Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
November 17, 1999
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1
8 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on
9 the 17th day of November 1999, there came on
10 to be heard matters under the regulatory
11 authority of the Parks and Wildlife Commission
12 of Texas, in the commission hearing room of
13 the Texas Parks and Wildlife Headquarters
14 complex, Austin, Travis County, Texas,
15 beginning at 9:40 a.m. to wit:
16
APPEARANCES:
17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
18 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
CHAIR: Carol E. Dinkins
19 Lee M. Bass
Ernest Angelo, Jr.
20 John Avila, Jr.
Dick Heath (absent)
21 Alvin L. Henry (absent)
Katharine Armstrong Idsal
22 Nolan Ryan
Mark E. Watson, Jr.
23
24
THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
25 Andrew H. Sansom, Executive Director
.
2
1 NOVEMBER 17, 1999
2 MORNING SESSION: 9:40 a.m.
3 * * * * *
4 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE
5 * * * * *
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I call the
7 meeting to order. And before proceeding with
8 business, I believe Mr. Sansom has some
9 statements to make.
10 MR. SANSOM: Ms. Chairman, public
11 notice of this meeting containing all items on
12 the proposed agenda has been filed in the
13 Office of Secretary of State as required by
14 Chapter 551 of the Government Code. This is
15 referred to as the Open Meetings Law, and I
16 would like for this action to be noted in the
17 official record of the meeting.
18 If I might, Commissioner Dinkins, I would
19 also like to point out that Dr. Lacher has
20 brought the introductory conservation
21 management class from Texas A&M today, and
22 they are here with us in the audience and very
23 welcome.
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Yes. We do
25 welcome you. I'm glad you're here. And I
.
3
1 want to apologize for our late start, but you
2 could probably tell when you were coming in
3 through the fog yourself that it was going to
4 be hard for anybody to get here. And we
5 appreciate your patience.
6 With that, we'll turn to the minutes of
7 the June meeting. We did not have a committee
8 meeting in August, and that is why you see the
9 June minutes which remain to be approved. And
10 I would ask for a motion for approval.
11 COMMISSIONER WATSON: I so move.
12 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: And a
13 second, please.
14 COMMISSIONER RYAN: Second.
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
16 Any discussion? Hearing none, then all in
17 favor say aye. Those opposed? Thank you.
18 (Motion passed unanimously.)
19 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1: BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S
20 CHARGES.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
22 item is a briefing, and that is on the
23 Chairman's Charges, if you would please,
24 Mr. Sansom.
25 MR. SANSOM: Well, we're going to,
.
4
1 if it's all right with you, Chairman Dinkins,
2 is that Mr. Bass has asked that when he does
3 arrive, he's just going to go back and proceed
4 to hear all of his charges at one time.
5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
6 We'll wait for that, then.
7 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2: ACTION - FIBER OPTIC
8 EASEMENT - TRAVIS COUNTY - SMITH SCHOOL ROAD.
9 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: The next
10 item is the fiber optic easement, Travis
11 County, and that is in the briefing.
12 MR. HERRING: Good morning. My
13 name is Mike Herring. I'm director of the
14 department's land conservation program. And I
15 have with me Kathy Boydston, a member of the
16 wildlife division staff.
17 A private communications company has
18 purchased a building adjacent to the
19 department's Austin headquarters and has
20 requested a permanent easement along Smith
21 School Road to install a fiber optic cable.
22 The easement would be approximately 2,000 feet
23 in length, five feet wide, totaling 10,000
24 square feet. In order to allow installation
25 to proceed, the company was issued a
.
5
1 construction permit and certificate of
2 occupancy for a period of ten years, with a
3 provision for conversion to a permanent
4 easement contingent on Parks and Wildlife
5 Commission and the Parks and Wildlife Board
6 for Lease Approval.
7 Compensation for the easement is $45,000,
8 or $4.50 per square foot. Department staff
9 has examined the application and concluded
10 that there is no feasible or prudent
11 alternative to the use of the easement and the
12 project includes all reasonable planning to
13 minimize harm to the land. The action
14 requested at this meeting is to move this to
15 the Board for Lease for a conversion from
16 temporary to permanent easement.
17 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
18 Are there any questions? All right. Hearing
19 none, the Chair would entertain a motion to
20 move this to the Commission agenda.
21 COMMISSIONER WATSON: So moved.
22 COMMISSIONER RYAN: I'll second.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any
24 discussion? All in favor say aye. Those
25 opposed, no. The motion carries. Thank you.
.
6
1 (Motion passed unanimously.)
2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3: ACTION - NOMINATION FOR
3 OIL AND GAS LEASES - BRAZOS BEND STATE PARK -
4 FORT BEND COUNTY - SHELDON STATE PARK - HARRIS
5 COUNTY.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
7 item is the nomination for oil and gas leases.
8 MR. HERRING: The department has
9 been requested to nominate portions of two
10 state parks for oil and gas leases. At
11 Sheldon Lake State Park, approximately 662 of
12 the 2,265 mineral acres owned by the
13 department have been requested. Conditions
14 for this nomination are shown in your Exhibit
15 A. In this case, the requested tract is small
16 enough that we have prohibited surface entry
17 and require offsite drilling or pooling.
18 At Brazos Bend State Park, two tracts
19 totalling 3,170 acres have been requested.
