Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission
Conservation Committee
May 29, 2002
Commission Hearing RoomTexas Parks & Wildlife Department Headquarters Complex
4200 Smith School Road
Austin, TX 78744
1
7 BE IT REMEMBERED that heretofore on the
8 29TH day of MAY 2002, there came on to be heard
9 matters under the regulatory authority of the
10 Parks and Wildlife Commission of Texas, in the
11 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks and
12 Wildlife Headquarters complex, Austin, Travis
13 County, Texas, beginning at 10:20 a.m., to wit:
14
15
16
APPEARANCES:
17 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION:
Chair: Katharine Armstrong Idsal, San Antonio,
18 Texas, Chairman
Ernest Angelo, Jr., Vice Chairman,
19 Midland, Texas
John Avila, Jr., Fort Worth, Texas
20 Joseph B.C. Fitzsimons, San Antonio,
Texas
21 Alvin L. Henry, Houston, Texas (Absent)
Philip Montgomery, III, Dallas, Texas
22 Donato D. Ramos, Laredo, Texas
Kelly W. Rising, M.D., Beaumont, Texas
23 Mark E. Watson, Jr., San Antonio, Texas
24 THE PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT:
Robert L. Cook, Executive Director, and
25 other personnel of the Parks and Wildlife
Department.
.
2
1 MAY 29, 2002
2 *-*-*-*-*
3 CONSERVATION COMMITTEE MEETING
4 *-*-*-*-*
5 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: We are reconvening
6 with the Conservation Committee. The first order
7 of business is approval of the committee minutes
8 from the previous meeting. Is there a motion for
9 approval? All in favor? All opposed? Hearing
10 none, motion carries.
11 (Motion passed unanimously.)
12 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 - BRIEFING - CHAIRMAN'S
13 CHARGES.
14 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Next order of
15 business is the chairman's charges. Mr. Cook,
16 will you please make your presentation.
17 MR. COOK: Madam Chairman, I have a
18 couple of items to report, the first of which a
19 suggested revision to the mission statement has
20 been distributed to you that I would like for you
21 to look at. You will recall that this is
22 something we had talked about previously and was
23 recommended in the Bomer report. Both staff and
24 commissioners have submitted recommendations --
25 and before you today is what I believe to be the
.
3
1 best suggestion that incorporates the wording and
2 the meaning that I believe is the intent needed
3 and the intent of the Commission.
4 In a nutshell, the current mission
5 statement is 21 words long. It is a good,
6 concise, clear mission statement that we have all
7 participated in its creation several years ago.
8 Many of us participated in that. And it has
9 served us well. However, the desire to include
10 the words "hunting" and "fishing" in this mission
11 statement have been expressed, and we have looked
12 at that. And before you here is a suggestion of
13 an additional nine words to be added to the
14 mission statement. The proposed statement that
15 you have in front of you does not lose any of the
16 wording or the intent in the original mission
17 statement. But as you can see in the bold print
18 adds, the proposed mission statement reads as
19 follows: "To manage and conserve the natural and
20 cultural resources of Texas and to provide
21 hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation
22 opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present
23 and future generations."
24 I would appreciate your thoughts,
25 suggestions, and comments and your recommendations
.
4
1 of how we proceed.
2 COMMISSIONER IDSAL: Are there any
3 questions or comments?
4 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Good change.
5 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Good change.
6 I agree. Great change.
7 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Well done.
8 Can we put a hook and a bullet in our symbol now?
9 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: I think I do want
10 to make a comment to this. I think Bob Cook was
11 correct, that we have operated under a good
12 mission statement. But I think it was important
13 and is important that we recognize fully and
14 appreciate fully our constituents. And over -- or
15 close to half of our revenues come directly or
16 indirectly from hunting, fishing, and outdoor
17 recreation. And I don't think it's an unhealthy
18 thing to remind ourselves of that on a regular
19 basis when we wake up in the morning and try to
20 figure out what it is that we need to do in our
21 job everyday. And I want to thank everybody for
22 their comments and for participating in this. And
23 I think I speak for the Commission in saying that
24 we are pleased with this change. Thank you,
25 Mr. Cook.
.
5
1 MR. COOK: Thank you, Madam
2 Chairman. We will proceed as directed. The
3 second item I want to touch on here, and is going
4 to come up in our agenda item number 2, under the
5 chairman's charges, to develop a Statewide Land
6 and Water Resources Conservation and Recreation
7 Plan. We will visit with you about that, tell you
8 where we are on this project in agenda item number
9 2 in the Conservation Committee this morning.
