October 16, 2025 Transcript

October 16, 2025

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Commission Hearing Room
4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX 78744 Council Meeting

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Good morning everyone. 
Before we begin, I'd like to take roll call. Myself, Chairman Paul Foster. 
L'Oreal… L'Oreal Stepney? 
I know I'm stepping all over that.

L'OREAL STEPNEY: No, that was perfect. L'Oreal Stepney.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Oh, I got it pretty close. Okay. Rex Isom.

REX ISOM: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Royal Lopez, Roel Lopez… 

ROEL LOPEZ: Present.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: …is on by video and phone. Sid Miller.

SID MILLER: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And Chris, sorry, Romey Swanson. 

ROMEY SWANSON: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Leslie Kinsel.

LESLIE KINSEL: Here.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. So we do have a forum… a quorum.

DR. DAVID YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, before we go much further, I just want to make sure… a couple of housekeeping items. 
Really important, because we're recording this, that as you speak into the mic, Council members, make sure you hit that red button.
You see the red light.
And then, you know, after you're done making your comment, just come off.
Yeah.
Yeah, thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay. Thank you.
This meeting is called to order on October 16, 2025, at 10:13 a.m.
And before proceeding with any business, I believe Dr. Yoskowitz has a statement to make.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you, Chairman Foster. 
Public notice of this meeting containing all items in the proposed agenda has been filed with the Office of Secretary of State as required by Chapter 551, Government Code referred to as the Open Meetings Act.
I would like for this fact to be noted in the official record of this meeting.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. 
Before we begin our agenda today, I'd like to take a moment to welcome our Council members back.
We have a newly appointed Council member, Andrew Polk, who is the Vice President of the Angelina Savings Bank in Lufkin.
Unfortunately, Mr. Polk was unable to attend today, as his wife is expecting any day now.
So, that's exciting.
We're also currently awaiting a replacement for Ms. Abby Frank's position.
Ms. Frank began serving on the Council in 2020.
TPWD appreciates Ms. Frank's service and her commitment to conserving Texas working lands.
I'm pleased and honored to preside over this Council today.
With the tremendous growth we've experienced in Texas, and the land fragmentation that comes with it, the conservation of our working lands and farming and ranching heritage is of paramount importance to me and to this Council.
I look forward to working with you all today, to provide funds to conserve more of these lands for future generations.
So, our first Action Item, Action Item No. 2, is to review and approve minutes from the September 17, 2024, Council meeting.
These minutes have already been distributed.
Do I hear a motion to approve?

MR. ISOM: So moved.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right. And a second?

MS. KINSEL: Second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you. All in favor, please say, “Aye.”

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

MR. LOPEZ: Aye.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any opposed?
Thank you.
Any opposed?
Hearing none, the motion passes.
Briefing Item No. 3: Ethics Review for Returning and New Council Members.
Ms. Theda Strickler will please approach the podium. Thank you.

THEDA STRICKLER: Good morning, Council members.
My name is Theda Strickler.
I'm a staff attorney here at Texas Parks and Wildlife.

I'm just going to go over a brief presentation about some laws that apply to these proceedings, and the program, and some training opportunities that you have.

So, the first is the Open Meetings Act.
This meeting is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, which includes public notice.

A couple of things to remember: that your actions today are limited to what was posted in the public notice of the agenda, and there are some consequences for violating that.
So, we're going to stick to the agenda.

The second is the Public Information Act.

There's a required training video.
There's the website, and I think you have this in your binders as well.
It's about an hour long.

You're required to take that training within 90 days of assuming your responsibilities as Council members.
On that same website, there's also a link to the handbook, which is a PDF that you can go through.
It has more detailed information.

Key points to remember: documents that are generated by the Council and by the program are subject to the Public Information Act, which means that members of the public can request them.
And unless there's a specific exception, we have to disclose those.
And documents include things on your personal and your work devices.
As long as they're related to the work that you're doing, they're still considered public.

So, keep that in mind.

That includes Teams chats, photos, of course, emails, but even handwritten notes as well.
And the Public Information Act is invoked whenever we get a written request, and that can be, again, by email, but it can also be more informal than that.

And if we are seeking an exception from disclosure, that goes through the Attorney General's Office, and we handle that process.

The next slide covers the Administrative Procedure Act.
This Council has not enacted rules in the past.
You all have the authority to do so.
And if you decide to do so in the future for any reason, just be aware that that would be subject to the Administrative Procedure Act process.
There's a PDF handbook that goes into more detail about that, if you care to check that out.

A couple of other things that I'll go through briefly.
Ethics: there is a training on the Texas Ethics Commission website that you can look at, and there's a summary linked there as well.

The important thing to keep in mind is conflicts of interest.
“Real” and “perceived” are things that we want to avoid.

And if there is a conflict of interest that you're aware of, then that means that you can't vote or participate in a discussion or a matter where you have a personal interest in that.

So, if that happens just let us know and we can handle that.
There is a requirement that you file your financial… personal financial statements on the Texas Ethics Commission website.
There's a link there as well.

Be aware of the rules surrounding lobbyists.
You can look up registered lobbyists at that website.
You can search by their name and you can search by their client, so it's all very transparent.

Just be careful.
You know, there are specific rules about accepting gifts from lobbyists that we want you to be aware of.


Just so you know, contracting laws: Texas contracting laws apply to this program.

So, we… There's a training video that you can look at.
We follow the comptroller's guidance on contracting rules.
That's the State of Texas Procurement Manual and Contract Management Guide.

That's something that I assist with, as needed, when we are reviewing the conservation easements that come through this program.
And just a couple of miscellaneous notes there.
There is… we can't reimburse for alcoholic beverages.

So, if you come into town and you're having a meal, the best way to handle that is to just get a separate receipt.
If you're having a glass of wine, just get that separate receipt and we'll reimburse you for the rest of your meal.

A couple of other points on policies, but I think that's the crux of it.
Tried to keep it brief this year.

Any questions?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any questions?

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, I have one.
During reappointment, do we have to rewatch the original videos from our original appointments, or if they're concurrent?

MS. STRICKLER: You have to watch the training videos when you're newly appointed.
Yes, and I think that's it.
It's always good to do a refresher if you need to, but the requirement is for when you're a new member.

MR. SWANSON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MS. STRICKLER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right, Briefing Item No. 4 is the Status of Texas Farm and Ranch
Lands Conservation Program Existing Projects.

And Mr. Chris Abernathy will bring us up to date.

CHRIS ABERNATHY: Good morning, Sir.
Thank you, Council, for coming.
As always, we are running at the edge.

But my name is Chris Abernathy.
I'm the Program Manager for the Texas Farm Ranch Lands Conservation Program.
I also have a little bit of training to give before we get into the status.

So, the annual training that I provide is just kind of a history of the program.
We began in 2005, with the General Land Office.
In 2015, House Bill 1925 brought the program over into Texas Parks and Wildlife under Chapter 84.
What that did is it transferred the entire program over to Texas Parks and Wildlife, and it appropriated a fixed $2 million appropriation each biennium.

And that $2 million created the Land Conservation Fund, which it also created the criteria for awarding the grants- and you'll see those today- and it also created the Council in which you all serve.

The role of the Council is to provide program oversight.
We suggest applications that you should fund, and you receive those applications, and you authorized us to do that; enter to grant agreements with those.

Like Theda said, you may adopt rules, if needed.
So far, we have not.
We also can accept outside funds.

We haven't had any success receiving any outside funds, but we are always welcome.
And we also can establish fees and charges related to the services.
But again, we have not done anything like that.

The primary mission of this program is to facilitate the purchasing or donation of conservation easements on working lands.

Main primary is to protect habitat, sensitive species, and water quality.
And then we are… what working lands are, are privately owned traditional farmlands, ranch lands, timberlands, and lands managed for wildlife.

And we try to give priority to those that are threatened under development, or have a significant water conservation issue that we could take care of, or native habitat and species.

Okay, so this is the program update.
So this, to date, these are all of the projects that we have funded.
We have pretty good representation across the state.

Most of the concentrations are in the Hill Country, which is to be expected.
We have a lot of land trusts that focus solely on the Hill Country, but we have some on the north, you know, in Red River.
We've got some in the far West Texas.
We have several on the Gulf.

So, so far to date, we've had five funding cycles.
We've had 31 properties closed, and we have seven that are currently working to be closed. Right now, we have 46,000 acres conserved under the current program.

We've spent $8.4 million in state funds, $30 million in federal funds, and we've gotten $17 million in matching funds.