20 Conditions associated with this nomination are
21 shown at your Exhibit B. These are our
22 standard restrictions designed to minimize
23 environmental impact. And in this case, there
24 are existing well sites, so we're limiting
25 drilling to those well sites.
.
7
1 Our compensation is our standard
2 recommendation, $150 per acre bonus bid, a 25
3 percent royalty, $10 per acre delay rental for
4 a three-year lease; and for Brazos Bend,
5 surface damages for drill site, $2500 each.
6 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: I did have
7 one question, and that was whether in the
8 Brazos Bend State Park, the existing pads have
9 been mapped. Because one of the conditions is
10 that the drilling would be from existing pads
11 located within the park. Is there a map of
12 those?
13 MS. BOYDSTON: We have them located
14 on aerial photography for that site, and we
15 did fax that to the people that nominated, and
16 they felt like that that was adequate, that
17 they could reach their locations from those
18 pads. And if it turns out that they cannot,
19 they are not able to do that, there are other
20 disturbed locations that we would let them
21 use, but we would prefer to limit them to
22 existing sites.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: But you
24 don't refer to the other (inaudible) do you?
25 MS. BOYDSTON: No. We would like
.
8
1 to limit them to existing well pads. There's
2 two, one in the northern half of the tract,
3 and then one that's more centrally located in
4 tract one where they would be able to reach
5 down into tract two, the other portion that
6 they've nominated, which is where most of the
7 park is. That's where most of the campsites
8 and the facilities are. And we'd like to keep
9 them out of that section if we could.
10 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Okay. Thank
11 you. Are there any other questions?
12 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Move
13 approval.
14 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Second.
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Thank you.
16 Any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor
17 say aye. Those opposed, no. Motion carries.
18 Thank you.
19 (Motion passed unanimously.)
20 MR. HERRING: Ms. Dinkins, I think
21 both of these would qualify for consent agenda
22 if there's no one signing up tomorrow.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
24 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Add that to
25 the motion.
.
9
1 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: All right.
2 The motion has been amended. Thank you.
3 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4: BRIEFING - TPWD
4 IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 1.
5 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
6 item is a briefing on Senate Bill 1. And the
7 materials are on Page 30 that provide the
8 background.
9 MR. MCKINNEY: Thank you, Madam
10 Chairman and Members. For the record I'm
11 Larry McKinney, senior director for aquatic
12 resources. With me today and who will be tag
13 teaming with me is Cindy Loeffler who is head
14 of our water team and basically really the one
15 in charge of trying to implement all the
16 things we're doing with Senate Bill 1. So she
17 does all the work. So I'm going to ask her to
18 help us out on this.
19 It never hurts to take a look at our
20 primary goal for what we're trying achieve in
21 working with water, and certainly it's key to
22 all the issues and activities that we do in
23 the department, to review that very quickly.
24 As far as implementation of Senate Bill 1, we
25 do and are continuing to work in all areas in
.
10
1 partnership with the TNRCC and the Water
2 Development Board to achieve those ends. So
3 what we want to do for you today is kind of
4 present you with a summary of where we are in
5 that process.
6 This is a particularly important time in
7 regards to the planning efforts through the
8 state. As you may recall, the state has been
9 divided into 16 planning regions for the
10 purposes of developing water management
11 strategies to meet other future water needs
12 over the next 50 years. The regional water
13 plans, that is each region, regional planning
14 group is charged in Senate Bill 1 with
15 producing a plan for their region that will be
16 submitted to the Water Development Board in
17 January of 2001. So there's a critical period
18 of time that we're about to enter now in
19 developing those plans. The overall state
20 water plan will be due then the following
21 year.
22 So the planning groups are at various
23 stages of meeting that objective, but it's
24 going to kick into high gear in producing
25 their documents over the winter and
.
11
1 particularly spring. There will be a series,
2 obviously, of public hearings in each of these
3 regions on those water plans through the
4 summer. So that will be a high activity time
5 for all of us. And we're trying to get ready
6 for that and have been.
7 I want to particularly recognize, of
8 course, all of the work that's being done by
9 Parks and Wildlife staff in just every
10 division. In fact, a number of them are here
11 from the coastal division today, which we
12 appreciate all of their support in trying to
13 make our resources available to those planning
14 groups to make sure that fish and wildlife are
15 adequately addressed.
16 One of the things I asked them to do with
17 Cindy's direction is to basically prepare a
18 report card on the planning groups as to where
19 we are in progress of addressing fish and
20 wildlife and environmental issues from the
21 groups. And that's what's reflected on the
22 monitors there of kind of where we are as far
23 as A's, B's and C's. Unfortunately we don't
24 have any A's right now, but we have some
25 groups that are more advanced in dealing with
.
12
1 those issues. And really what this is, and
2 we're going to cover a couple of the issues on
3 how we got to that score, this is not
4 necessarily a rating of how well these groups
5 are including fish and wildlife, but mostly,
6 are they at least considering fish and
7 wildlife impact, environmental issues as part
8 of their development plan, at least as part of
9 that process?
10 And there's some interesting issues, for
11 example, one that we've worked very closely
12 with the Board on is regions -- taking a look
13 at our population projections and water-use
14 scenarios that we have worked on for sometime
15 to make sure that they agree with those. And
16 a number of the regions have not agreed with
17 those projections of population and water use
18 and they're challenging them. But we worked
19 through I think most regions now except for --
20 MS. LOEFFLER: Fourteen.
21 MR. MCKINNEY: We worked through 14
22 regions.
