules may be submitted to Laura Zebehazy, Director of Ecological and Environmental Planning, at laura.zebehazy@tpwd.texas.gov. Comments also may be submitted via the department’s website at https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/.

5. Statutory Authority.

The new sections are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.023, which authorizes the department to adopt rules to implement that section.

The proposed new rules affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 12.

6. Rule Text.

§69.501. Review Process.

(a) The developer shall submit, on a form provided or approved by the department, an administratively complete request for review, no later than the 90th day before construction begins on any structure subject to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.023. For the purposes of this subchapter, “developer” means a person who intends to construct a structure subject to the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.023, and “administratively complete” means an application containing all information requested by the department.

(b) Within 45 days of receipt of a complete request for review, the department shall provide to the developer a written recommendation articulating specific measures to minimize the impact of the structure (and associated infrastructure) on migratory birds. The department may develop the minimization measures using the following factors:

(1) the characteristics and conservation needs related to the specific structure;

(2) any minimization measures initially proposed by the developer;

(3) the best scientific research available;

(4) any relevant federal guidance;

(5) utilization of available industry best practices;

(6) opportunities for contributions to continuing research;

(7) the professional expertise of the department staff; and

(8) any other relevant factors to minimize the impact of the structure on migratory birds.

(c) Within 45 days of receiving the notification required under subsection (b) of this section, the developer shall provide the department with a written response indicating acceptance or rejection of each measure in the recommendation and propose any alternative minimization measure(s). Any measure the developer fails to respond to is deemed to have been accepted.

(d) Within 45 days of receiving any proposed alternative minimization measures from the developer, the department shall reach a final decision on the minimization measures the structure must utilize and provide notification of the decision to the developer. The department may consider the following factors when evaluating the proposed alternative measures:

(1) the conservation benefit offered by the proposed alternative measures in relation to original minimization measures;

(2) the adequacy of the proposed alternative measures to meet the conservation needs identified by the department;

(3) the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed alternative as compared to the original minimization measures;

(4) the effectiveness of the proposed alternative measures in minimizing impacts on migratory birds; and

(5) any other relevant factors influencing the impact of the structure on migratory birds.

§69.502. Contested Case Hearing.

(a) The developer may request a contested case hearing if the department requires compliance with minimization measures other than those agreed to by the developer. A written request for a contested case hearing from the developer must be received within 15 days of notice of the final minimization measures required by the department, and shall be referred to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH).

(b) Construction activities shall not commence or continue after the date on which an application is referred to SOAH until minimization measures are determined.

(c) Contested cases shall be conducted pursuant to the Procedural Rules of the commission and any applicable rules of SOAH.

(d) The developer shall be responsible for all hearing costs to SOAH, transcript costs incurred by the department, and court reporting costs incurred by the department and no construction may begin or continue pursuant to this section before full payment of all proper costs have been made to the department by the developer.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 7

Presenter: Jonathan Warner

Alligator Season Extension and Expanded Lawful Means – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules governing alligator hunting in the Texas Register for public comment.

II. Discussion: Listed as endangered in the 1960s, the subsequent recovery of the American alligator across the species’ native range is a true conservation success story. Since Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) restored harvest opportunities within sustainably managed alligator populations in the 1980s, wild alligator hunting effort and take has steadily declined in Texas and other range states, primarily due to market shifts toward commercial meat and hide propagation in the broader alligator farming industry. Consequently, wild alligator population densities across many aquatic ecosystems in Texas are robust.

The proposed amendments would generally lengthen the current 20-day “core county” September alligator hunting season to 61 days (September 1-October 31), provide additional means of take for alligator hunting (namely “snatch hooks” attached to restraining lines), and allow alligator hunting at night on private lands during the core county season. The proposed amendments also incorporate a minor change resulting from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office review of TPWD rules. These changes would allow for and incentivize increased harvest efficiencies, especially for properties where wetland habitat management and/or agricultural activities like crawfish and rice farming necessitate active and sustained alligator hunting effort. A longer season, coupled with night hunting on private lands and expanded means of take, provides another tool for landowners and land managers to successfully execute alligator management strategies. The proposed amendments would also boost recreational hunting interest and opportunity as an offset for the once lucrative but now nearly non-existent commercial market for wild alligator hides.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Alligator Harvest and Reporting Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit A

ALLIGATOR HARVEST AND REPORTING RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §§65.3, 65.11, 65.49, 65.358, and 65.360, concerning alligators generally. The proposed amendments would lengthen the season for take and allow the hunting of alligators at night on private lands (including private waters) in 22 “core” counties, allow the use of additional means and methods for the take of alligators in all counties, adjust reporting deadlines for permitted alligator hunters, and make nonsubstantive changes for modernization and clarity.

The recovery of the American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) across the species’ native range in the southern United States, including Texas, is an exemplary conservation success story. Unsustainable hunting and poaching from the 19^th to mid-20^th century, coupled with habitat loss, nearly extirpated alligator populations across their historic range by the 1960s. Concern for the ultimate survival of the species in the wild led to alligators receiving special protection under federal law.

Management and regulation from state wildlife agencies and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), along with strong support from landowners, catalyzed a remarkably rapid turnaround among declining alligator populations, to the extent the species was declared fully recovered and removed from the endangered species list in 1987.

Harvest opportunity for wild alligators in Texas was restored in 1984, after years of strong protection by the department, and has continued since then under a carefully controlled monitoring program that continues to this day. Today, wild alligators are harvested in Texas at approximately one-third (2000-3000 animals per year) the rate observed at the time of peak markets in the late 1980s and early 1990s (10,000+ animals per year). This trend (which is not unique to Texas) has led to steadily increasing alligator population numbers in Texas, as evidenced by aerial nest counts, spotlight surveys, and steadily increasing nuisance complaints.

A significant majority of landowners and hunters in the 22 southeast Texas “core counties” where alligators are harvested during the annual September 10-30 commercial season have voiced strong support for a longer season with expanded means of take, which would allow increased efficiencies on properties where wetland habitat management and/or agricultural activities like crawfish and rice farming create time challenges for landowners and land managers with respect to alligator management and harvest activities. A longer season, coupled with allowing hunting at night on private lands and expanded means of take, would also boost recreational hunting opportunity as an offset for declining commercial markets. The amendments as proposed would effect these changes.

The proposed rules also make opportunistic nonsubstantive changes as needed to maintain grammatical sense, structural parallelism, or to prevent conflict with other regulatory provisions.

The proposed rules either implement or are consistent with the recommendations of the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor.

The proposed amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, would clarify that the definition of “alligator gig” includes harpoons, implement a definition for “alligator bang stick” and “alligator snatch hook.”

The proposed amendment to §65.11, concerning Lawful Means, would allow the use of alligator “bang sticks” to dispatch alligators caught on lawful taking devices and make alligator snatch hooks lawful for the take of alligators. A bang stick is a pole equipped with a firearm chamber that allows the humane dispatch of alligators caught on taking devices by permitting quick and safe application of lethality. The proposed amendment also replaces the phrase “longbow, recurved bow, or compound bow” with a reference to “lawful archery equipment,” which is less cumbersome.