So, we have a really good rate of return, Sir.
We have almost a 9:1 rate of return on our program.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And who are the matching funds?

MR. ABERNATHY: Matching funds primarily come from the feds.
NRCS is our biggest contributor.
They bring the biggest pocketbook.
But they have issues associated with working with the feds, or timelines, and things like that.

And then there's other private funding entities.

Actually, Romey might… he's a land trust representative.
He might have a better representation of other contributors.

MR. SWANSON: For the record, Romey Swanson.
Many of the land trusts have small pots of general funds that they can apply to it, but then we're also seeing landowner contributing value as a straight-out gift or donation.

MR. ABERNATHY: There's my ratio again, Sir: 8.7:1.
So that CV stands for the Conservation Value.

So, that's the… that's the appraised value of the total of all of our conservation easements. And then we can… we've only spent $266 per acre.
That's really good.
And total contribution is $553 per acre.

Okay.
So, this is the longest…
This is a very long section.
I've been admonished to speak slowly.
I will try.

[ laughs ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: If I could just…
Chairman needs to introduce the next action item, yeah.

MS. KINSEL: May I ask a question about what we just covered?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, ma'am.

MS. KINSEL: Who does the appraisals?

MR. ABERNATHY: Those are certified land appraisers, rural lands… rural land appraisers. There's not that many in the state, but there are those out there that can do the rural lands appraisal.

MR. MILLER: Chris?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MR. MILLER: Just a point of clarification.

These are not the only conservation easements in the state.

MR. ABERNATHY: No, Sir.
Not by any stretch.
We've got private land… land trusts are doing land conservation easements.
Got the city of San Antonio doing land conservation easements on the Edwards Aquifer.
Got several nonprofits that are doing land conservation easements.
We are just a small contributor.

In fact, I did a study last year for the last meeting, and we basically contribute to about 11% of the total land conservation easements in the proper… in the state.

MR. MILLER: So, if we're 46,000 acres, there's about half a million acres, something like that?

MR. ABERNATHY: Sir, I actually think there might be over a million conserved acres at this point.

MR. MILLER: Say… repeat that.

MR. ABERNATHY: I think there's almost a million conserved acres in the state.

MR. MILLER: Okay.
Good to know.
Thank you.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Other questions?
All right.
Brief…
Let's see.
Is this me?
Okay.

Briefing Item No. 5: Presentation and Discussion of Fiscal Year 2026-27 Program Applications.

Mr. Abernathy?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

Thank you.
As you can see, I'm always ready to go chomping at the bit.
I apologize.
As I was saying, I tend to speak fast.
I will do my best.
Please raise your hand.
Do something to help me slow down.

But I will do my best.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And stand kind of close to the microphone, if you will.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

So, we received 19 applications… I'm sorry, 17 applications this year.
We had eight different land trust submitted applications, and we had 15 different counties. We had projects ranging from 90 acres all the way up to 7,500 acres.
And we had a total request of $2.9 million for projects valued at $44 million.
And we would have… if we could have funded all these, we would place conservation easements on almost 24,000 acres.
This is the list of all the applications.
I have them ranked in order, so we're going to present them as they were ranked.

MS. KINSEL: Excuse me, Chris, would you please identify the land trust by name?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MS. KINSEL: Thanks.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.
The Nature Conservancy is TNC.
Galveston Bay Foundation is GBF.
Texas Ag Land Trust is TALT.
Colorado River Land Trust is CRLT.

Hill Country Conservancy.
Pines and Prairies Land Trust.
Green Spaces Alliance.

And I'm having a hard time remembering the FLA one.
It's out of El Paso.

MR. SWANSON: Frontera.

MR. ABERNATHY: Frontera Land Association.
Thank you, Sir.

And Crabill… I mean, Guadalupe Blanco River Land Trust, River Trust.

Okay.
Any other questions on this one, Ma'am?
Thank you.

This is our current project application distribution across the state.
Really good distribution.

Again, we've got the one down in the far West Texas, one up on the North River, on the Red River.

This is our selection criteria, Sir.

We award points based on each threat and its severity.
And threats of development are the primary concern of this program.
Also, the value and the watershed value all have equal value.
Fish and wildlife.
And then contribution to the conservation landscape.

So each of the… when these are evaluated, each of the reviewers award a certain level of points based on these criteria.

So, the first property is the Skyline Ranch.

MS. KINSEL: Question, please.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.

MS. KINSEL: Who is on the review committee that does the scoring?

MR. ABERNATHY: I have that.
It's in the next section.
Can we wait?
Okay.

Because I do have…, I cover everybody.
It's all internal, and we have an external reviewer as well.

Okay, Skyline Ranch.
So, they requested… Well, the purchase price is $3.3 million for 6,600 acres in Val Verde County.
This is the Nature Conservancy's project.
They requested $400,000 from us, $1.7 million that they provided in landowner in-kind funding. And typically, when I show this line of landowner in-kind, that is the donated value.

Sometimes these folks can give a donated portion.
Sometimes they can give the entire donated portion.
And sometimes they can't.
So, it just depends.

You won't always see the landowner in-kind.
But when it's there, I try to provide it.

And then the other additional funding.
These applicants had multiple funding sources.
And so, I basically just comprised.

And that's all their external funding with the $3 million there.
The cost per acre to us would be $60 per acre.
And the estimated value would be $5 million.

It's primarily a sheep ranch, sheep and goat ranch.
And this property is adjacent.
So, the property of concern is the red one.

And again, this kind of goes to Commissioner Miller's question.
These are all protected lands surrounding the proposed property.
And so, when we look at this, we look at the continuation of open space for corridors, habitat corridors, travel corridors, everything; lack of fragmentation.

It's in the Devil's River watershed.
This one ranked very high.
This was our number one, 88 points, had over four miles of Devil's River frontage, which we really, really try to protect any kind of river frontage if we can.

And the reviewers gave very high points for economic value- again, $66 an acre was unbelievable- watershed, fish and wildlife.
it just had everything that we asked for.

Any questions on this one?

MR. ISOM: Chris, do you mind… or Mr. Chairman, do you mind hitting a few of the sources of the outside funding?
It's wrapped up in one number, but who would that be?

MR. ABERNATHY: It would be places like the Horizon Foundation.
There was another foundation called the Knobloch Foundation.
There were… these were all privately funded.

Some of them were, like I said, they were kind of too numerous to list.
And some of them included the NRCS and some of them did not.
I had multiple.

Because of the way the NRCS, the funding program, has been for the last few years, a lot of land trusts, based on my observation, have gone outside of NRCS and looking for other funding sources.
And that was really evident this year.
And so, we had lots of funders.
And that's why I kind of chose to present it this way.

MR. ISOM: Thank you.

MS. STEPNEY: Mr. Chairman, question?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, please.

MS. STEPNEY: Chris, just in general, what type of activities are still allowed when you have a conservation easement?

MR. ABERNATHY: So, the primary goal is to keep these in the baseline condition.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: So, if they are farming and ranching, or raising wildlife or protecting habitat, we would like them to continue that…

MS. STEPNEY: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: …for sure.
They cannot degrade the baseline condition whatsoever.
And there is what we call a baseline report.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: So, at the very beginning of this process, what we call “due diligence,” is things like surveys, appraisals.
And we do this baseline study where we have a consultant.
And they go in and they look at every single thing on the property, take pictures of everything.

MS. STEPNEY: And so they evaluate existing conditions?

MR. ABERNATHY: Exactly.

MS. STEPNEY: And it needs to be maintained at that level.

MR. ABERNATHY: At least.
Yes, Ma'am.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay.
In perpetuity?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay, Thank you.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, if you don't mind, if you go back to the page that lists the purchase price and all that… three or four pages back.
Right there.
I won't do this on each one.

MR. ABERNATHY: Sure.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I will just do it on the first one as an example.

Can you walk me through.
Because it says purchase price $3.3, and they're asking for $400,000 from us.
And then I would think that would leave $2.9.
But I'm having a hard time getting from top to bottom and understanding the math.

MR. ABERNATHY: Well, the landowner in-kind funding…
So, they're getting $400,000 from us.
That would probably pay for some portion of their acquisition, and it would also pay for a portion of their due diligence.
And then the $3 million…
So, what they're asking…

So, it's the additional funding of $3 million, plus our $400,000, makes the $3.4 million and the $1.7 donation.
Basically, that's not cash.
That's a reduction in price.
It's what we call a “bargain sale.”