23 MS. LOEFFLER: The 14th will be
24 considered by the Water Development Board
25 today.
.
13
1 MR. MCKINNEY: Okay. And we're
2 getting those worked out. Pretty much they're
3 agreeing with us. I think the one area that
4 will be interesting to look at, that's -- I
5 think it's Region C, which includes Dallas.
6 There are some times we think the city of
7 Dallas is planning on drowning their citizens
8 with water by their high consumptive rates.
9 But we will get through that issue, too.
10 Those will be important to come to agreement
11 on because they will set the stage for what
12 strategies that we'll be developing, how much
13 water we will be needing to meet those
14 demands.
15 One area in which we're working very
16 closely with the regions is in the process or
17 the potential for designation of rivers and
18 streams for their unique ecological value.
19 There's a series of criteria that's been set
20 forth in the rules that these regions can
21 consider in doing so. A provision in the
22 Senate Bill 1 says that -- and this is a local
23 planning type option. Only the local planning
24 groups can propose these, and then the
25 legislature must adopt them. It really is a
.
14
1 direct control, a grassroots control of issues
2 of protecting stream segments and protecting
3 potential reservoir sites. They can do
4 either. It's certainly an important issue for
5 us. We're trying to provide as much
6 information as we can to those planning
7 groups.
8 I think there's been some concerns being
9 raised in some areas about impacts on private
10 property and what all this means. And we're
11 going to be seeking the help of our Private
12 Lands Advisory Committee to get that kind of
13 information out so people understand what
14 these things are and the fact that it's a
15 locally driven option and something that can
16 be of value to them. And so that's another
17 area. Just to give you an example of what
18 we're talking about, all of this information
19 is available on our Web site. We have gone
20 over the entire state based on the criteria
21 that the Bill envisions and identified some
22 potential areas so people -- that the planning
23 groups can use.
24 For example, in that central region if
25 you looked at the Guadalupe River, that's one.
.
15
1 And so in our mapping, you can look and see
2 that that segment of the Guadalupe River down
3 to its confluence in San Antonio Bay -- the
4 Guadalupe Wildlife Management area is there --
5 would meet all of those criteria. That's just
6 one example. So if you want to see in detail,
7 we can either do a paper match for you, but
8 it's available on our Web site in greater
9 detail. That's just an example of what we're
10 doing there.
11 A major concern that we have, and we're
12 going to be putting a lot of emphasis on it
13 from now through the spring, is that the
14 planning groups are so -- there's a lot work
15 they have to do. They are very overwhelmed.
16 But we want to make sure that as they are
17 evaluating their management options, strategy
18 options of how they will meet the water
19 demands, that they include in that evaluation
20 environmental impact, impacts on fish and
21 wildlife, that it's part of that
22 consideration. We, Cindy and I and others,
23 have been in this business for many years, and
24 it has been -- we have commonly observed a
25 trait, whether intentionally or just probably
.
16
1 because of the way it is, that many times
2 environmental considerations get put off until
3 the last, and then all of the sudden everyone
4 raises their hand, "Well, you're holding up
5 our entire project," where they had spent
6 three or four years looking at hydrology and
7 other things and then suddenly they're going
8 to spend three weeks on other considerations.
9 And that's unfortunate because they are
10 important issues.
11 And we're really concerned that because
12 of the press of business that the planning
13 groups may be pushed that direction. So we're
14 taking some actions to try to make sure that
15 we can assist them. Obviously, as I said, we
16 have staff in every one of the planning groups
17 that are available there. We have just
18 completed an evaluation matrix. We would be
19 glad to share that with you that we're going
20 out to the planning regions to say, "Here is a
21 way to evaluate your projects, all types of
22 projects, things you must look at," with the
23 leadership of the Water Development Board.
24 And they instituted this and we're supporting
25 them.
.
17
1 We've arranged over the spring to work
2 with all of the state agencies as well as all
3 the federal resource agencies to bring a
4 series of meetings together with each planning
5 region, to sit down with them and go over
6 every one of their strategies that they're
7 going to come up with to give them the heads
8 up of, "Here are issues that you need to
9 address, here are the fatal flaws, if you
10 will, or the red flags," to try to help them
11 get through that process.
12 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Could you
13 give us a couple of examples?
14 MR. MCKINNEY: Of?
15 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Example of
16 some of the things you have on the evaluation
17 matrix?
18 MR. MCKINNEY: Right. We have
19 ordered all the strategies from a reservoir
20 construction, which typically is the most
21 environmentally impacted and one that you have
22 to deal with instream flows, inundation of
23 wetlands, downstream impacts, all the way down
24 to water conservation, which basically is the
25 least impact. And so for example, under
.
18
1 reservoir construction, we identified that as
2 one strategy that's going to be considered.
3 When you construct a reservoir, we basically
4 in the next part of the matrix, identified all
5 those environmental issues which must be
6 evaluated. What are the impacts on bottomland
7 hardwoods typically, to what extent? How do
8 you categorize those bottomland hardwoods?
9 There are some hardwoods that are more
10 valuable than others. If your site is in one
11 of these high-value areas, you're going to
12 have to deal with a greater amount of
13 mitigation, instream flows, what is the amount
14 of water that might be available? It's just
15 those kind of check marks that they go around
16 and look at.