The proposed amendment to §65.49, concerning Alligators, would lengthen the current 20-day open season in 22 selected counties (“core counties”) by an additional 40 days and allow the hunting and taking of alligators at night on private lands and waters in those counties. In core counties the department utilizes habitat, population, and harvest data to determine an appropriate level of harvest on any given property; thus, the department controls the overall harvest and the season extension simply affords more time for landowners and land managers to achieve the same harvest objectives. Under current rule, alligators may be taken in public waters in core counties by means of devices equipped with lines or by line sets secured to the property for which hide tags have been issued. No taking devices other than line sets are lawful for use at night. Allowing the hunting of alligators at night on private lands and waters in core counties will facilitate population management efforts in areas where alligators are abundant and additional harvest can be sustained without depletion or waste of the resource. As a point of emphasis, the proposed amendment would clearly state that the hunting and take of alligators on public waters in core counties at night would remain unlawful.

The proposed amendment to §65.358, concerning Alligator Egg Collectors, would eliminate references to fax machines, which are for all practical purposes obsolete.

The proposed amendment to §65.360, concerning Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, would provide an additional month for the submission of the hide tag reports required by the section. The department has determined that allowing additional time for compliance with hide tag reporting requirements will benefit the regulated community without compromising the department’s ability to properly and effectively manage the resource.

2. Fiscal Note.

Jonathan Warner, Alligator Program Leader, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the rules.

3. Public Benefit – Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be greater latitude for hunters, landowners, and landowners to harvest, use, and sell alligators.

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

The department has determined that there will be no adverse economic effects on small businesses, microbusinesses, rural communities, or persons required to comply with the amendments as proposed, as the net effect of the proposed rules is expected to be positive. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

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

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

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

(F) The department has determined that the proposed rules are in compliance with the applicable provisions of Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33 (Management of Coastal Public Land).

4. Request for Public Comment.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Jonathan Warner, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 10 Parks and Wildlife Drive, Port Arthur, Texas, 77640; (409) 736-3625 (e-mail: jonathan.warner@tpwd.texas.gov) or via the department’s website at https://tpwd.texas.gov/business/feedback/public_comment/

5. Statutory Authority.

The amendments are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §65.003, which authorizes the commission to regulate taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of alligators, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator that the commission considers necessary to manage this species, including regulations to provide for the periods of time when it is lawful to take, possess, sell, or purchase alligators, alligator hides, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; and limits, size, means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to take or possess alligators, alligator hides, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; and control of nuisance alligators.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 65.

§65.3. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. All other words and terms in this chapter shall have the meanings assigned in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code.

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(3) Alligator gig (harpoon) — A pole or staff equipped with at least one of the following:

(A) – (C) (No change.)

(4) Alligator snatch hook (snatch hook) — A weighted treble hook attached to a hand-thrown restraining line or rod and reel fishing line.

(5) Alligator bang stick (bang stick) — A pole with a firearm chamber at the tip that discharges a projectile upon direct contact with an alligator.

(6) – (38) (No change.)

§65.11. Lawful Means. It is unlawful to hunt alligators, game animals or game birds except by the means authorized by this section, and as provided in §65.19 of this title (relating to Hunting Deer with Dogs).

(1) Firearms.

(A) – (E) (No change.)

(F) In Angelina, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Refugio, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Victoria counties, alligators may not be hunted by means of firearms. In all other counties, alligators may be hunted by[be] means of firearms on private property, including private waters, but may not be hunted by means of firearms from, on, in, across, or over public water.

(G) Alligators lawfully caught on a taking device may be dispatched by means of firearms or bang sticks in all counties.

(2) — (6) (No change.)

(7) Alligator.

(A) Legal devices for taking alligators in the wild are as follows:

(i) (No change.)

(ii) alligator gig;

(iii) snatch hooks;

(iv)[(iii)] lawful archery equipment[longbow, recurved bow, or compound bow] using a barbed arrow;

(v)[(iv)] hand-held snare with integral locking mechanism; and

(vi)[(v)] lawful firearms, air guns, and arrow guns in counties where take by firearm, air gun, or arrow gun is allowed.

(B) A line of at least 300-pound test shall be securely attached to all taking devices other than firearms, air guns or arrow guns used to hunt alligators. Except as provided in this subsection, hook-bearing lines must be attached to a stationary object capable of maintaining a portion of the line above water when an alligator is caught on the line. A line attached to an arrow, snare, snatch hook, or gig must have a float attached when used to take alligators. The float shall be no less than six inches by six inches by eight inches, or, if the float is spherical, no less than eight inches in diameter.

(i) Hook-bearing lines may not be set prior to the general open season and shall be removed no later than sunset of the last day of the open season.

(ii) Except as provided in §65.49 of this title (relating to Alligators), from[From] sunset to one-half hour before sunrise:

(I) no person shall use any taking device other than line sets to hunt alligators; and

(II) no person shall set any baited line capable of taking an alligator and no person shall remove alligators from line sets.

(iii) On a property for which the department has issued hide tags, no person shall set more than one line per unused hide tag in possession.

(iv) On a property that is not in a county listed in paragraph (1)(E) of this section and for which the department has not issued hide tags, no person shall set more than one line.

(v) Line sets shall be inspected daily, and alligators shall be killed, tagged or documented, and removed immediately upon discovery.

(vi) All line sets on properties for which hide tags have been issued shall be secured at one end on the tract of land specified for the hide tags. All other line sets shall be secured at one end on private property.

(vii) Each baited line shall be labeled with a plainly visible, permanent, and legibly marked gear tag that contains:

(I) the full name and current address of the person who set the line;

(II) the hunting license number of the person who set the line; and

(III) a valid hide tag number, if the line is set on a property for which hide tags have been issued.

(8) – (9) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The amendment is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §65.003, which authorizes the commission to regulate taking, possession, propagation, transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of alligators, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator that the commission considers necessary to manage this species, including regulations to provide for the periods of time when it is lawful to take, possess, sell, or purchase alligators, alligator hides, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; and limits, size, means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to take or possess alligators, alligator hides, alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; and control of nuisance alligators.

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 65.

§65.49. Alligators.

(a) Open seasons and bag limits. In all counties there is a general open season for alligator.

(1) In all counties other than the counties listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection, there is a general season for alligator from April 1 – June 30.

(A) On properties for which hide tags have not been issued, the bag limit is one alligator per person per license year.

(B) On properties for which the hide tags have been issued, the bag limit is one alligator per unused hide tag in possession.

(2) In Angelina, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Refugio, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Victoria counties there is an open season from September 1 — October 31.

(A) The bag limit is one alligator per unused hide tag in possession.