And so, if the original property is worth $5 million and they've offered it at $3.3 million, that's the $1.7 million offset, is the in-kind donation.
Does that help, Sir?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah, I understand that one.

Okay, I won't belabor it, but…

MR. ABERNATHY: [ laughs ]
No, I'm happy to…
If there's more questions.

MR. SWANSON: Just a quick point of clarification that that value, the CE value, the
$5 million, is the value of the conservation easement, not the value of the property as a whole.
So, it's the extinguishment of value.
The property could be worth $10 million.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. SWANSON: Yeah.
So, we're only looking at this number as the value of the conservation easement once placed.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.

MR. ABERNATHY: Typically, a property with the conservation easement reduces their total value by 30 to 50 percent based on the conservation easement.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MR. ABERNATHY: Okay.
So, the Skyline Ranch was a great property.
We've really, really liked that one.

This is called the Sames Ranch, next to the Lost Maples State Natural Area.
Oops, sorry.

The purchase price on this one is $2.4 million.
This is 1,433 acres in Real County.
The Nature Conservancy is our partner.
They're asking for $100,000 from us.

Again, an in-kind match.
This is a cash match of $1.1 million, and $2.3 million from additional funding.

This came out to be $70 per acre.
The estimated value of the CE is $2.4 million.

So, in this one, they pretty much only need $100,000 probably for due diligence and monitoring and some portion of the acquisition.
And the rest of it is going to come from the additional funding and the landowner.

So, this has been a single family ranch since 1917, working sheep, goats and cattle.
It's got a cave, which is always a nice feature to protect.

So again, like it was in the previous property, this one is adjacent to Lost Maple State Natural Area, which also has other protected properties surrounding it.
And so this one elevated its contribution to a landscape.
And so it helped quite a bit.

This one scored an 87.3 on it.
Again, number two, had… there's some springs, which obviously we want to protect springs and the cave.
We want to protect the frontage on Cypress Creek.
And the reviewers gave high points for economic value, watershed, and contribution to a conservation landscape.

Any questions on this one, Sir?

This is the Murphy Ranch Phase II, also near Lost Maple State Natural Area.
So, this purchase price is $2.1 million for 800 acres in Bandera County.
This is the Nature Conservancy.
They're asking one… or $150,000 from the program, $700,000 landowner in-kind match, with a $2 million additional outside funding.
Cost per acre is $188.
And the total value is $2.8 million.

This property has already been… a portion of this property has already been conserved two or three years ago.

I don't remember the exact year.
So, they did what they called Phase I, and we approved it.
And it's a great property.

It's full of hardwood and tons of watershed.
You'll see here in a second.
And then they came back and they're asking us to protect the second portion of the property.

As you can see, there's a lot of watershed contribution here.
Really critical habitat to protect.
And it is on the east side of Lost Maple State Natural Area; also adjacent to other protected properties as well.

Commissioner Miller, this is a good representation of the question that you asked, Sir.
All of those are protected properties.

This property has been… it's under a single family since 1947.
And then a portion of this ranch actually made the Lost Maple State Natural Area.

This property got an 86.4 from the reviewers- gave high points for economic value, watershed, and fish and wildlife habitat; contribution to conservation landscape.

MS. KINSEL: Question, please.

On the last property, the Murphy Ranch Phase II, the cost per acre was relatively high compared to the first two projects.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.

MS. KINSEL: Do you negotiate at all with the applicants on…
For example, if they ask $150, we give $150 or zero?
Or is there room to negotiate?

MR. ABERNATHY: Typically, there's not negotiation.
Typically, that value is looked at individually, just like the other criteria.
And so, if that were to, say, be $500 or $600, it probably would have not ranked as well in the economic section of the rankings.

And I guess what I'm trying to say is I think those things take care of themselves.
They just would reduce.
They would result in a lower ranking, possibly not getting funded.

But I also think because this one, again, it's adjacency to open space.
It's a preexisting conservation easement.
$188 is still a pretty good price.
You know, we felt that it was a good value.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And one other question along those lines.
Is the scoring… does the scoring take into account the cost per acre?


MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Or are they sort of separate issues?

MR. ABERNATHY: It's all…
So, of the nine… and we can go back.

But there's all the criteria and we award points for…
So, 30 points would be for the contribution to conservation landscape.
And then from there on, it goes to threat of develop…
You know, threat of development, contribution landscape, watershed, habitat, and all those.
So, it definitely does take a role.

But we have up to, I think, 20 or maybe ten points to award on that.
And it's really based on the individual reviewer.
If they think that's a good value and they want to get this property protected, they might give that one 16 points or something.
And somebody else might only give it five points.

And so, those all work out in the averages.
We have a metric, a scoring matrix.
And so, we work those out and put them into average.
And that's how we get the rankings.

MS. KINSEL: One more question on that property.
Go ahead.

MR. LOPEZ: But I do think the leveraging ratio does factor in, correct?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MR. LOPEZ: Indirectly.
So, in some regards, it's not… it's less about the total cost of the project, but more on the leverage from a taxpayer perspective.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.
Leverage and then the protection of the individual criteria that we're trying to take care of.

MS. KINSEL: Thank you, Roel.
With respect to this property, I remember it the first time around.
What I don't recall and don't see in here in the notes is any…
What is the working lands aspect of this property?
It looks like a park.

MR. ABERNATHY: It does look like a park, but actually it runs cows.

MS. KINSEL: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: And it has timber options as well.
So, it… those are the two primary agricultural activities that they do on that property.


Are we ready to move on?
Okay.
Lone Oak Bayou.
This is Galveston Bay Foundation, right near the Anahuac.
This is a purchase price of $1.7 million for 1,700 acres in Chambers County by the Galveston Bay Foundation.
They're asking $370,000 from the program, and almost $1.4 million in additional funding from outside sources.
The cost here is $218 per acre.
Estimated value is $2 million.

This property does share a boundary with an existing conservation easement and a National Wildlife Refuge, and also has 8,000 acre feet of frontage along the Trinity Bay.
And they're running cows.
It's an ag property.

These kinds of properties, as you all know, have lots of opportunities for waterfowl habitat and nesting.
This property scored 83 overall, and reviewers gave it high scores in threat of development, watershed value, fish and wildlife value, and contribution to a conservation landscape.

Any questions on that one, Sir?

Next one is Seven Oaks Ranch in Val Verde County, right on the edge.
This is a fully donated property, Sir.
That's why the purchase price is zero.

These are the best ones we like to get.
7,500 acres in Crockett/Val Verde County.
This is the Texas Ag Land Trust, is our land trust partner.
They're asking $106,000 from the program.
And this is a full donation of $6 million on the property.

It's going to cost us $14 an acre, and that's basically just due to the due diligence.

Do you have any questions on this one?
It's a heck of a good property.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: But could you…
Okay, I was just going to hope you weren't going into detail.

MR. ABERNATHY: [ laughs ]

Yes, Sir.
I got a little enamored there with it for a second.

So again, this property lies within the Devil's River and the Pecos watershed.
It's been under one family for 50 years, and it also was a recipient of the 2021 Lone Star Land Steward Award and the 2018 Conservation Award.

They do prescribed burning.
This property scored 77 overall.
It had really high scores in threat of development, economic value, watershed, and fish and wildlife value.

This is the 930 Ranch, Colorado River Land Trust.
They are a new applicant for us this year.
They're in Bastrop County there, just on the other side of Bastrop State Park.

So, they have a conservation.
The purchase price is $750,000 for 601 acres in Bastrop County.
The Colorado River Land Trust is our partner.

They're asking $250,000 from us, and $2.2 million in landowner in-kind match.
This is a donated portion.
And they have additional funding of $575,000, for a total project cost per acre is $416.
Total estimated value of $3.2 million on the CE.
You can see it shares the...

MS. STEPNEY: I have a question.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.

MS. STEPNEY: Sorry, Mr. Chairman.
I'm just curious.
I noticed that on this particular one it says the Parks and Wildlife request is $250,000, but on the other ones it has Texas Farm and Ranch.

So, are there two different pots of money, or are they the same pots of money?

MR. ABERNATHY: No, Ma'am.
Did I…
That's a mistake on my part, Ma'am.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay, that's fine.
And then, overall, what is our annual budget for the...

MR. ABERNATHY: We get $2 million appropriation every biennium.
And of the $2 million, I have about $1.8 to spend...