17 After we have identified those, we then
18 put in some recommendations that if you have
19 instream flow considerations, you may have to
20 have releases from your reservoir on a
21 schedule to meet flooding and those types of
22 things. So that's -- it's a very generalized
23 nature. We know that their consultants
24 understand these issues, but this is written
25 to try to get at those planning group members
.
19
1 so they can get a grasp on just what's
2 involved and so that they will do it, if that
3 helps.
4 I would be glad to provide you a copy, or
5 anyone who's interested, a copy of that
6 matrix -- we just completed it this week -- to
7 take a look at. And we'd like your input on
8 that as to whether it's helpful.
9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Planning
10 groups are receptive to all this help, are
11 they?
12 MS. LOEFFLER: Some more than
13 others.
14 MR. MCKINNEY: Some, yes, some,
15 no. Some groups prefer, they want basically
16 to deal with it on their own from all aspects.
17 They really don't want much interference, and
18 that's our concern. You know, this is --
19 Senate Bill 1 is very clear that this is a
20 grassroots type of effort, that it needs to
21 come from the bottom up. And all we can do is
22 basically say, "We're here, we have these
23 resources, please take advantage of them," you
24 know, basically trying to make sure that
25 there's no excuse not to, but in fact, they
.
20
1 have to do it. And that's about as far as we
2 can go.
3 MR. SANSOM: And that presents us
4 with a real dilemma that we're wrestling with
5 right now. Because if you -- this process,
6 which frankly we began back in the early
7 '90's, and Senator Brown has put in place for
8 us, envisions that at some point in time we
9 would reach consensus on what -- where the new
10 projects will be and what things will be
11 protected and how much water will be left in
12 the rivers and streams. And if we're
13 presented with a situation at the end of this
14 process where we can't do that, then we're
15 going to have a train wreck. And so we've got
16 to find a way to make sure that somehow those
17 considerations be imbued in this process,
18 otherwise we -- the idea of a mutually agreed
19 upon consensus water plan will not work.
20 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Our role is
21 strictly advisory at this time?
22 MR. SANSOM: At this stage, but at
23 the point in time at which we agree on the
24 statewide plan, we're a party.
25 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: But this is
.
21
1 a good process, because the kind of things
2 that you're ticking off that would be in that
3 matrix are things that they're going to run
4 into in a permit when they have to get one for
5 the project. And if it involves those areas,
6 they will have to have a permit.
7 MR. SANSOM: And that's, I think --
8 what Larry will tell you is that's part of our
9 concern right now is that there may not be a
10 universal acceptance of that at this level.
11 MR. MCKINNEY: Or even to a certain
12 degree, a naïveté about that that they're
13 just -- many of these have not participated.
14 They don't recognize that and don't understand
15 it that there's not only a state water permit
16 process, there's a federal process which is
17 entirely outside the scope of any great state
18 influence which deals with 404's and
19 endangered species that they must deal with,
20 and they're just going to have to.
21 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That's what
22 I was thinking about, and that's why I was
23 thinking that it's good that the people on the
24 planning committees recognize that at an early
25 stage so that they don't get really frustrated
.
22
1 when they start trying to get projects
2 approved and they run into those kinds of
3 issues.
4 MR. SANSOM: And I think one of the
5 concerns that we have from an institutional
6 standpoint is we need to make sure that it is
7 not perceived at that point in time that we
8 suddenly just popped up as an obstacle,
9 because I think our guys have been telling
10 these planning groups this all the way along.
11 Thankfully, Senator Brown and the
12 leadership of the other two principal agencies
13 also recognize this dilemma. I mean, it's not
14 something that we're not all sharing as a
15 potential issue that we need to wrestle with.
16 MR. MCKINNEY: I can emphasize that
17 more. We're working very closely with the
18 other two agencies. It's a concern from all
19 perspectives, water quality, all other issues,
20 a great concern how we can do that. And
21 there's -- the matrix we prepared, another one
22 is being prepared by TNRCC and the Board on
23 issues that they deal with, so it will be a
24 pretty impressive package going forward and
25 that type of thing.
.
23
1 What I will do now is -- that's really of
2 course our concerns on the planning groups.
3 I'm going to ask Cindy to review with you very
4 quickly what our status is on other aspects of
5 Senate Bill 1 implementation that we are also
6 involved in.
7 MS. LOEFFLER: Thank you. Senate
8 Bill 1 did other things as well as setting up
9 the regional water planning process, and one
10 of those things that I'm frankly pretty
11 excited about is this concept of creating new
12 water availability models for the state. This
13 is something that is long overdue in needing
14 to happen. And what this will allow us to do,
15 working with the Texas Natural Resource
16 Conservation Commission, to use the best, most
17 current information to analyze how much water
18 is actually available in these basins. You
19 have probably heard by now that many of our
20 river basins in Texas are fully or
21 over-appropriated as far as surface water
22 rights are concerned. So this is a critical
23 issue for us to be able to look at, to have
24 the tool in hand to look at how much water is
25 actually available.
.
24
1 So we have been working from the very
2 beginning with TNRCC on updating these models
3 or creating new models, in some cases, for all
4 22 river basins in the state except for the
5 Rio Grande. And these models will be
6 completed by December 31st, 2001. And one
7 feature that is important from our perspective
8 is that these models are able to represent
9 environmental flow needs, instream flow needs
10 and freshwater inflow needs to the basin
11 estuaries. So we will be able to use these
12 models as tools to look at the impacts of new
13 water development, to look at the impacts of
14 changes in how current water rights are used
15 and to look at reuse, for example. If water
16 is reused, what impact will that have on our
17 aquatic ecosystems.