(B) During the open season established by this paragraph, the provisions of 65.11(7)(C)(ii) of this title (relating to Lawful Means) do not apply and it is lawful to hunt and take alligators by any legal means at any time, day or night, provided all hunting (and dispatch) occurs only and entirely on private property (including private water). For the purposes of this section, “private waters” means any water not defined as water of the state under Water Code, §11.021.

(C) In the counties listed in this paragraph, it is an offense for any person to place a baited line capable of taking an alligator, remove an alligator from a taking device, or dispatch an alligator in or on public water between sunset and one half-hour before sunrise.

[(1) In Angelina, Brazoria, Calhoun, Chambers, Galveston, Hardin, Jackson, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Matagorda, Nacogdoches, Newton, Orange, Polk, Refugio, Sabine, San Augustine, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler and Victoria counties, and on all properties for which the department has issued hide tags, the open season is from September 10 through September 30.]

[(2) In all other counties, the open season is from April 1 — June 30.]

[(3) Bag limit:]

[(A) on a property for which the department has issued hide tags: one alligator per unused hide tag in possession; or]

[(B) in counties with the season provided under paragraph (2) of this subsection: one alligator per person per license year, unless hide tags have been issued for the property.]

(b) Harvest.

(1) – (4) (No change.)

(5) Except in the counties listed in subsection (a)(2)[(a)(1)] of this section, a person may kill an alligator without possessing a hide tag, provided:

(A) – (B) (No change.)

(6) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

The proposed amendment affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 65.

§65.358. Alligator Egg Collectors.

(a) – (k) (No change.)

(l) No person to whom the department has issued a nest stamp may engage in egg collection without having completed and submitted to the department’s Law Enforcement Communication Center by [fax or] email an egg collection activity notification on a form supplied or approved by the department. The notification required by this subsection shall be submitted not less than 24 hours nor more than 48 hours prior to beginning egg collection activities. If for any reason egg collection activities cannot take place after the department has been notified under this subsection, the department’s Law Enforcement Communications Center shall be contacted by [fax or] email to cancel the notification. The cancellation notice must be received by the department prior to the initiation time indicated on the egg collection activity notification.

(m) (No change.)

§65.360. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.

(a) (No change.)

(b) A person receiving hide tags from the department shall complete and submit an Annual Hide Target Report on a form supplied or approved by the department accounting for all tags by November 10[October 10] following the end of the open season for which tags were issued. Unused tags shall be returned with this report.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 8

Presenter: Kory Gann

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

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks permission to publish proposed amendments to rules governing chronic wasting disease (CWD) detection, response, and management in the Texas Register for public comment.

II. Discussion: CWD is a fatal neurodegenerative disease affecting certain cervid species, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, and exotic species such as elk, red deer, sika, and their hybrids (collectively referred to as susceptible species). If not effectively contained and managed, CWD could pose significant risks to Texas’ multi‑billion‑dollar ranching, hunting, wildlife management, and real estate sectors. For more than two decades, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has worked to detect the disease, prevent its spread, and implement epidemiologically sensible strategies to mitigate and manage its impacts. The proposed amendments would function collectively to refine and improve the department’s processes and procedures intended to manage CWD in wildlife resources.

The proposed amendments would:

create an additional exception to risk mitigation provision rules for permittees who successfully complete a custom testing plan recommended by TPWD in an epidemiological assessment, provided the permittee and facility comply with applicable testing and fencing requirements;
replace certain definitions with statutory references;
clarify that an ante-mortem test cannot be used in more than one reporting year and may only be used to satisfy the testing requirements for the facility in which it was taken, except as may be specifically provided otherwise by rule;
allow the use of a valid ante-mortem test result, taken within the facility, to substitute for post-mortem test results even if the subject animal has been transferred to another facility;
provide a mechanism for the release of breeder deer from a non-movement-qualified (NMQ) facility that is not positive or epidemiologically linked to a positive facility, to an adjacent release facility owned by the permittee, provided certain conditions are met;
allow retropharyngeal lymph nodes by themselves to be sufficient for testing purposes with respect to trace-out release facilities;
consolidate timeframes for test sample submissions and expand the window for requesting a custom testing plan;
prohibit the movement of all reproductive tissues in or out of facilities where CWD has been suspected or confirmed, unless specifically authorized by TPWD in writing; and
make minor changes resulting from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office review of TPWD rules.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Disease Detection and Response Rules

Work Session Agenda Item 8
Exhibit A

DISEASE DETECTION AND RESPONSE RULES

PROPOSAL PREAMBLE

1. Introduction.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of 31 TAC §65.98 and amendments to §§65.87, 65.90, 65.92, 65.94, 65.95, and 65.99, concerning Disease Detection and Response. The proposed amendments would function collectively to refine and improve the department’s processes and procedures intended to manage chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wildlife resources.

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

The proposed amendment to §65.87, concerning Exception, would establish an additional set of conditions under which the department could waive any provision of the subchapter, consisting of an epidemiological assessment conducted by the department, completion of a custom testing plan predicated on that epidemiological assessment, and compliance with testing and fencing requirements established in Subchapters B and T. The department understands that when a facility is implicated in an epidemiological investigation to the extent that it is designated NMQ (non-movement qualified, or prohibited from transferring breeder deer due to heightened or suspected probability of disease transmission), that designation has significant impacts. The department consequently has never stopped exploring possibilities to develop management and testing strategies that could create epidemiologically viable pathways for restoration of MQ status (a designation by the department that authorizes the transfer of breeder deer) to NMQ facilities. Current rule allows for the waiver of any provision of this subchapter for the holder of a scientific research permit engaged in research into CWD. The proposed amendment would create an additional exception for permittees who successfully complete a custom testing plan recommended by the department in an epidemiological assessment, provided the permittee and facility are also in compliance with the testing and fencing requirements of Subchapter B and Subchapter T of Chapter 65. The department is interested in creating a mechanism to provide for adaptive responses to CWD in real time in a landscape of unique situations and constantly evolving scientific understanding. Therefore, the proposed amendment would allow for the creation of highly specialized testing protocols, utilizing the best available science, in those specific instances that epidemiological assessment indicates promise in the possible establishment of sufficient confidence that CWD will not be spread as a consequence of restoring MQ status to facilities that otherwise would not be allowed to transfer deer.

The proposed amendment to §65.90, concerning Definitions, would replace the definitions for “breeder deer” and “deer breeder’ and with a reference to the statutory definitions contained in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L. The change is intended to eliminate duplicate provisions.