MS. STEPNEY: Over the biennium?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am, on conservation easements.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay, great, thank you.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: If I may jump in there, Chairwoman.
So, what we do is in the first year of the biennium we'll go ahead and do all the work to award the monies.
And that way we have the next year to continue to work with the landowners in the trust.

MS. STEPNEY: To get everything situated.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yes, that's right.

MS. STEPNEY: Thank you so much for the clarification.

MR. ABERNATHY: Can I just elaborate a little bit on that?
So, we have a...
What happens to the people that are awarded funding, we have grant agreements.
Essentially, it's a contract that we enter into with the land trust.
And it's open for basically the entire biennium.
It'll activate.. Actually, the period of performance starts today- so these folks can start doing things, and we can start getting the contracts drafted- and they will end on August 31 of ‘27.
So, it will last the full biennium while the funds are available.

MS. STEPNEY: Thank you.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.
Ms. Kinsel, did you have a question, Ma'am?
No, okay.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
So, 930 Ranch, $750,000 for 601 acres.

I'm sorry.
I think I did all this.

[ laughs ]

As I was saying, it's right on the very edge.
It shares a border with Bastrop State Park.
And that gives it some additional value for the continuity.
It's got some lost pines in it.

And there's some potential habitat.
Including this area also has habitat for the endangered Houston toad.

This property scored a 74.3 overall.
It's adjacent to Bastrop State Park.
And it has a 2,500 foot boundary.

Reviewers gave high scores for threat of development- because we know Bastrop County is under growth just like everybody- economic value, watershed, and fish and wildlife value.

The next one is Hilliard Ranch.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chris, can we pause there and see if there's any questions?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.
Yeah, sorry.
Appreciate y'all keeping me checked.

[ laughs ]

Okay.
Am I going backwards?
Yes, I am.
Sorry.
Okay, the Hilliard Ranch in Gillespie and Kendall Counties.
They are asking $107,000.

This is a hugely donated property, 491 acres.
Hill Country Conservancy is our partner.

They're asking $193,000 from the program, with a $2.2 million landowner match.
So, the total land cost for us is $393.
Estimated CE value is $2.35 million.

This property is a very prolific watershed.
It has springs and creeks.
It has many of the species that are deemed species of greatest conservation need.
And it's also located on the Edwards Aquifer recharge zone, which is a big deal for the people that drink water from the Edwards Aquifer.

It's in very good shape.
You know, these are some of the...

I wanted to elaborate, Sir, because the things that we look at for these properties, we want to make sure these landowners are land stewards.
And we want to make sure they're taking care of their properties.

We look for evidence of best management practices.
We look for evidence of grazing management schemes.
We look for evidence of riparian protection.
We just look for a lot of different things.

And so, if people are interested… or understanding what it is that we look for, and we try to condense it down to these numbers, hopefully there's enough subject matter experts that we can look at these pictures and try to derive a picture of what this property is.

We have another one.

As you can see, a lot of the land trusts came together with a lot of properties that are adjacent to other open properties.
It seems to be prevalent this year, which is really good.

So again, you can see there's a huge corridor of open space, the red property being the property in question right now.
And the Hilliard Ranch scored 72 overall, and they gave high scores of threat of development, economic value, watershed, and fish and wildlife.

So, any questions on this property, Sir?

Okay.

Now, Jackson White Ranch.
Also down in Galveston Bay Foundation, I believe.

So, the purchase price for this one is just a little over $1 million.
1,119 acres in Chambers County.
Galveston Bay Foundation.
They're asking $264,795 from the program, and $500,000 from NRCS, with an additional $864,000 additional funding.
Total cost for us is $260 per acre.

And estimated… so, they're asking a full value.
So, their purchase price and their value is the same.

This is right on the edge of the Anahuac National Wildlife Refuge.
So, again, a large continuation of open space.
I believe this is an active rice farm, in addition.

This property scored 69.7 overall.
We've got high scores in threat of development, economic value, watershed, and fish and wildlife value in contribution to a conservation landscape.

The Moondance Ranch.

MR. ISOM: A question, Chris.
So, like with NRCS or the federal, in a notice it says, “request.”

If they choose or make the decision not to fund, does that affect the projects?
I assume it affects the bottom line numbers…

MR. ABERNATHY: It does.

MR. ISOM: …the cost per acre.
And I didn't notice, but prior to… is NRCS listed as “requested” on each of these projects or “approved?”

MR. ABERNATHY: Requested.
I do not have a final approval.
So, you're right.

I think, if I understand your question, Sir, does that impact our ability to award them grant funds?

MR. ISOM: Correct.

MR. ABERNATHY: The answer is yes.
The answer is yes.

Well, they need a fully funded program or budget when they come.
Now, I know that everybody's working in those processes, and clearly the feds are under furlough right now.
So, that's kind of up in the air.

But at some point, when all of that comes together, they need to have a funding award letter from the NRCS.

And if that doesn't happen, and if you remember, what we do with our motion at the very end, your motion allows me to continue to fund the properties we recommend if the others are unable to be funded.

Does that make sense?
Is there ranking and order?

So, say we can fund the first five or six, and some of them are not in the five or six, they can't get their funding from NRCS straightened out.
We will go down to six or seven or eight until we can fund everybody.
We need to spend all of our funds.

MR. ISOM: So, NRCS's criteria is not a certain percentage of a project that's been approved?
How do they make that determination?

MR. ABERNATHY: They used to have a percentage.
I'm not that familiar with their percentages anymore.
Romey, could you address that?

MR. SWANSON: I believe it's 50 percent is the max, typically on a standard request.

That can go up to 75 percent and even higher if there's special conditions with the project, all conditional upon NRCS's approval.
But I think to answer your question, we got like a chicken and an egg situation here.

We got to award this money.
And this is part of a… like a matching scenario.
We won't find out about NRCS funding until later.
The two things have to go together.
But one doesn't really preclude the other.

MR. ISOM: And one doesn't necessitate the other, is that correct?
If it's approved here, is it a given that NRCS is going to come with their 50?

MR. SWANSON: I would say no, but it makes for a better case.

MR. ISOM: Sure.
Thank you.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yeah, and to help some of the folks that are newer to the program.
Yeah, the NRCS program and our program, they just run concurrently.
They don't depend on each other.
They are not relying on each other.
We don't interact.

I mean, we interact with the program manager to the extent that we can, but the programs really do run independently.

And I don't know that they even sometimes know that a land trust has funding from us.
But we sure know when a land trust has funding from NRCS because they just bring their really big dollars.

Okay, the Moondance Ranch.
This is in Gillespie and Kendall Counties.

The purchase price is $123,500 for 154 acres.
This is the Hill Country Conservancy as our partner.
They're asking $166,500 from the program, with $1.16 in landowner in-kind match.
And the total cost to us would be $1,081.
The estimated CE value is $1.2 million.

That's a picture of a Golden-cheeked warbler, if y'all haven't ever seen one.
You hear about them, but we don't always get to see what they look like.

So, this property… this map shows- and I apologize, it's the best map that the land trust gave me.
But in that little corner, and I've got it right there, is the property in question adjacent to another open property, and then adjacent to other conserved properties to the north.
And that's what that map is trying to show.

This property has riparian habitat running through.
This property scored 66 overall.

The reviewers gave good scores on threat of development, watershed value, fish and wildlife, and contributing to a conservation landscape.
Okay, Richter Ranch, does anybody have any questions on that?
Yes, Sir?

MR. SWANSON: Chris, I noticed, so this ranch that we just looked at, Moondance, it is directly adjacent to the Hilliard Ranch project.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes.

MR. SWANSON: And so there is a map of a closer-up shot of how those two are touching.
If you go back to the Hilliard, you can zoom in and show that, if you'd like.

MR. ABERNATHY: I'm sorry, which one are you thinking about, Romey?

MR. SWANSON: It's backwards to Hilliard.

MR. ABERNATHY: Oh, to Hilliard Ranch.

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, because those two properties seem to touch…

MR. ABERNATHY: I just need to click…

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, in the purple instead of the red.

MR. ISOM: In the purple.

MR. ABERNATHY: Right, so the red is the Hilliard and the purple is…
I'm sorry.

MR. SWANSON: Moondance.

MR. ABERNATHY: I've seen that, that's the Moonbeam.
[ laughs ]
So, I think what we're trying to show is that we have all this continuation of open space, and these two properties are contingent on each other to continue to open space.

MR. SWANSON: Thank you, Chris.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yeah, thank you for filling me in, Romey.

We just did the Moondance.

Okay, Sir.