18 So currently we're at the point where the
19 Sulfur basin is complete. The Neches and
20 Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe basins are in
21 draft form, and we have had a chance to review
22 those. And then the San Jacinto and Trinity
23 basin are currently underway.
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Cindy, are
25 those being modeled by people in-house at
.
25
1 TNRCC?
2 MS. LOEFFLER: No. That was a
3 fairly lengthy start-up process that we went
4 through, but it was for the better, to look at
5 all the models that are available worldwide.
6 We didn't limit ourselves to just the U.S. or
7 Texas even to select the best model available.
8 And as it turns out, there was no model out
9 there that, you know, off the shelf could do
10 what we needed it to do. And interestingly
11 enough, the model that we ended up selecting
12 was one developed at Texas A&M. That then
13 needed to be kind of tailored, if you will,
14 have some things added to it, modified to work
15 for Texas. And then that model then is
16 applied to the different basins by private
17 consulting firms. So we've also gone through
18 an RFQ process to award those contracts.
19 TNRCC is the contract manager.
20 MR. SANSOM: Members, there's no
21 more serious ecological issues with these
22 basin estuaries than this one, not dredging,
23 not development -- nothing comes close to this
24 issue as a potential impact on the basin
25 estuaries out into the future, as a continued
.
26
1 assured-flow of freshwater.
2 MS. LOEFFLER: That's a good segue
3 into the next slide talking about the status
4 of the coastal studies program basin estuaries
5 studies that have been underway in concert
6 with the Texas Water Development Board staff.
7 I'm glad to report that the studies are on
8 schedule, progressing smoothly, and results
9 are now available for the San Antonio Bay
10 System, for the Galveston Bay System.
11 Matagorda Bay was actually modeled by the
12 Lower Colorado River Authority with input from
13 the state agencies. We also have numbers now
14 for Nueces Bay System, Copano Aransas was
15 completed this summer, and we're now turning
16 our efforts to Sabine Lake and the Lower
17 Laguna Madre.
18 And so the water availability models will
19 be able to incorporate these freshwater inflow
20 needs for these estuaries and help us to look
21 at different management scenarios, different
22 water use scenarios. The Regional Water
23 Planning Groups under Senate Bill 1 will have
24 these models available to look at impacts of
25 different management strategies on freshwater
.
27
1 inflows.
2 On the groundwater side of the picture,
3 Parks and Wildlife historically has not been
4 heavily involved in groundwater issues, but
5 thanks to Senate Bill 1, there is now a
6 requirement for the department to complete
7 studies that look at natural resources in
8 areas that are described as priority
9 groundwater management areas, PGMAs. And what
10 that means is an area that is expected to or
11 is currently experiencing groundwater problems
12 due to water quality problems, decline in
13 groundwater levels, future increasing demand,
14 things of that nature, can be designated by
15 the TNRCC as a priority groundwater management
16 area.
17 And so our input into this process is to
18 provide the technical information and data as
19 to the natural resource issues there and
20 potential natural resource problems with
21 respect to groundwater use. So what you see
22 on this slide are the map -- the regions that
23 we completed, the water resources team, this
24 past year. And one little addition that's not
25 on there is for northern Bexar County -- it
.
28
1 was another one that we looked at recently.
2 So at this time --
3 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Cindy,
4 before you move on, on the groundwater, I
5 remember decades of work on instream flows and
6 on flows into the bays and estuaries, but I
7 don't remember seeing a lot in the groundwater
8 area in the last two decades.
9 MS. LOEFFLER: We haven't really
10 had the opportunity, I'll say, to get very
11 involved in groundwater issues. And I think
12 that's primarily due to how groundwater is
13 managed or not managed in Texas.
14 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Not managed.
15 MS. LOEFFLER: And not really an
16 opportunity. But I'm excited to say yesterday
17 I was at a meeting all day, a kickoff looking
18 at groundwater availability modeling that the
19 Texas Water Development Board is currently
20 undertaking. And one of the key primary
21 issues that we talked about is looking at the
22 impact on springflows, looking at how surface
23 water and groundwater interact and how
24 groundwater activities can affect instream
25 flows, freshwater inflows, springs, all of
.
29
1 that.
2 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: It's good to
3 see this kind of work started.
4 MS. LOEFFLER: It's just starting.
5 It's good. Long overdue.
6 Another tool that Senate Bill 1 gave us
7 to use is the Texas Water Trust. The Water
8 Trust is something that will allow a water
9 right holder to dedicate that water right to
10 environmental flow protection. The incentive
11 there is, if a water right has not been used
12 for a period of time, ten years, it
13 technically, legally can be cancelled for
14 non-use. TNRCC can in effect take that water
15 right back. It's not something that TNRCC has
16 exercised in the past, but there is increased
17 emphasis under Senate Bill 1 -- the Regional
18 Planning Groups are directed to look at
19 cancellation, the water availability models
20 will explicitly state water available if
21 cancellation were carried out.
22 So we're looking at this as a mechanism
23 for actually taking water rights that have
24 been granted and dedicating them for a term of
25 time for several years or in perpetuity,
.
30
1 forever, for protecting environmental flows.