The proposed amendment to §65.92, concerning CWD Testing, would alter subsections (f) and (h) to eliminate possible misinterpretation. Current subsection (f) stipulates that except as specifically provided otherwise, an ante-mortem test result may be used only once to satisfy the testing provisions of the subchapter. The department has encountered situations in which persons somehow interpret this to suggest that an ante-mortem test can, in fact, be used again (i.e., in another reporting year). Therefore, the proposed amendment would make it emphatically clear that an ante-mortem test can be used once and only once, except as may be specifically provided otherwise by rule. Current subsection (h) stipulates that an ante-mortem test result is valid only if the deer that was the subject of the test is still in the inventory of the facility; however, current §65.92(d)(1) provides for an eight-month period of validity for ante-mortem test results. The department has determined that the epidemiological value of an ante-mortem test result remains constant for the eight-month period of validity established in subsection (d), irrespective of the location of the deer; therefore, there is no reason not to allow the use of that result for substitution purposes even if the subject animal has been transferred to another facility.

The proposed amendment also would insert a reference to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, into subsection (b) to harmonize the section with the proposed amendment to §65.95.

The proposed amendment to §65.94, concerning Breeding Facility Minimum Movement Qualification, would eliminate subsection (a)(1)(A), and create new subsection (e) to provide a mechanism for the release of breeder deer from NMQ facilities to adjoining release facilities under common ownership, provided a whole-herd ante-mortem test has been performed with results of “not detected” for all deer (along with any additional testing the department deems necessary to furnish confidence that CWD isn’t present) and the permittee agrees in writing to surrender the deer breeding permit for the facility.

Current subsection (a)(1)(A) contains the MQ status qualifications of the original comprehensive rules intended to combat CWD in Texas in 2016, and was retained in successive rulemaking to accommodate legacy permittees. The provisions are now obsolete because all deer breeders in the state now fall under the purview of the remaining standards.

The department continues to encounter situations in which an NMQ facility that is not a positive facility or epidemiologically linked to a positive facility is unable for whatever reason to satisfy regulatory requirements necessary to regain MQ status. In some cases, the permittee wishes to cease operation but desires to engage in some sort of cost recovery (e.g. the sale of hunts for the deer remaining in possession, which cannot otherwise be released and lawfully hunted). The department considers that a whole-herd ante-mortem test with “not detected” results for all deer, combined with any additional testing deemed necessary, such as post-mortem testing of harvested deer, and the restriction of release only to adjacent high-fenced acreage under the same ownership, provides an acceptably minimal possibility of CWD being spread if it is present, provided the deer breeding permit is surrendered and all deer breeding at the facility ceases, which should provide high confidence that if CWD was present, it either wasn’t spread or was not spread beyond the immediate area. The proposed amendment also would stipulate that the release facility be inspected and certified by a fence inspector certified by the department, which is necessary to ensure that the release facility is compliant with current rules governing fencing at release facilities. Finally, the proposed amendment would stipulate that a permittee or surrogate of the permittee is prohibited from obtaining another deer breeder permit for the same facility.

The proposed amendment to §65.95, concerning Movement of Breeder Deer, would allow retropharyngeal lymph nodes (RLN) by themselves to be sufficient for testing purposes with respect to trace-out release facilities. RLNs have greater sensitivity than the obex for detecting CWD in deer; further, because trace-out release facilities are unidirectional (the deer remain on the property and cannot be moved), the epidemiological information gained by submission of both tissues is of less importance; thus, a single type of tissue can be used for testing, as opposed to the lymph node/obex pair required for testing in deer breeding facilities, where epidemiological complexity can be significant.

The proposed amendment to §65.99, concerning Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities, would consolidate timeframes for test sample submissions, expand the window for requesting a custom testing plan, and prohibit the movement in or out of a CWD-positive facility of any reproductive tissues.

Current subsection (e)(2)(F) specifies a 60-day window for sample submission for Category B trace-out facilities, while subsection (e)(4) specifies a 45-day window for sample submission, predicated on the last known exposure period or other date as determined by the department. The proposed amendment would eliminate subsection (e)(2)(F) and alter subsection (e)(4) to simply mandate a 45-day submission window or some other date imposed by the department, predicated on last known exposure data.

Current subsection (h) provides a seven-day window for requesting a custom testing plan following notification that breeding facility has been designated a Category A, Category B, or trace-in facility. The department considers that seven days could in some cases not be enough time for permittees to properly assess options, consult veterinary professionals, and prepare a request; therefore, the proposed amendment would lengthen the window to 14 days.

Many deer breeders have incorporated animal husbandry practices from the livestock industry in their breeding operations, such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer. The department has determined that because infectious prions can be present in reproductive organs and structures, amniotic fluids, fetal tissues, semen and other tissues, there is a pathway for direct and indirect pathogenic transmission as a result. Therefore, the department believes it is prudent to prohibit the movement of such tissues in or out of facilities where CWD has been confirmed.

The proposed rules either implement or are consistent with the recommendations of the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office within the Office of the Governor.

2. Fiscal Note.

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

3. Public Benefit/Cost Note.

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

(A) The public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rules will be the minimally acceptable probability that CWD will not be spread from locations and facilities where it might exist, which is necessary to assure the public of continued enjoyment of the resource and the continued beneficial economic impacts of hunting in Texas. Additionally, the protection of free-ranging deer herds will have the simultaneous collateral benefit of protecting captive herds and maintaining the economic viability of deer breeding operations.

(B) There could be an adverse economic impact on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed, primarily in the form of testing costs associated with various provisions governing pathways to qualify for the restoration of MQ status. Those impacts are identical to the implications for small and microbusinesses discussed later in this preamble.

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

Since the rules as proposed would affect the ability of a deer breeder to engage in the conditional transfer of deer (which under normal circumstances occurs frequently and is often done to generate a profit), the proposed rules could have an adverse economic impact on deer breeders who seek restoration of conditional MQ status via the pathways provided; however, the department notes that no such pathway exists now and the proposed rules are intended to provide relief to deer breeders who are currently prohibited from engaging in such activities because of epidemiological association with CWD-positive facilities. The cost of compliance is therefore strictly voluntary; breeders who choose for whatever reason not to pursue a pathway to conditional MQ status would simply remain NMQ and prohibited from transferring deer. In any case, the department has prepared the economic impact statement and regulatory flexibility analysis described in Government Code, Chapter 2006.

Government Code, §2006.001(1), defines a small or micro-business as a legal entity “formed for the purpose of making a profit” and “independently owned and operated.” A micro-business is a business with 20 or fewer employees. A small business is defined as a business with fewer than 100 employees, or less than $6 million in annual gross receipts.

Department data indicate that there are approximately 516 permitted deer breeders in Texas as of the preparation of this analysis. Although the department does not require deer breeders to file or report financial information with the department, the department believes that most if not all deer breeders qualify as a small or micro-business.

The variety of business models utilized by deer breeders makes meaningful estimates of potential adverse economic impacts difficult. As noted, the department does not require deer breeders to report the buying or selling prices of deer; however, publicly available and anecdotal information indicates that sale prices, especially for buck deer, may be significant, ranging from hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars. In other scenarios, breeder deer are liberated to property owned by the deer breeder and then pursued by paying hunters or guests.