Richter Ranch.
This is in Burnet County, 341 acres.
They're asking $150,000.
Hill Country Conservancy is our land trust partner.

$223,000 for a farm and ranch request, with $3.8 million in landowner in-kind match, for a total cost of $654,000.
Total estimated value is $4 million.

This property contains a half a mile of Colorado River-Lake Travis frontage.
And that's property you can see that there's the frontage.
This property scored a 60.7.
And again, these properties that you're seeing now, Mr. Chairman, were not ranked as well as some of the later.

So, unfortunately, the commentary becomes reduced.
There's just not as much to comment on.

This is the Double Tree Ranch.
So, this is a fully donated property in Caldwell County, 90 acres for the Pines and Prairies Land Trust.

They're asking $18,353 for a landowner in-kind match of $422,000, for $204 cost per acre. This property has been under one landowner since 1976, and it protects approximately 4,400 acre feet of tributaries on Tenney Creek.

This property was scored a 60.6, and it got good scores in threat of development and economic value.

The Whiting Ranch.

CRAIG BONDS: Just make sure…

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.
Apologies.
Any questions on that one?
Okay.

The Lynn Whiting Ranch is up on the Red River.
It's a purchase price of $4.9 million for 368 acres in Grayson County.
Texas Ag Land Trust is our partner on this one.
They're asking $100,000 for the program with an NRCS request of $3.6 million and a $1.2 million landowner match, for a landowner… for a cost per acre of $272.
Total estimated value is $4.9 million.

This has been a one-owner family since 1836, and it's been running cow/calf operation for a long time.
And that's where the map is, or that's the property.

This one got a 57.4 overall, and they got good scores in threat of development, economic value.
This is the…
I'm sorry, any questions on this one?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I'm just… one landowner since 1836.

MR. ABERNATHY: I know.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: One family, that's impressive.

MR. ABERNATHY: Amazing, isn't it?
[ laughs ]

This is the Lazy U Ranch.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman.
The Whiting Ranch, can you go back to the map?
I've got a question.
Looks like a donut hole in the middle of it.
What is that?

[ laughter ]

MR. ABERNATHY: My guess, Sir, is that is either two parcels.
This is probably their parcel boundary, and so they probably have the road.
There's probably an easement to the road.
There might be an in-holding, is my guess.
Or that could also be a proposed building envelope.

So, the landowners are allowed to have building envelopes within the conservation easement.
And they’re proposed building envelopes.
And they have to be established in the conservation easement and they have to be away from critical habitat and a bunch of other stuff.

I don't know right this minute what that is.

MR. MILLER: So, it could possibly be a carve-out?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.
It could be a carve-out, in-holding, and that could be an easement for that road right there to that property.

MR. MILLER: Yeah.
I don't necessarily like that, you know, having a development right in the middle of a conservation easement.

MR. ABERNATHY: [ laughs ]
This property was not recommended for funding.
Let me just say that for now.

Any more questions, Sir?

[ Inaudible ]

Okay.

This is the Lazy U on the Guadalupe.
So, a purchase price of $1,075,000 for 102 acres in Guadalupe County.
Green Spaces Alliance is the land trust on this one.
They're asking $106,557.
Landowner match is $3.2 million, and they have a… this is an Air Force, this is…
Rex, this goes to one of the questions you asked.
There's just so many different funding entities.

This is a U.S. Air Force remediation “something, something” program.
It's a federal program that helps for the properties that are surrounding some of the federal Air Force bases.
And so they're able to get a million dollar grant from them.

MR. MILLER: Chris, these military installations, I've had some experience with these.
They like to get these conservation easements all around the perimeter.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

It protects their boundary…

MR. MILLER: It protects their boundary and their operations and munitions testing, things like that.
So, that's what that is.

MR. ABERNATHY: Thank you, Sir.
I appreciate that.

This one was expensive, over $1,000 per acre.
Estimated cost was $4.3 million for the value of the property.
It does sit on the banks of the Guadalupe.

This one just did not score that well.
It's a 52.6.

It got good scores for threat of development, watershed value.

This is the Presidio Ranch way down on the Rio Grand, next to Big Bend.
This property was a fully donated property, 1,800 acres in Presidio County, by the Frontera Land Alliance.

They requested $50,000 from the program, with a landowner income match of $2.6 million. The cost per acre is $28 per acre.
Estimated value was $2.6 million.

This one did not score well.
This scored a 51.
We did give it economic value because it was such a low price per cost, per acre.
But to be honest, this property was not deemed to meet the definitions of agricultural working lands.

This is primarily… it's pronounced in their application that it's primarily for the protection of habitat and research.
And the reviewers did not feel that that met the definition of working lands.
And so, we did not recommend it for funding.

Do you have any questions on that one, Sir?

No.

There's another one like this as well.

This is the Cobb Ranch out near Temple.
This is $397,000 for 161 acres in Bell County by the Texas Ag Land Trust.

They requested $50,000 from the program, with $397,000 from NRCS, for a land cost of $310 per acre.
This was a nice property, but there just wasn't anything special enough for anybody to reward any significant points for it.
We got a 50.6 overall.

This is the Crying Eagle Ranch.

Does anybody have any questions on the Cobb Ranch?
I apologize.

The Crying Eagle Ranch up near La Grange.
This is Fayette County, $354,000 for 100.6 acres- Fayette County.
Pines and Prairies Land Trust.
$139,000 for Texas Parks and Wildlife.
$236,500 for NRCS.
And an additional $238,000 from outside funding.
For a total cost of $1,384 per acre.
Estimated value of the CE is $473,000.

This one, that's also… this property did not rank well.
It received a score of 46.6.
Again, as stated in their application, the primary goal for this property is retreat for Wounded Warriors and other members of the military.
That is a fantastic goal.
I'm a veteran myself.
I appreciate it.
But unfortunately, it does not meet the definition of working lands.

So again, the reviewers did not feel that that met that definition, so we did not recommend it for funding.

Last one.
I think, getting close.
Texas Tribal Buffalo in Wilson County.
This had a purchase price of $288,333 for 149 acres in Wilson County.
The Guadalupe Blanco River Trust is the partner.
They're asking $250,000 from the program for… and then $1.6 million in landowner cash match, and for a total cost of $1,672 per acre for an estimated value of $576,000.

This property…
So, we had three- this is our third one, Mr. Chairman- that did not meet the definition of working lands.

So, this property did not score very well as well.
There is some further development, but the stated goal for this project is to recreate natural habitat for American bison and provide opportunities for visitors to learn about Native American peoples' historical relationship with bison.

So again, the reviewers felt that they did not meet the..,.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Is there a big herd of buffalo or bison on the ranch?

MR. ABERNATHY: I don't think this one.
I think that it has some of the original bison species from maybe the Palo Duro bison or something, but they're trying to increase the herd.

Any questions about this one?

MR. SWANSON: They're not selling bison?

MR. ABERNATHY: No, I don't believe so.
This is, based on their application, it's an educational-type goal.

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, but they're producing.
I've eaten bison from this ranch.

MR. ABERNATHY: They are.
I did not see a reference for any kind of retail or wholesale sales of…

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, they may not be selling yet.

MR. ABERNATHY: Okay.

MR. SWANSON: I mean, it's not a very big operation, but I think they're trying to build one.
I would question whether or not we want to classify that as recreation… I mean agricultural.

MR. ABERNATHY: Well, yeah, I think the whole program does not fit under an agricultural definition.

MR. SWANSON: Oh, I'm arguing that it might.

MR. ABERNATHY: That it might?

MR. SWANSON: Yeah.

MR. ABERNATHY: You guys, that's your job here, is to help us.
If you want to revise our applic… our recommendation process, that's what y'all are here to help us do.

MR. MILLER: It seems like they probably didn't fill out their application to reflect that, more than likely.

MR. SWANSON: I'm guessing so.
And is that… who was the… who is the land trust?

MR. ABERNATHY: This is Guadalupe Blanco.

MR. SWANSON: And are they experienced?

MR. ABERNATHY: Yeah, we've had several projects with them.
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure.

MR. SWANSON: They've had some staff turnover recently though, right?

MR. ABERNATHY: They have.
They’ve lost their director.

MR. SWANSON: Okay, I think that may be part of the problem.

MR. MILLER: We’ll get them next time.

MR. ABERNATHY: Any questions on this one?

Ma'am, Ms. Kinsel, did you have...

MS. KINSEL: Just to comment that certainly production of food falls within agriculture.