2 And so we've been working with the sister
3 agencies, with the Water Development Board and
4 TNRCC, to establish the procedure that the
5 agencies and the water right holders would
6 follow to actually carry this out.
7 And we're pleased to report that we're at
8 the point in time where we're ready to
9 actually deposit a right. And the right that
10 we've been discussing is a Parks and Wildlife
11 Department water right at Sheldon State Park
12 that has not been used for the original
13 intended purpose and can be dedicated to
14 environmental flow protection. So we're
15 hoping --
16 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: That could
17 be a very significant tool for the department.
18 MR. SANSOM: Big, big tool. We are
19 also -- Larry is also working on the San
20 Marcos River for the potential dedication of
21 some water there. I will tell you that,
22 Members and Chairman Dinkins, it's my opinion
23 that in the years out we're going to have to
24 also look for some funding to make
25 acquisitions of water in the way that we make
.
31
1 acquisitions of land today. We will get in a
2 situation where we'll be using everything from
3 duck stamp funds to who knows what else --
4 saltwater fishing funds -- to actually
5 purchase water on the market to put into this
6 trust in order to make sure it's there.
7 MS. LOEFFLER: Excellent. And then
8 finally, as Larry already alluded to, the
9 Texas water web page that my team, the water
10 resources team, created is our -- one of our
11 primary vehicles for getting the data out,
12 getting the information out. All of these
13 reports that you've heard us talk about, the
14 priority groundwater management area reports,
15 the ecologically significant river and stream
16 segments, the freshwater inflow summary
17 reports, all of these things are being posted
18 to this Web site and made available to --
19 especially to the SB 1 Regional Planning Group
20 members, but to anyone who's interested in our
21 issues. And so that is available from our Web
22 site.
23 And I just want to, in closing, reiterate
24 what Larry said about the dedication of the
25 staff from all the agencies and the department
.
32
1 supporting the Senate Bill 1 process. We
2 couldn't have done it just within my program
3 in resource protection.
4 MR. MCKINNEY: With that, Madam
5 Chair, we conclude our report unless there's
6 other questions.
7 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Are there
8 any other questions? Well, thank you. That
9 was an excellent briefing. And Cindy,
10 welcome. I don't think we've had you before
11 the committee.
12 MS. LOEFFLER: Thank you.
13 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: We'll look
14 forward to more briefings.
15 MS. LOEFFLER: Great.
16 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5: BRIEFING - STATUS OF PARK
17 TRANSFERS.
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Our next
19 item is also a briefing, and that is on
20 implementation -- I'm sorry -- the status of
21 the park transfers. And Bob Cook is going to
22 give us that briefing.
23 MR. COOK: Actually, Mr. Dabney is
24 going to make the presentation, Madam
25 Chairman. Thank you-all for being here. And
.
33
1 with me, as I say, is Walt Dabney, our state
2 parks division director.
3 House Bill 2108 provided some funding for
4 the transfer of state park properties to other
5 local governmental entities. And that was an
6 issue that was, of course, very sensitive to
7 us and very sensitive to the people in the
8 communities and our employees in the parks.
9 And so this process we have approached very
10 cautiously, but quite frankly, fairly
11 aggressively to get that word out and make
12 sure that people understand at all ends of the
13 spectrum what the issues are and what the
14 opportunities are. It is not a fire sale.
15 And I think -- I think as Walt will point
16 out to you here, we've had some inquiries,
17 we've had some interest, and we've tried to
18 address each one of them individually. With
19 that, I'm going let Mr. Dabney proceed.
20 MR. DABNEY: Good morning to
21 everyone. House Bill 2108 did provide the
22 opportunity to have up to $2 million a year to
23 facilitate the possible transfer for continued
24 public use of units of the park system. That
25 would be the transfer of the ownership,
.
34
1 operation and maintenance of those sites. Per
2 the Commission's instructions, there was no
3 list. In essence, the 122 sites are all on
4 the table, so to speak, for discussion.
5 As Bob said, we have been very methodical
6 in our approach to this. Letters have gone
7 out, but prior to any of those letters going
8 out, I think -- you saw those letters. We
9 went over to the legislature and briefed the
10 key members of the legislature and let them
11 look at the draft for this. Subsequently we
12 sent a letter out to all of our employees.
13 And I will tell you that there's probably
14 still some consternation out among some of our
15 employees, the thought of losing their park,
16 where they work.
17 Letters subsequently went out to members
18 of the Texas Legislature, Texas Historical
19 Commission, Texas Recreation and Parks
20 Society, the Friends Groups, et cetera, also
21 to other -- to the river authorities,
22 commissioners, et cetera. Letters went to
23 local officials, mayors, county judges, so the
24 county commissions all got them, city managers
25 and that sort of thing.
.
35
1 The criteria that we were using in this
2 approach was that we would be looking at sites
3 in the discussion where the locals clearly
4 understood the needs for that site, whether
5 it's to manage the natural resources, the
6 cultural resources, what all that entailed,
7 their ability to provide that same kind of
8 protection and control and operation, whether
9 it was related to endangered species or the
10 requirements to manage a cultural site under
11 state laws -- federal law, the financial
12 investment and potential long-term financial
13 impacts of these sites, both to Texas Parks
14 and Wildlife; what do these sites do for us
15 financially? And secondly, of interest to the
16 local groups, is if it were not a state park
17 anymore, what would be the impact to us of
18 that not being a state park, and that's come
19 up in a number of these. Local financial
20 ability to operate and maintain the site.