It should also be noted that some aspects of this analysis are based on marketplace behavior that cannot be accurately predicted. In addition, to the extent that any marketplace analysis can be conducted, it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately separate and distinguish marketplace behavior that is the result of the rules from marketplace behavior that is the result of the discovery of CWD. For reasons unrelated to the proposed rules, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that breeders and release facility owners would be reluctant to purchase a breeder deer from a facility with a close relationship or even a perceived relationship to a facility near or at which CWD has been detected. As noted earlier in this analysis, the department, for a variety of reasons, views the proposed rules as the minimally acceptable standard necessary to have a meaningful chance at preventing CWD from being spread from locations where it is known to exist; beyond that standard, confidence regarding the health of deer in any given deer breeding facility is a matter of trust between buyer and seller.

The department cannot quantify the number of deer breeders who could be impacted if the proposed rules were in effect today. All potential adverse economic impacts to permitted deer breeders as a result of the proposed rules would be dependent on the decision to engage in the testing necessary to regain MQ status, and not all NMQ facilities would be in a position to take advantage of the pathways offered by the proposed rules.

The proposed rules would require affected permittees who desire to resume transfer of breeder deer to limited release facilities to conduct a whole-herd ante-mortem test or successfully complete a custom testing plan (which could consist of ante-mortem testing, post-mortem testing, or both) or. The adverse economic impact of the proposed rules would therefore consist of testing costs for a whole-herd ante-mortem test or a mixture of ante-mortem and post-mortem costs as dictated by a custom testing plan.

Under the Veterinary Practice Act, the samples necessary for ante-mortem testing can only be obtained by a licensed veterinarian. Because veterinary practice models vary significantly (flat rates, graduated rates, included travel costs, herd call rates, sedation costs, etc.) in addition to pricing structures determined by the presence or absence of economic competition in different parts of the state, the cost of ante-mortem testing is difficult to quantify; however, based on anecdotal information and an informal survey of knowledgeable veterinarians, the department estimates the cost of tonsillar or rectal biopsies at approximately $70-200 to as much as $350 per head. It is important to note that ante-mortem procedures for CWD testing are relatively new, but the number of veterinarians with the training and expertise to perform them reliably is increasing; nevertheless, the fee structure for such procedures can best be described as unpredictably fluid.

With respect to post-mortem testing, the cost of a CWD test administered by the Texas A&M Veterinary Medicine Diagnostic Lab (TVMDL) on a sample collected and submitted by a deer breeder is a minimum of $30, to which is added a $8.75 accession fee (which may cover multiple samples submitted at the same time). If a whole head is submitted to TVDML there is an additional $26 sample collection fee, plus a $25 disposal fee. Thus, the fee for submitting an obex or obex/medial retropharyngeal lymph node pair for ELISA (enzyme linked immunoassay) testing would be $46, plus any veterinary cost (which the department cannot quantify), and the fee for submitting an entire head for testing would be $88.

Additionally, the proposed rules also would require the owners of prospective release sites to have a qualified person perform a fence inspection and attest to the site’s compliance with the rules. The department estimates that this cost would be a minimum of $1,000 and possibly greater, depending on the size of the release site, location, terrain, and other factors contributing to the amount of time necessary to conduct the inspection.

Several alternatives were considered to achieve the goals of the proposed new rules while reducing potential adverse impacts on small and micro-businesses and persons required to comply.

One alternative was to do nothing and maintain status quo. This alternative was rejected because the intent of the proposed rules is to allow some limited ability for NMQ deer breeders to recoup their investment/engage in profit-taking.

One alternative considered was to repeal the existing CWD rules and not replace them. This alternative was rejected because the presence of CWD in breeding facilities and free-ranging populations presents an actual, direct threat to free-ranging and captive cervid populations and the economies that depend upon them and the department has a statutory duty to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of the state.

Another alternative considered was to impose less stringent testing requirements. This alternative was selected and the rules as proposed are predicated on a near-minimum level at which the department could have any confidence that CWD is not being spread from locations where it is known to exist as a result of live animal movement.

The department has determined that there will be no effect on rural communities, since the economic contribution of an individual deer breeder is not a significant driver of economic activities at either the macro or micro level.

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

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

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

(1) neither create nor eliminate a government program;

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

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

(4) not affect the amount of any fee;

(5) not create a new regulation;

(6) not limit an existing regulation limit, but will expand existing regulations (by creating additional pathways for otherwise NMQ facilities to achieve conditional MQ status);

(7) repeal a regulation;

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

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

4. Request for Public Comment.

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

5. Statutory Authority.

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

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapters C, E, L, R, R-1, and Chapter 61.6.

6. Rule Text.

§65.87. Exceptions[Exception]. The department may waive any provision of this subchapter:

(1) as necessary for the holder of a scientific research permit when the proposed research is determined to be of use in advancing the understanding the etiology of CWD in susceptible species; or

(2) for a permittee or facility, provided:

(A) the department has conducted a epidemiological assessment of the facility;

(B) the epidemiological assessment has determined that a custom testing plan is feasible for purposes of establishing acceptable confidence that CWD will not be spread as a result of the waiver of the provisions in question;

(C) the epidemiological assessment sets forth the specific requirements and parameters of the custom testing plan for the facility;

(D) the permittee has completed the custom testing plan and the results satisfy the parameters established in the epidemiological assessment; and

(E) the permittee and facility are otherwise in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, including the requirements for MQ status in this subchapter and the requirements of Subchapter T of this chapter (relating to Deer Breeder Permits).

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

(1) –(2) (No change.)

(3) Breeder deer—As defined in[A white-tailed deer or mule deer possessed under a permit issued by the department pursuant to] Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L[, and Subchapter T of this chapter.]

(4) – (7) (No change.)

(8) Deer breeder—As defined in[A person who holds a deer breeder’s permit issued pursuant to] Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L[, and Subchapter T of this chapter].

(9) – (52) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

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

§65.92. CWD Testing.

(a) (No change)

(b) Except as provided in §65.95(c)(7) or (d)(2)(C) of this title (relating to Movement of Breeder Deer) or subsection (d) of this section, an ante-mortem CWD test is not valid unless it is performed by an accredited laboratory on retropharyngeal lymph node, rectal mucosa, or tonsillar tissue with at least six lymphoid follicles collected within eight months of submission by a licensed veterinarian authorized pursuant to statutes and regulations governing the practice of veterinary medicine in Texas from a live deer that:

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(f) Except as specifically provided in this division, an ante-mortem test result may not be used more than once, or in more than one reporting year, to satisfy any testing requirement of this division.

(g) (No change.)

(h) An ante-mortem test result is valid only for [if the deer from which it was taken is still in the inventory of] the facility in which the sample was taken and may not be used to satisfy the requirements of this division for any other facility.

(i) – (l) (No change.)

§65.94. Breeding Facility Minimum Movement Qualification.