MR. ABERNATHY: It does, Ma'am.

MS. KINSEL: So, you know, we do need to feed the world.
We're trying.

MR. ABERNATHY: I do agree with that.

MS. KINSEL: Go Texan.

MR. ABERNATHY: I guess this one, wherever we're…
This is the one.
What if we lose… I lost it now because I keep going…
I'm sorry, folks.
I'm going the wrong direction.

[ laughs ]

I agree that feeding…
But I guess, like I said, they just seem to focus on the third bullet as their primary goal.

And to be honest, it wasn't just that.
It was, there just wasn't… none of the criteria were near as high as the other criteria for any of the other properties.
It's just, that's just the way it worked out.

Sir, I'm done with the application.

MR. MILLER: Great stuff.

Back on that Crying Eagle Ranch, that was one of them that didn't meet the criteria…

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MR. MILLER: …of an agriculture operation.
When you look at the picture, it looks like it's pecan orchards to me.

MR. ABERNATHY: It does look like that.
I think that's all mesquite stuff.

MR. MILLER: They're all rowed up.
It's some kind of nursery stock or… looks like an agriculture operation to me.
Maybe they just didn't fill it out right either.

MR. ABERNATHY: I don't… is that the one that we said…
Yeah, we didn't, we didn't.
Yes, Sir?

MR. BONDS: Chris, this is Craig Bonds, Chief Operating Officer, for the record.
I've driven by this.
I live not too far from there.
That's likely… that's likely Post Oaks and Yaupon, with some kind of Sendero strips bulldozed.

That's likely mostly hardwood and Yaupon.

MR. SWANSON: Chairman, if I may.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes?

MR. SWANSON: Chris, what sort of discretion is, do the… do the reviewers get in sort of judging whether a property qualifies as working lands, agricultural production?
I mean, is there certain sort of guidelines?

MR. ABERNATHY: No, I think that this one was done…
Just push it down here so we could…
In the end, so what we do, this is just, we literally meet, all the reviewers meet- and I'm going to show who the reviewers are here shortly.

We all meet, and they've had a briefing book kind of similar to what y'all have but with all the applications and all the details, and they review that for hopefully up to about a week.

And we literally get together and we go through every single property as much as we can. And in the end, it really is each individual's reviewer how many points they want to award each criteria on each property.

And then all of those numbers are put into a matrix and averaged, excuse me.

And so, I guess it's each person's… I mean, I was… as we were looking at these, I mean, maybe it was me that I was driving that, but as I was reading these towards the end, I'm like, “these don't feel like the other properties.”

The Wounded Warrior thing and the Raising Buffalo to experience native habitat or native peoples, those don't feel like the others.
And so, I think we had to make a distinction, and that's how that happened.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Chairman, if I may.
So Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but they have to demonstrate in the application that it is working lands, right?

MR. ABERNATHY: They do, Sir.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
So, I mean, it's upon the applicant to be able to do that.
So, it needs to be without question that it's working lands.

MR. ABERNATHY: And can I elaborate on that?
The legislature, and I know there's some questions about this, but the legislature did go to the trouble to amend the specific controlling statute for this prop… for this program to include the words “agricultural working lands.”
They did it last time in the last budget session.

And I think that's important for us to take note of, and to make sure that we do our best to say that these are working lands.

MR. SWANSON: So, would a property that's managed under 1D1W qualify as working lands?

MR. ABERNATHY: That's a wildlife exemption.

MR. SWANSON: That's a wildlife exemption.

MR. ABERNATHY: According to Lori Olson, yes.

[ laughs ]

We did not treat these properties, most of these properties…

MR. SWANSON: I mean, It's under 1D1W, it's under ag.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, but I think that's what the legislature wanted to get away from.
They wanted to make sure it was for producing product.

MR. SWANSON: And not preserving the opportunity for future.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Right, that was the intent of the legislature.

MR. SWANSON: So, is it disqualifying if a ranch is operated under 1D1 without agriculture?

MR. ABERNATHY: I don't think…

MR. SWANSON: 1D…

[ light laughter ]

JAMES MURPHY: For the record, James Murphy, General Counsel to the department and the Council.

So, the statutory eligibility is qualified under open space land under the tax code.
And that is the first step to being eligible.
So, that is a screening criteria that pushes you in or out.

From there, the statute does not specify agricultural productivity as a factor.
And so, we don't consider how much of a particular product you produce necessarily, or the quality of that product.
It's more of an eligibility in or out.
Now, I think the area we're in now is they are qualified under the tax code properly.
But the application itself didn't show those indicators of working lands.

And the staff does really rely upon, I think Dr. Yoskowitz made this point.
Staff really relies upon the materials and the application to describe the property, its characteristics, its working lands components.

And some land trust applications simply don't have perhaps as much in that application for one reason or another.
So, they're really looking at the four corners of that application to determine what level of working land activity there is.

And certainly under that tax evaluation, it can also be a wildlife property, right?
So, that can be a factor, as well, when they're looking at these.

We have in past cycles funded some wildlife valued properties as opposed to kind of more working lands.
So, that is eligible as well.

There has been a push from the legislature, and we've seen this in multiple sessions, towards continuing to encourage, and certainly from this Council as well in past meetings, encourage awards to working lands that are really producing.
And I think that's what Mr. Abernathy is referring to.

As they were looking at these lands, they didn't have as many indicators of being really producing materials.
And so, they scored a little bit lower.

But I think if you look at the scoring criteria there on those, you'll also see that that price per acre number was a lot higher.
As Chris mentioned before, as you get down the list that price per acre value starts to, you know, get into the $500,000, $800,000 plus.
So, that was another reason why some of those projects didn't score as highly.

Does that all make sense?
And any follow-up questions from that?

MR. SWANSON: Right, I got it.

Just as a quick follow-up, just getting back to the Bison Ranch.
I would assume that it's operating under a traditional agricultural valuation.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yeah

MR. MURPHY: I think no indication that I'm aware of, Chris, that this wasn't properly tax-coded.

MR. SWANSON: Yeah, I'll make this my final question.
Do the reviewers, like, actively request additional information if it's missing from the application?

MR. MURPHY: Thank you.
MR. ABERNATHY: That's a question I have not had yet.
We… when we get the applications from the applicants, and I go through each one.
And then, actually, as long as they make the original deadline I allow them the latitude to submit additional information as they need to, like maybe their budget needed to be revised or maybe they forgot something.

So, they're allowed to continue to submit information.
So, I don't know that I have been in a situation where I didn't have enough information and then we ask for more.

MR. SWANSON: I'm going to make one ask for us, for the Council to consider, is to maybe that we provide applicants with explicit direction on how to address this issue in the future.

I'm concerned about the amount of discretion provided to the, you know, given to the reviewers.

I trust them, certainly, but I would like for them to have as much information that is available to them.

And if there's a lack from the application, I think we should be able to request some additional information, or make it really clear to the applicants in the future that these points need to be addressed as best they can so that we can take away a little bit of that wiggle room.

I'm afraid that we might be overlooking what otherwise may be good projects.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Mr. Miller?

MR. MILLER: Just a point I'll make.
As of 15 years ago, bison were considered wildlife.

The legislature… and this may not be exact, but about 15 years ago, they reclassified them as livestock.

So, if they're raising bison, this would be a working ranch.
I mean, it's livestock.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Can we assume that if they have an agricultural exemption for purposes of property taxes that it's… I mean, is that enough to qualify them, or is…
I'm kind of… is that right, James?

Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: So, Mr. Chairman.
So, Romey, if I understand, I want to make sure I understand what you're asking.
So, you would like the applicants, maybe in the next application cycle, to do a better, like have a specific kind of a statement of agriculture working lands or how they're meeting agriculture working lands?

MR. SWANSON: I think if we just make it really clear that these characteristics, we're looking for certain things, and that they know that and it's made explicitly clear that we could take a little bit of this questioning out of the way.

Because what I'm hearing is you've got reviewers from mixed backgrounds that can come in and look at things from different angles. And that may create a variance in your scores that may draw down the overall score, the average, and otherwise reduce the ranking for a property that otherwise may be fully qualified.

MR. ABERNATHY: You're right, Sir.

But we do have a diverse background, and sometimes I think that's a strength.
And maybe you're right, maybe it's not a strength on certain things as well.

MR. SWANSON: Right, and I'll say this.
Just sort of understanding some of these groups.
Sometimes there is staff turnover, so you lose this institutional knowledge, and a land trust that's bringing forth an otherwise good project but doesn't know how to fill it out to appease us.
I think we could just make it really explicit for them.