21 We certainly would not want to turn over
22 a site, and as was brought up by the
23 Commission last time, have that site operated
24 for five years and then come back to us. And
25 so we are very open; anything we have as it
.
36
1 relates to financial papers and that kind of
2 thing is available to anybody that wants to
3 talk about this.
4 Two other things: The level of
5 significance. Is this a site that is
6 primarily of local interest or is it a site
7 that truly has a large regional or statewide
8 significance or area of interest? And lastly,
9 it has to be mutually agreed to. I mean, it
10 needs to be good -- a reasonable thing from
11 the state's standpoint and a reasonable thing
12 from the local entity.
13 We have had some inquiries. And this is
14 a list of most -- I think all of the ones that
15 we have had at least an initial contact about,
16 and in a number of these we actually have had
17 face-to-face visits with most often mayors or
18 city managers or a combination of city and
19 county officials. The proposed process that
20 we are using is that we would get a call --
21 and I've had calls -- a couple of calls that
22 just wanted clarification. "What does this
23 mean? Are you trying to get rid of the state
24 park system?" And we assured them that that
25 is certainly not the case here. And, "Are you
.
37
1 trying to get rid of my area?" No, that is
2 not the case either. And then we explained
3 the process.
4 I had actually the Dallas Arboretum
5 called the other day and asked if they were
6 eligible for this. We said -- I said, "I
7 don't think we own you, but do you want to be
8 transferred somewhere?" Anyway, they said,
9 "Well, thanks we were just a little worried.
10 Also saw some possibility of money." I said,
11 "Well, it will have to be somewhere else."
12 The proposed process then would be if
13 they had additional interest, we can either
14 send them some additional financial
15 information or specifics and then have a
16 face-to-face meeting if they wanted to do
17 that. We have had face-to-face meetings with
18 some, others just said we'll call you back.
19 And then the process would move on down the
20 line as you see.
21 Information exchange: Again, we will
22 give folks anything that they would like to
23 make their decision. And we're very
24 forthcoming because we want them to understand
25 fully what it is that they are talking about
.
38
1 doing.
2 The next step would be some formal
3 proposal. And I would assume that that could
4 be a resolution from a city council or a
5 county commission that, yes, this is something
6 we want to do and we propose to do this, and
7 then the steps as you see up there would
8 follow. And we have not gotten past
9 "information exchange" on any of these
10 inquiries at this point in time.
11 So that's kind of where we are. And if
12 you have any questions, I'd certainly be --
13 MR. COOK: I think it's at least
14 worthwhile to note -- of the parks that you
15 saw on the list that we've had the inquiry
16 from, like Walt said, some of them are just
17 like, "What is this? What's going on? We got
18 your letter and what does this mean?"
19 A couple of them have been pretty
20 serious, you know. And Walt and his staff,
21 regional directors and park managers have
22 carried on a significant discussion with a
23 couple of these groups. The process --
24 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: A few of
25 these look like they would be quite
.
39
1 appropriate candidates for that (inaudible).
2 COMMISSIONER AVILA: A few of them
3 look -- some of those, just from your list,
4 would not be appropriate. And so what's the
5 criteria where we're saying, "No, you're going
6 to stay in our system"?
7 MR. DABNEY: That's a good
8 question, Commissioner. And it kind of
9 evolves in the discussion.
10 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Sort of like
11 seceding from the Union in some of those
12 cases.
13 MR. DABNEY: Well, it is. It is,
14 and we talk about the significance. And when
15 I say significance, it's really an area of
16 interest, too. Do you want to turn -- and I
17 don't know which ones you have in mind and
18 I'll not try to play that game at all, but
19 some of them, you know, obviously come to
20 light that that is an area of major interest
21 and has been for a long time to a lot of
22 people.
23 If you turn it into -- if you were to
24 turn it into a city park, would it have the
25 same attraction and that kind of thing? And
.
40
1 the second piece is, is it a critical piece of
2 the -- of that system of parks that we have.
3 There is no set piece that we have to say that
4 this is -- is not one we can further discuss,
5 but it's interesting to watch the evolution
6 and the dialogue, because in most cases folks
7 will say, "You know, we feel pretty good about
8 what it is," or "We want to continue this on
9 with some further discussions." But yes, sir,
10 some of these are more straightforward than
11 others.
12 MR. COOK: The two that were on the
13 list that we're still carrying on some fairly
14 significant discussions with is Lockhart State
15 Park and Lubbock Lake Landmark State Park.
16 And we have real good opportunities there with
17 the local community in one case, with the
18 university and museum group in another case --
19 they are very capable of doing this. And
20 we're just at that point of looking at the
21 economics, you know, of what does it mean to
22 them, what does it mean to us, what are the
23 potentials.
24 One of the things that we want to be
25 careful of here and in working with all these
.
41
1 different groups and different kinds of
2 groups, is to keep the process itself fairly
3 straightforward and fairly simple and
4 something that they're comfortable in working
5 with.
6 And so we wanted to give you that update.
7 And as you saw, if we get to that point where
8 it looks like something is really going to
9 happen with any one of these sites, we will
10 certainly bring that information back to you
11 and advise you of that, keep you posted on
12 that.