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

(1) has not:

(A) [met the provisions of this subparagraph:]

[(i) had less than five eligible mortalities from May 23, 2006 through March 31, 2016; or]

[(ii) submitted CWD "not detected" test results for at least 20% of the total number of eligible mortalities that occurred in the facility since May 23, 2006; and]

[(B)] beginning with the reporting year that starts April 1, 2017, and ending March 31, 2022, submitted CWD "not detected" test results for:

(i) at least 80% of test-eligible mortalities occurring in the facility during each reporting year before the effective date of this section; and

(ii) 100 percent of test-eligible mortalities occurring in the facility after the effective date of this subsection; provided, however, if the facility has been permitted for six months or more, the number of "not detected" test results submitted during the previous reporting year must be equal to or greater than the following number: the sum of the test-eligible deer reported in the breeding facility inventory on March 31 of the previous reporting year, plus the sum of the eligible mortalities that occurred within the breeding facility for the previous reporting year, multiplied by 3.6 percent; and

(B)[(C)] beginning with the reporting year that starts April 1, 2022 and for each reporting year thereafter, submitted CWD "not detected" test results for 100 percent of eligible mortalities occurring in the facility during the previous reporting year; provided, however, if the facility has been permitted for six months or more, the number of "not detected" test results submitted during the previous reporting year must be equal to or greater than the following number: the sum of the test-eligible deer reported in the breeding facility inventory on March 31 of the previous reporting year, plus the sum of the eligible mortalities that occurred within the breeding facility for the previous reporting year, multiplied by five percent;

(2) – (4) (No change.)

(b) A breeding facility that has been designated as NMQ for failure to comply with the testing requirements specified in subsection (a) of this section will be restored to MQ:

(1) (No change.)

(2) the department has designated the breeding facility MQ under the provisions of subsections (d), [(e), or] (f) or (g) of this section.

(e) The provisions of this subsection apply only to a facility that is designated NMQ, is not epidemiologically linked to a positive facility, and the permittee has agreed in writing to surrender the deer breeding permit for the facility.

(1) All test-eligible deer in the facility must be subjected to one round of whole-herd ante-mortem testing with “not detected” results for every deer.

(2) Within 30 days of being notified by the department, all tested deer must be released as provided in this subsection.

(3) Deer shall be released only to an adjacent MQ release facility owned by the permittee.

(4) A deer that is not test-eligible when the whole-herd test required by paragraph (1) of this subsection occurs shall be ante-mortem tested when it becomes test-eligible and shall be released as provided in this subsection.

(5) Deer in the breeding facility on the last day of permit validity shall be euthanized at the expense of the permittee.

(6) The department may prescribe additional testing requirements, including the post-harvest testing of released deer.

(7) No deer may be transferred to a release facility under the provisions of this subsection until the permittee submits to the department a letter of endorsement by a person authorized by the department to conduct fence inspections under the provisions of §65.603 of this title (relating to Application and Permit Issuance) stating that the person has personally conducted an on-site inspection at the release facility and affirming that the release facility is surrounded by a perimeter fence meeting the requirements of §65.603(c)(3) of this title.

(8) A person who surrenders a permit under of the provisions of this section is prohibited from obtaining another breeder permit for the facility. For the purposes of this section, the prohibition imposed by this paragraph applies to surrogates acting on behalf of or in place of the person who surrendered the permit.

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

(1) – (2) (No change.)

(g)[(f)] Upon the successful completion of any additional testing requirements stipulated in the recommendation required by subsection (f)[(e)] of this section, the department may designate a facility MQ.

(h)[(g)] The department may deny permit renewal for any facility for which substitute ante-mortem test results are utilized for more than 30 percent of the required post-mortem test results, multiplied by five, pursuant to §65.92(d) of this title in more than two reporting years during the life of the permit. This paragraph does not apply to the use of ante-mortem test results to meet the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(C) of this section requiring that a minimum of five percent of the breeding facility inventory be tested annually.

(i)[(h)] Deer required to be reported to the department under §65.605 of this title (relating to Facility Standards and Care of Deer) are considered to be mortalities for the purposes of this division until lawfully recaptured. A deer that is not recaptured will be treated as a mortality that occurred within the facility from which the escape is required to be reported.

(j)[(i)] Deer that according to department records should be present in a breeding facility but cannot be accounted for to the satisfaction of the department are considered to be mortalities for the purposes of this section.

§65.95. Movement of Breeder Deer.

(a) – (c) (No change.)

(d) Trace-out Release Facility.

(1) (No change.)

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

(A) – (B) (No change.)

(C) The post-mortem testing required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph shall be performed by an accredited testing laboratory on the medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes from each harvested deer, which must be collected by a qualified licensed veterinarian, TAHC-certified CWD sample collector, or other person approved by the department.

(3) – (4) (No change.)

(e) (No change.)

§65.99. Breeding Facilities Epidemiologically Connected to Deer Infected with CWD; Positive Deer Breeding Facilities.

(a) – (d) (No change.)

(e) Category B trace-out breeding facility.

(1) (No change.)

(2) Immediately upon notification by the department of Category B status; a facility is automatically NMQ and the permittee shall:

(A) – (E) (No change.)

[(F) The tissues samples required by subparagraph (E) of this paragraph shall be submitted within 60 days of notification by the department of Category B status.]

(3) (No change.)

(4) Samples required by paragraph (2)(E) of this subsection shall be submitted no later than 45 days after the applicable last known exposure period, or within 60 days unless a longer time period is established by the department, based on the time elapsed since the last known exposure period.

(5) – (6) (No change.)

(f) – (g) (No change.)

(h) Custom Testing Plan. Within 14[seven] days of being notified by the department that a breeding facility has been designated a Category A, Category B, or trace-in facility, a permittee may, in lieu of meeting the applicable testing requirements of subsections (d) — (g) of this section, request the development of a custom testing plan by the department based upon an epidemiological assessment conducted by the department.

(1) – (5) (No change.)

(i) Positive Facility.

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

(A) – (E) (No change.)

(F) inspect the facility daily for mortalities, and:[; and]

(i) (No change.)

(ii) immediately collect test samples from all test-eligible mortalities that occur within the facility; [and]

(iii) submit samples collected under this subsection for post-mortem testing within one business day of the discovery of the mortality; and

(G) except as provided in §65.88(b) of this title (relating to Deer Carcass Movement Restrictions), immediately cease the movement in or out of the facility of all animal tissues (other than the test specimens identified in this division), to include embryos, semen, eggs and other reproductive tissues, unless specifically authorized to do so by the department in writing.

(2) — (3) (No change.)

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

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

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

§65.98. Transition Provisions.

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

Issued in Austin, Texas, on

Work Session Agenda Item 9

Presenter: Shawn Gray and Shaun Oldenburger

2027-2028 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

I. Executive Summary: Staff will brief the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) of potential changes to hunting regulations for the 2027-2028 season.

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

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2027-2028

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

Potential Changes to Hunting Regulations 2027-2028

Big Game Regulations

Expand current mule deer antler restriction to 6 additional counties in the Panhandle (Borden, Crosby, Dickens, Garza, Kent, and Scurry).
Remove references to counties with a general open season for desert bighorn sheep.
Minor changes resulting from the Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office review of TPWD rules.