Because I love the projects.
I just want to make sure that the best ones get ranked, and it's fairly consistent and understood.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.
Thank you .

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: In my… it sounds to me like this is not a subjective question, this is objective.

It either qualifies as agricultural or it doesn't.
And it's not whether the committee feels it.
I guess I'm… that's where… I think we're all kind of saying the same thing, but we want to be sure that they get a fair hearing on their application.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MS. STEPNEY: Mr. Chairman?

MR. LOPEZ: This is Roel Lopez

MR. LOPEZ: If I could just add some thoughts here.
So, I've been part of the program since the beginning.
And one of the challenges is exactly what Romey is describing, is I think just some clarifying language that describes what working lands are and the criteria, and maybe even some examples so then there's no confusion.
And I think that's one reason why that was raised here recently, and just trying to get that clarification.
So, I think it could serve us well in helping the reviewers ensure that they're all on the same page.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: I mean, if I may.
I just, so, I want to go back to… because this was clarified in the last legislative session with House Bill 2018, saying that it needs to be working agricultural lands.

So, to your point, maybe there's a really quick way to look at that as if they're, you know, if they have that exemption that is what gets us to that point of making it “yes” or “no,” at least initially.
I mean, there's so much other that goes into the application as well.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: But to your point, Romey, what I'm hearing, and I'll take back to staff, is that we need to give the opportunity for them to make that case as strong as possible.
Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Any other questions?

MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, before we move on…

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Go ahead.

MR. MILLER: …just some quick questions for clarification.

I speak three to ten times a week and always take questions at the end.
So, this conservation easement comes up.
I just want to make sure I'm telling people the right answer.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir.

MR. MILLER: …that I don't, you know, mislead anybody.
So, a conservation easement basically is no development on the land.
The landowner can't, you know, develop it.
That's kind of general.
I know we can go out in the weeds on that.
But it's my understanding…
My question is, what about an electric transmission line?
Can it cross the property?

MR. ABERNATHY: We try not to have, Mr. Chairman, we try not to have any encroachments on a conservation easement.
Our properties are protected under… it's a section within the bill that says that any encroachment on properties have to demonstrate a public need; that there's no other feasible alternative.
And then they have to do a public hearing to demonstrate that they've met that there's no other feasible…


MR. MILLER: So, the answer would be, yes, it could.

MR. ABERNATHY: It could, but they have… there's a little extra hoop to go through, and they have to have a public demonstration.

The problem with that particular is that they'll say it's a producer, it's an oil and gas producer and they want to come across your property with a pipeline, and they go through this process.

Well, they get to decide if they've met the terms of the statute?
There's not another body out there that says, like a county commissioner or anything, that says…

MR. MILLER: So, it doesn't preclude imminent domain from happening?

MR. ABERNATHY: No, Sir.

MR. MILLER: It could be high-speed rail.
City or county could take a portion of it for an airport, or…

MR. ABERNATHY: It could, but they have to go out in the public to do it.

MR. MILLER: Or a highway, pipelines.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Sir, it's possible.

MR. MILLER: So, the only one it really restricts is the owner.

MR. ABERNATHY: [ laughs ]

MR. MILLER: It doesn't restrict any public utility or…

MR. ABERNATHY: No, Sir.
Not really.

MR. MILLER: …or any government entity from applying.
That's what I thought.
I just wanted to make sure.

MR. ABERNATHY: It just makes an extra hoop.

MR. SWANSON: Commissioner Miller.

MR. ABERNATHY: Oh, apologies.

MR. SWANSON: We funded a project a few years ago that closed, and it was being condemned by… under threat of condemnation under the Permian Highway pipeline.

And because of this statute, this… it's not… I wouldn't say it precludes, but it resists.
It provides some… it slows down processes.
And the pipeline folk decided to move the pipeline off of that particular ranch because of this program, which made the ranch owner very, very happy.

And I know that…

MR. MILLER: Made his neighbor very angry.

MR. SWANSON: Undoubtedly, yeah.
I would say that there… there is an increasing interest in even this limited protection from some of our landowners, you know, that are… that are thinking about their stewardship and their legacy, but also that want to protect themselves somewhat from these types of proceedings.

MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman, I would say that if you remember the Kimber Morgan pipeline that went through Wimberley.
We actually have a landowner who has a conservation easement on his 1,100 acres, give or take, in Wimberley.

And when Kimber Morgan came to his border and he said, “I have a conservation easement,” they did a right turn and went around him.
So, it can help.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ( inaudible )

MR. ABERNATHY: No, Sir.

MR. MURPHY: If i could, just real quick to add a little flavor to that.

Again, James Murphy, General Counsel.
Under Chapter 84, I think it's 84.007, there's a special protection in place for easements funded by the program.

It requires a notice and hearing process associated with any easements or other condemnations that may be coming through.

So, they have to provide a hearing.

They have to do an alternatives analysis.
And then there's a minimization measures that must be put in place.

And so, there is a special status, as Mr. Swanson was saying, about these properties.
And there's been interest recently that I've heard about folks asking to enroll their properties into the program, even if the conservation easement wasn't funded because of the protections that that provides.

And we've been investigating what opportunities there may be in the future for this program for, you know, working lands to enroll in the program perhaps in a different manner with, you know, in consultation with legislature or other oversight bodies.

So, there's certainly some interest out in the land trust community and the farming and ranching community that we've heard of enrolling these properties in the program in some fashion to get those enhanced protections.

So, just wanted to mention that and complete Mr. Swanson's thought.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: So, if I'm a landowner and I'm afraid they're going to bring a big power line through, can I run out and put in an easement?
I mean, does that happen?
Do people do that specifically for that reason?

MR. MURPHY: You certainly do see that.
The conservation easement under the law was not going to itself.
Just a regular conservation easement under natural resources code isn't going to have the protections that come with a farm and ranch funded easement.
So, that certainly it would be from a conservationist perspective perhaps nice to see that protection for all conservation easements.
But at this time it is only in place for farm and ranch program funded easements.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.

MR. MURPHY: You're very welcome.

MR. ABERNATHY: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Isom.

MR. ISOM: Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse myself.
Assuming there's a motion in a second on Item 6, please count my vote in favor.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Okay, let's just go…
Yep.

MR. ISOM: Do you have time?
I don't want to…

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, let's move it…

MR. ABERNATHY: Okay, so I'm going quickly then.
Is that my direction?
You're talking to the right guy.

[ laughter ]

Okay, now you want me to go.

So, here are the reviewers.
You guys asked real quick.
And I'm sorry, I'm trying to get away from my speaker.
So, I was on there.

Jacob Aston, he's a young man working for us.
He has a wildlife background from A&M.

Greg Creacy is Natural Resource Director of State Parks.

Ryan McGillicuddy, he's the Inland Fisheries representative.

Kevin Mote, Program Director for Private Lands.
Dr. Alfonso Ortega-Sanchez is our outside industry representative, which Rex Isom suggested that we do this.
And we've been doing this now for the last four or five years.

And Zeke Sanchez, the new Branch Manager for the Land Conservation Program, were all the reviewers.

So, we do have a wide background, but every single person in there has a natural resource background.

These are the selection criteria and the points that we talked about: 30 points on threat of development; 20 for value; 20 for watershed; 15 for fish and wildlife; 10 for contribution to a conservation landscape.

And we don't really count the terms of the conservation easement.

That was put in there because you could have a perpetual easement or a 30-year easement. And we don't have any 30-year easements.
We only have perpetual easements, so we're not really counting points.
We just gave everybody five points.

Okay, this is why we're here.
These are all the properties that were submitted.

We had eight that we could pay for.
You can see my funding limit was $1.749.

So, this is my recommendation to the Council is that we fund the first eight properties.

And I apologize.
Mr. Chairman, I found this typo.
I said nine applications.
There's eight applications.
My apologies, please.

So, under these eight applications, we will protect 20,233 acres.
We'll have an estimated market value of $24 million, $769,180.
Total cost per acre to us: $192.

Total outside funding: $9.9 million, almost $10 million.

Total matching funds: $13 million and change.
So, we are recommending awarding $1,749,872 in grant funds to those properties.

And that's your motion, Sir.

MS. KINSEL: I would like to move that we approve the recommendation for funding of these programs.

MR. SWANSON: I'm going to ask a question, if that's okay.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. SWANSON: Chris, I see that you got $1.75 effectively allocated, and $1.8 is what you have available?