13 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Do you
14 envision recommending a more aggressive
15 approach from our standpoint in identifying
16 some who have not volunteered --
17 MR. COOK: We may have to go knock
18 on a door or two, yes, sir.
19 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: If I could
20 interrupt, I'd like the record to show that
21 Commissioner Idsal was able to join us.
22 Welcome, Katharine.
23 MR. SANSOM: I think that one of
24 the things that we discussed this week in
25 preparing for this meeting was the fact that
.
42
1 we need to think about making sure that our
2 process is not inhibiting. What you will see
3 formally is that you'll see if -- and
4 obviously we'll be discussing with you as we
5 go -- but the formal action that you will
6 ultimately take is that you would see an
7 additional item on your park grant list, but
8 it would be classified in this category. And
9 so you would formally approve it in the form
10 of a grant for the purpose of transfer.
11 The interesting thing to me, and as Bob
12 and Walt have told you, is that we've got two
13 sites that we are in fairly active discussion
14 on, and they're very different. They're very
15 different in terms of what they are, the
16 resources that are there, and in fact, the
17 significance of them. So they don't fit
18 that -- they don't fit any easy model.
19 I struggled with this early, you know, to
20 try to see if we could crisply define what we
21 would talk about and what we would not. And I
22 think we all concluded that that's kind of a
23 mistake because there probably may be other
24 types of partnering opportunities out there
25 which would only be disclosed through this
.
43
1 kind of process. For example, although it did
2 not work, in one of the parks that was being
3 discussed, we looked at the possibility of
4 hooking up with a municipal wastewater system
5 as a potential huge savings to us. And that
6 discussion only took place as a result of this
7 inquiry.
8 I have to tell you that it's my opinion
9 that this is very, very important. It is
10 very -- as Walt has eloquently said, it's hard
11 for us to envision many times de-accessing a
12 site, but I believe that we will not be able
13 to do the things that are really important in
14 Texas in the years ahead unless we rigorously
15 look at the things that potentially could be
16 better done by others, and that's what this
17 program seeks to do.
18 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Bob, those
19 two parks, the Lubbock and the Lockhart parks,
20 were ones that I noted on the list that I
21 thought were particularly good candidates, but
22 as you say, for very different reasons. And
23 you couldn't put together a list that would
24 capture both of those very easily.
25 MR. COOK: Like Andy says, I think
.
44
1 one of the most interesting results of this
2 may be that for instance in the discussions
3 that Walt and some of our staff had with the
4 Huntsville folks, this thing of the water
5 hookup. I mean, you're talking hundreds of
6 thousands of dollars. Well, if we could end
7 up in a partnership with a community or with a
8 park in something as a result of this process,
9 maybe a transfer does not take place, but a
10 partnership occurs in which a resulting
11 savings and a better understanding of what is
12 happening out there and what is required to
13 operate that park.
14 Huntsville is really an interesting one
15 because the community has through the years
16 made a lot of demands upon us, has made many,
17 many requests to do this, do that for their
18 park. As that discussion took place and we
19 sat down and started looking at the numbers,
20 looking at revenues, looking at costs, looking
21 at infrastructure repairs, they all kind of
22 begin to go, "Yeah, well, maybe you-all are
23 doing a pretty good job here." And that's a
24 very positive thing and one that I appreciate
25 Walt's efforts on, and that I think we'll have
.
45
1 that opportunity a number of times in the next
2 several years.
3 MR. DABNEY: One other impression
4 on this, to be honest with you, is the
5 significance thing that Andy explained very
6 well. We do have Lubbock Lake as very
7 significant, maybe even internationally, and
8 Lockhart maybe in a different way, more of a
9 local interest but still a state park. I
10 think the other piece of this is, as you
11 really look at all the numbers, not just the
12 gate receipts versus what your operation is,
13 but having to take care of infrastructure --
14 unless you're a fairly significant-sized
15 entity, that's going to be hard to do, because
16 you could sell somebody something that they'd
17 look back on in a few years and say, "What did
18 we take on?" Because if you're a small county
19 or a small town, the infrastructure alone,
20 especially with some of these -- like swimming
21 pools and golf courses -- you're buying
22 yourself a pretty good liability. We know.
23 COMMISSIONER DINKINS: Any other
24 questions? Well, thank you for that briefing.
25 We'll look forward to your progress on this.
.
46
1 Is there any other business to come
2 before this committee? If not, then we will
3 not adjourn but continue until the executive
4 session, which we will announce at the
5 appropriate time. So with that, we will turn
6 to the finance committee.
7
8
9 * * * * *
10 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE ADJOURNED
11 * * * * *
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
47
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS X
4 THE STATE OF TEXAS X
5 I, Rachelle Latino, certified shorthand
6 reporter for the State of Texas, do hereby
7 certify that the above and foregoing 46 pages
8 constitutes a full, true and correct
9 transcript of the minutes of the Texas Parks
10 and Wildlife Commission on November 17, 1999,
11 in the commission hearing room of the Texas
12 Parks and Wildlife Headquarters Complex,
13 Travis County, Texas.
14 I further certify that a stenographic
15 record was made by me at the time of the
16 public meeting and said stenographic notes
17 were thereafter reduced to computerized
18 transcription under my direction and control.
19 Witness my hand this, the 8th day of
20 January 2000.
21
22
23 Rachelle Latino
Certified Shorthand Reporter
24 State of Texas
Certificate No. 6771
25 Expires: 12-31-01