Game Bird Regulations

Overview of new migratory game bird regulations process and potential changes as a result of federal action.
Calendar progression for most migratory game bird hunting seasons.
Modify references to federal regulations to simplify state regulations for methods of take and baiting on migratory game birds (resulting from Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office review of TPWD rules).

Work Session Agenda Item 10

Presenter: Michael Tennant

2027-2028 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation Preview

I. Executive Summary: Staff will brief the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (Commission) on potential changes to recreational and commercial fishing regulations for the 2027-2028 season.

II. Discussion: Responsibility for establishing seasons, bag limits, and means and methods for taking freshwater and saltwater fisheries resources is delegated to the Commission under Texas Parks and Wildlife Code chapters 61 (Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act), 66 (Fish and Aquatic Plants), 67 (Nongame Species), 76 (Oysters), 77 (Shrimp), and 78 (Mussels, Clams, and Crabs). The potential changes are based upon statutory requirements and Commission policy, including scientific investigation and required findings of fact where applicable. The potential changes are intended to increase recreational opportunity, decrease regulatory complexity where possible, promote enforcement, and provide for the sound biological management of the fisheries resources of the state.

Attachment – 1

Exhibit A – Potential Changes to Fisheries Regulations 2027-2028

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

Potential Changes to Fisheries Regulations 2027-2028

Inland Fisheries

Modify harvest regulations for alligator gar in the Trinity River from the I-30 bridge in Dallas County to the I-10 bridge in Chambers County as follows:
- Increase the maximum length limit from 48 to 60 inches.
- Increase the daily bag limit from 1 to 3 (persons possessing a harvest authorization may take one alligator gar over 60 inches annually as part of the 3 fish daily bag limit).
- Increase the annual number of harvest authorizations/tags for alligator gar over 60 inches from 150 to 300.
- Transition the alligator gar harvest authorization drawing to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) Drawn Hunts program and provide preference points to applicants who are not selected.
TPWD is exploring potential harvest regulations changes for alligator gar in coastal waters (see Freshwater/Saltwater Boundary).

The Trinity River alligator gar population is strong, with excellent size structure, and approximately 20 percent of the fish exceed 60 inches. Approximately 97 percent of individuals over 60 inches are female, which is important for population sustainability and support trophy/quality angling opportunities. Year‑class strength is closely tied to spring and summer flooding, and the Trinity River has experienced optimal spawning conditions four times in the past decade, producing four strong year classes.

The management harvest goal for alligator gar is less than 5 percent of the population and was previously estimated at 2 to 4 percent. Recent tagging data shows actual harvest is closer to 1 percent. The potential regulation changes maintain healthy population levels while enhancing and diversifying angling opportunities.

Coastal alligator gar populations are strong, with abundance at record highs along the middle and upper Texas coast since 2015. These populations are composed largely of smaller fish from 24 to 60 inches that can sustainably support increased harvest. Inland and Coastal Fisheries Divisions are coordinating to examine potential regulation changes that conserve healthy population levels while expanding harvest opportunities.

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Presenter: Whitney Gann, Ph.D.

Request for Easement – Calhoun County – Approximately 7 Acres at the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks approval to grant an easement to the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority at the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area (WMA) to install a levee along Goff Bayou.

II. Discussion: The Guadalupe Delta WMA consists of 7,241 acres of marshes, wetlands, and bayous. The WMA is split between four units, Mission Lake, Hynes Bay, Guadalupe River, and the San Antonio River units. Lands in the Guadalupe Delta WMA have traditionally provided important habitat for wetland-dependent wildlife, especially migratory waterfowl. The WMA offers public recreation such as fishing, hunting, hiking, and wildlife viewing.

The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority is requesting an easement to manage an approximately 7-acre levee along Goff Bayou at the WMA. The levee provides the WMA with flood control and allows for wetland management.

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

Attachments – 4

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

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area
Calhoun County

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area
Approximately 10 Miles Northwest of Seadrift

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit C

Area Map of the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area
Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit D

Location of Requested Easement
Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red
Requested Easement in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 18

Presenter: Stan David

Land Acquisition – Smith County – Approximately 168 Acres at the Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue acquisition of 168 acres adjacent to the Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Two tracts are available for acquisition from willing sellers, and these acquisitions would expand the WMA and provide road access to an inaccessible part of the WMA.

II. Discussion: Old Sabine Bottom WMA is located north of Tyler in Smith County and comprises approximately 5,727 acres. The WMA’s northern boundary is the Sabine River, and the WMA consists mainly of bottomland hardwood habitat containing large stands of hardwoods such as oak, elm, and ash, and a diverse mixture of understory vegetation. The WMA offers public recreation such as hunting and hiking.

Staff has identified two parcels totaling 168 acres of bottomland hardwoods from willing sellers that would help to expand the existing WMA and provide road access to a remote part of the WMA that is currently only accessible via the river when there is sufficient flow.

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

Attachments – 4

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

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area
Smith County

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for the Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area
Approximately 20 Miles North of Tyler

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit C

Site Map of Proposed Acquisition
Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red
Subject Tracts Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit D

Property Map of Proposed Acquisition
Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red
Subject Tract One Outlined in Green
Subject Tract Two Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 19

Presenter: Alec King

Land Acquisition – Limestone County – Approximately 7 Acres at Fort Parker State Park – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue acquisition of a 7-acre parcel adjacent to Fort Parker State Park. This tract is available for acquisition from a willing seller and would protect the park’s viewshed and remove an inholding from the park.

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

Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and adjacent properties from willing sellers to minimize operational and management conflicts and ensure the conservation of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department public lands. Staff has identified a 7-acre tract adjacent to Fort Parker State Park that is available for acquisition from a willing seller. Currently, access to the tract is through the park on Park Road 28, so it functions as a private inholding. Acquisition of the subject tract would eliminate potential access issues with future owners and prevent future development.

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

Attachments – 3

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

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit A

Location Map for Fort Parker State Park
Limestone County

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit B

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

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit C

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

Work Session Agenda Item 20

Presenter: Jacob Aston

Land Acquisition – Leon County – Approximately 29 Acres at Fort Boggy State Park – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue acquisition of a 29-acre parcel adjacent to Fort Boggy State Park. This tract is available for acquisition from a willing seller and would add an additional buffer to the park.

II. Discussion: Fort Boggy State Park comprises 1,847 acres located in Leon County and was donated to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) in 1985 for use as a state park. The park consists of wooded, rolling hills; bottomland meadows; and wetlands. It provides a wide range of recreational opportunities such as hiking, biking, overnight stays, and water sports, including swimming, fishing, and paddling on the 15-acre Sullivan Lake.

Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and adjacent properties from willing sellers to minimize operational and management conflicts and ensure the conservation of TPWD public lands. Staff has identified a 29-acre tract adjacent to Fort Boggy State Park that is available for acquisition from a willing seller. This property will provide an additional buffer to the park against development and resolve potential operating conflicts resulting from a historic fenceline.