MR. ABERNATHY: [ laughs ] Yes, Sir.

MR. SWANSON: Could we potentially…

MR. ABERNATHY: Well, I don't really have $1.8.

MR. SWANSON: …fund one of those 50?

MR. ABERNATHY: Actually, I have a new purchaser now who's told me I don't have $1.8, I have about $1.769, or something.
I just have about $20,000 more than that particular number.

MR. SWANSON: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: And we couldn't get to the next.

MR. SWANSON: My question's moot then.
Thank you.

MR. ABERNATH: I did want to let y'all know that several land trusts, some of them are in this room, offered to take a reduced award in order to allow me to fund as many as I could.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
We have a motion.
Do I have a second?

MR. SWANSON: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

Okay.
Any opposed?

All right.
It passes unanimously.
And this is exciting stuff.
So, thank you.

MR. ISOM: Now I'm excused?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Now, you're excused, yeah.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: He's looking at General Council.

[ Council speaking at once ]

[ laughter ]

MR. ABERNATHY: There's one more motion.

Mr. Isom, can you stay real quick?
I'm going to...

Sir, can I proceed?

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, go ahead.

MR. ABERNATHY: Okay, last one.
We need to have a recurring meeting date for this Council, Sir.
We need to do it just like we do with the Commission.
We have a fixed date.

I'm asking y'all to provide me with a fixed meeting date.
It improves attendance.

As you can tell, we're having a hard time meeting a quorum.
We've always had a hard time meeting quorum.
It also helps with the AV people to do their job, and they know when to plan and prepare.

So, I'm asking that we have a future... all future Texas Farmer Ranch and Conservation Program annual meetings to occur on the second Thursday of October, which is today, Sir.

If y'all are in favor of that, I'm happy.
If not, we can keep on going.

MS. STEPNEY: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yes?

MS. STEPNEY: Won't that considerably limit the flexibility that the Council might need if there's something that occurs and you need a new date?
I understand what staff is trying to do, but...

MR. ABERNATHY: My only response, Madam, is that we've been doing it like this for eight years, and eight years is a challenge.
Every year is a challenge to get a full quorum.
We've actually missed a meeting two or three years ago because of lack of quorum.

MS. STEPNEY: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: We're statutorily required to have an annual meeting, period.
We must have one.

MS. STEPNEY: Then may I make a suggestion?

MR. ABERNATHY: Please.

MS. STEPNEY: This motion, and then tag on at the end “unless there are other extenuating circumstances,” just to give us a little flexibility.

MR. ABERNATHY: We're at the Chairman's discretion, or something.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: I'm looking over at James.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: That's good?
All right.

MR. MURPHY: Yeah, you can modify the motion to provide that flexibility.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MS. STEPNEY: I'll make the motion.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: I want to make sure somebody captured that language.

MS. STEPNEY: I'll make the motion.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
Some motion, as modified.

MS. STEPNEY: Yes.
I move the Council set all future Texas Farm and Ranch Land Conservation Program annual meetings to occur on the second Thursday of October, unless there are other extenuating circumstances and a more appropriate date is applicable.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
Do we have a second?

MS. KINSEL: Second.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.
All in favor?

[ CHORUS OF “AYES” ]

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Any opposed?

MR. LOPEZ: Aye.

[ laughter ]

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thanks for listening.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I think he was…
Okay, we got you.
We got you as a “yes,” right?
Okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
So that motion passes.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Thank you for that, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Thank you.
And that, yeah, that clarification helps.

MR. ABERNATHY: That concludes all of my presentation, Sir.

MS. KINSEL: Before you step down, I have a question.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.

MS. KINSEL: Just wanted to let Rex get on his way.
I don't know what it was, but it's important.
With respect to the criteria, the next to last one: contribution to a conservation landscape.

You seem to give extra points, or high points, in that category for a property that was contiguous to some… another type of conservation property.

In areas where we need property, but there aren't any, how do you get started?
You know, if you happen to be the first property in that area and there's nothing contiguous, you're going to not have an opportunity to that.
I mean, I'd like to make sure that that criteria is broad enough to say we need a conservation landscape here so you get points.

MR. ABERNATHY: Yes, Ma'am.
So, it's a really good question.
And this is just personal perspective.
I mean, the burden, I guess, lays with the applicant, with the land trust.

I mean, we certainly want continuous open space.
We want unfragmented lands.
We want continuous habitat.
But the land trust, you know, and you probably know this.
I mean, our experience also shows that these people, it's word of mouth.

If a neighbor puts a conservation easement on his place, a couple of years later his neighbors are starting to see that's not a bad deal and they might want a conservation easement, too.

And they start to kind of build that way.

But you're right.
Sometimes it's hard to find properties that are adjacent to other open properties that are not for sale for some other reason.

It's… I don't envy the land trust at all.
I am just the banker sometimes.
That's how I feel.
I'm just like a… I write checks.
So, that probably didn't answer your question, Ma'am.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: I think what I can do is I can take that back to the staff and maybe we could look at how, you know, that factors more into the ranking.
And we can come back to y'all with that for next year's meeting.

MR. ABERNATHY: Next year.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.
MR. ABERNATHY: Unfortunately, the criteria, the values associated with those are assigned by the statute. So, we can't modify the numeric value of the criteria. I did do, when we…

Actually, y'all can do it.
I apologize.
You guys, you remember that?
We did that.
We did modify that.

So, actually, if you wanted, as a Council, to increase the contribution to a conservation landscape and give it more weighting, you could certainly do that.
And we could do that next year.
If you want to do some housekeeping.
Because next year is an off year, what I call the “off year,” there's no application.

MS. KINSEL: Right.

MR. ABERNATHY: And that's a really good time to do this kind of housekeeping, if that's something y'all would like.

MR. SWANSON: Chris, is there a definition for “conservation” landscape?
Does it require an anchor easement or public property managed specifically for conservation purposes?
How do you guys define that?

MR. ABERNATHY: I have not seen a definition like that, Romey.
Typically, it's what y'all saw today.
If it's adjacent to, or even remotely adjacent, for some concept of open space.
I mean, we try to give as much credit as we can.
But it's usually the adjacency, shared border kind of thing.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah, so, I just want to reiterate, I think there's opportunity for improvement.
Come back with you all next year, and with some definitions, maybe some ideas on kind of first mover into a region; kind of an anchor, as you were talking about.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: But just so I'm clear, we only meet once a year.
And so, if we wanted to change any of these criteria, it would be a year from now before we could implement a change… before we could recommend a change and approve it.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: That's right.
But there are no applications that will be heard at the next meeting.
Everything is done for the biennium.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Ah, okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: All right.
So, okay.

DR. YOSKOWITZ: That's a great opportunity to do that next year.
Yeah.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: I'm with you.
Okay.
So, I think we should give some serious consideration to that.
Because the whole… Maybe, you know, kind of boil down and look at the whole criteria and rating process, and be sure that we're adequately and fairly looking at all these applications.

MR. ABERNATHY: We can do that, Sir.

MS. STEPNEY: Mr. Chairman?

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Yeah.

MS. STEPNEY: I would just suggest as staff are reviewing the criteria, you know, do some truth testing.
Because when you move the numbers around, there could be some unintended consequences up or down.
And so, you know, run some scenarios, I would recommend.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay.

MR. ABERNATHY: That's all for me, Sir.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: And Dee, do you confirm we don't have any public… anybody signed up for public comment?
Is that correct?

DEE HALLIBURTON: No, Sir.
There is nobody signed up.

CHAIRMAN FOSTER: Okay,
So, are there any more comments from Council or staff?

If not, this Council has completed its business, and I declare the meeting adjourned at
11:37 a.m., on October 16, 2025.

Thank you.

[ “Thank you” from multiple Council members. ]

[ GAVEL SOUNDS ]

In official recognition of the adoption of this resolution in a lawfully called public meeting of the Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Council, we hereby affix our signatures this _______ day of ___________________, __________.
_____________________________________
Paul L. Foster, Chairman
_____________________________________
Russell Boening, Member
_____________________________________
Rex Isom, Member
_____________________________________
Leslie Kinsel, Member
_____________________________________
Natalie Cobb Koehler, Member
_____________________________________
L'Oreal Stepney, Member
_____________________________________
Roel Lopez, Member
_____________________________________
Sid Miller, Member
_____________________________________
Kristy Oates, Member
_____________________________________
Andrew Polk, Member
_____________________________________
Romey Swanson, Member