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

Attachments – 3

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

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit A

Location Map for Fort Boggy State Park
Leon County

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Fort Boggy State Park
Approximately 20 Miles South of Buffalo

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit C

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

Work Session Agenda Item 21

Presenter: Alec King

Land Acquisition – Henderson County – Approximately 38 Acres – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff requests authorization to pursue acquisition of an approximately 38-acre parcel of land from a willing seller. In addition, staff seeks approval to accept the donation of two one-tenth-acre parcels of land, all of which will be added to a new state park that will soon be under development.

II. Discussion: The properties proposed for acquisition will provide improved access to a new state park that is proposed for Lake Palestine. The planned location for the new state park is on Lake Palestine, a 25,000-acre lake in Northeast Texas, between Tyler and Athens. The new state park will provide overnight and day use areas, lake recreation, hunting, fishing, hiking trails, and other recreational opportunities. Acquisition of the three parcels will improve public access to the park once developed.

Staff prioritizes acquiring state park inholdings and new state parks from willing sellers to improve recreational opportunities, conserve fish and wildlife habitat, and ensure the conservation of existing Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) public lands. Staff has identified an approximately 38-acre tract that is available for acquisition from a willing seller. In addition, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Foundation plans to acquire the two one-tenth acre parcels from a willing seller, then donate them to TPWD. Once acquired, these tracts will be added to the new state park and will provide an improved entrance experience and more convenient access than is currently available.

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

Attachments – 4

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

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit A

Location Map for Subject Tracts
Henderson County

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Subject Tracts
Approximately 25 Miles East of Athens

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit C

Site Map of Proposed Acquisitions
New State Park Outlined in Red
Subject Tracts Outlined in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit D

Site Map of Proposed Acquisitions
New State Park Outlined in Red
Subject Tract Outlined in Yellow
Subject 1/10th Acre Tracts Outlined in Green

Work Session Agenda Item 22

Presenter: Whitney Gann, Ph.D.

Request for Road Easement – Brazoria County – Approximately 6 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks approval to grant a road easement to CenterPoint at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area (WMA) to access a transmission line.

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

CenterPoint is requesting an approximately 6-acre non-exclusive road easement on Jones Creek Road to access its transmission line that is within an existing easement on the WMA.

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

Attachments – 4

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

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit A

Location Map for the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area
Brazoria County

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area
Approximately 20 Miles South of Angleton

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit C

Area Map of the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area
Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit D

Location of Requested Easement
Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area Outlined in Red
Requested Easement in Yellow

Work Session Agenda Item 23

Presenter: Ted Hollingsworth

Request for Land Disposition and Easement – El Paso County – Approximately 5 Acres at Franklin Mountains State Park – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

I. Executive Summary: Staff seeks authorization for a disposition of land and grant of easement to effect transfer of operations for the Wyler Aerial Tramway at Franklin Mountains State Park.

II. Discussion: Franklin Mountains State Park was acquired in 1981 and opened in 1987. It is one of the largest urban parks in the nation at over 26,000 acres and offers a variety of recreational opportunities, including hiking, camping, biking, rock climbing, and wildlife viewing. The park hosts a very robust and diverse ecosystem of reptiles, mammals, and over 100 species of birds. The Wyler Aerial Tramway is located in the southern end of the state park. The 2,400-foot cable system historically took riders up 940 feet in elevation to the top of Ranger Peak at 5,632 feet, with breathtaking views of the surrounding landscape, the city of El Paso, and Mexico in the distance. TPWD has operated the tram, built in 1959, since 2001. In 2019, an engineering analysis raised safety concerns and concluded the tram was no longer suitable for public use.

TPWD is in the process of constructing a new tramway to replace the old facilities, since the aging Wyler Aerial Tramway is no longer able to fulfill the purposes for which TPWD accepted it. Staff has determined that it is not in the best interest of TPWD to continue to own the original tramway. Transfer of the existing tramway to another entity will require the disposition of approximately 2 acres of land on which the tramway towers, machinery and buildings sit, and the grant of an approximately 3-acre aerial easement and a separate easement for an access road and parking.

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

Attachments – 4

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

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit A

Location Map for Franklin Mountains State Park
El Paso County

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit B

Vicinity Map for Franklin Mountains State Park
El Paso

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit C

Area Map of Franklin Mountains State Park
Franklin Mountains State Park Area Outlined in Red

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit D

Location of Requested Disposition and Easement
Franklin Mountains State Park Outlined in Red
Subject Surface Tracts Outlined in Yellow
3-Acre Aerial Easement Outlined in Green
Access and Parking Easement Outlined in Blue

Work Session Agenda Item 25

Presenter: Rodney Franklin

Centennial Parks Conservation Fund Projects

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

Work Session Agenda Item 26

Presenter: James Murphy

Litigation Update

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

Work Session

Commission Agenda Items

August 19-20, 2026, Transcripts

Work Session Wednesday, November 4, 2026 9:00 a.m. CST

Agenda

Rules

Land Conservation

Executive Session

Agenda Items

Work Session Agenda Item 1

Executive Director Updates

Work Session Agenda Item 2

Financial Overview

Work Session Agenda Item 3

Internal Audit Update

Work Session Agenda Item 5

Texas Regulatory Efficiency Office Rules Chapters 65, 69 – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachments – 2

Work Session Agenda Item 5Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 5Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 6

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 6Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 7

Alligator Season Extension and Expanded Lawful Means – Request Permission to Publish Proposed Changes in the Texas Register

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 7Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 8

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

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 8Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 9

2027-2028 Statewide Hunting and Migratory Game Bird Proclamation Preview

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 9Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 10

2027-2028 Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation Preview

Attachment – 1

Work Session Agenda Item 10Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11

Request for Easement – Calhoun County – Approximately 7 Acres at the Guadalupe Delta Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 11Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 18

Land Acquisition – Smith County – Approximately 168 Acres at the Old Sabine Bottom Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 18Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 19

Land Acquisition – Limestone County – Approximately 7 Acres at Fort Parker State Park – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 3

Work Session Agenda Item 19Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 19Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 19Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 20

Land Acquisition – Leon County – Approximately 29 Acres at Fort Boggy State Park – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 3

Work Session Agenda Item 20Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 20Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 20Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 21

Land Acquisition – Henderson County – Approximately 38 Acres – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 21Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 21Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 21Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 21Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 22

Request for Road Easement – Brazoria County – Approximately 6 Acres at the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area – Request Permission to Begin the Public Notice and Input Process

Attachments – 4

Work Session Agenda Item 22Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 22Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 22Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 22Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 23

Work Session
Wednesday, November 4, 2026
9:00 a.m. CST

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 5
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 6
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 7
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 8
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 9
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 10
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 11
Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 18
Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 19
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 20
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 21
Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 22
Exhibit D

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit A

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit B

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit C

Work Session Agenda Item 23
Exhibit D