10 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 - LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION
11 PLAN UPDATE.
12 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: The next order of
13 business is committee item number 2, the Land and
14 Water Conservation Plan update. Mr. Cook, will
15 you make your presentation? And we welcome Jeff
16 Francell and Emily Armitano.
17 MR. COOK: Thank you, Madam
18 Chairman. Commissioners, we started this process
19 early last year. Staff has worked with many of
20 our constituents internally. This is truly an
21 interdivisional project. Jeff Francell and Emily
22 Armitano have led this effort, and nobly, I would
23 add.
24 The Chairman last year appointed an
25 ad hoc committee, including several of you as
.
6
1 members of that committee, to follow this project
2 along -- also a couple of folks from the outside
3 of our organization who have particular interest
4 and involvement in our business and in our
5 responsibilities. And they have served us well.
6 We have worked through the winter and spring. Our
7 first draft, our first written draft of this plan
8 was submitted for the ad hoc committee to review,
9 comment on, look at, and -- earlier this month.
10 And review it, they did.
11 We spent the better part of a day in
12 that process, had several good suggestions. Jeff
13 and Emily have been working frantically since that
14 time rearranging, reorganizing, and placing some
15 additional emphasis in some areas and, you know,
16 offering some new direction in some areas.
17 Our plan is to come back to you in
18 August for the full commission to adopt this plan,
19 which we will utilize to direct us over the next
20 ten-year period.
21 The next step in the process, quite
22 frankly, will be our second draft. The first
23 draft is currently available to the public on our
24 Website. The second draft will be available to
25 the public for comment and input throughout this
.
7
1 entire process. We'll go through probably six to
2 eight public hearings in the state during the
3 months of June and July. And probably -- we'll
4 gauge this along, but probably will not need to
5 get back together with the ad hoc committee until
6 late July, maybe early August. But I do think it
7 would be valuable for that group to get back
8 together after we get our public input, get our
9 comments, prior to the August commission meeting.
10 With that, I would like to introduce
11 Jeff and Emily. If you have any questions, I'd be
12 glad to touch on them. Jeff and Emily will give
13 you a brief on where we are and what is in this
14 plan.
15 MR. FRANCELL: Morning. Jeff
16 Francell and Emily Armitano. And we have been
17 working with staff on the Land and Water Plan.
18 It's been an interesting process. We have done
19 this entirely in-house, unlike several of the
20 other efforts that have been done in the past.
21 The first thing -- and you've heard
22 this information before, so we'll go through it
23 relatively quickly. But the bill required us
24 to -- the bill required us to inventory all land
25 and water associated with historical, natural,
.
8
1 recreational, and wildlife resources owned by
2 governments and nonprofits that offer public
3 access.
4 Then we were supposed to develop --
5 or we are developing a plan -- this is straight
6 from the bill -- that analyzes the State's
7 existing and future land and water conservation
8 needs; identifies threats; and establishes the
9 importance of conserving particular resources or
10 priorities.
11 The first thing that we did was an
12 inventory of -- just like the bill asked us to, of
13 all state parks, wildlife management areas,
14 federal wildlife refuges, national parks, and
15 local parks. Master planning in the
16 infrastructure division led this effort. They got
17 data about trail miles on federal properties, the
18 names of all local parks. An incredible amount of
19 data was gathered. An important thing to note is
20 that the bill requires that we maintain this data
21 in some shape or form, and we're working on that
22 as well.
23 The next thing, using the data that
24 we gathered -- we gathered a number of information
25 about water -- was to prioritize bays and
.
9
1 estuaries in terms of conservation, prioritize our
2 instream flow study needs. Parks and Wildlife and
3 the Water Development Board and TNRCC are required
4 to conduct instream flow studies as part of Senate
5 Bill 2. And this effort that we did with water
6 was to analyze our priorities for analyzing
7 instream flow needs.
8 We also gathered information about
9 our ecologically significant stream segments and
10 waterways that have impaired water quality.
11 We also conducted a recreation
12 analysis. This is -- map is illustrative of an
13 assumption that we started with at the beginning
14 of this effort, that this area, this triangle and
15 also including the Valley, represents 75 percent
16 of the population of Texas. The assumption was
17 that Parks and Wildlife had a number of lands
18 accessible to the public, but that they weren't
19 close to where the people are. And this graphic
20 depicts that. Only 25 percent of our properties
21 are actually located in this area, which is about
22 60 miles from Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, and
23 San Antonio, and the interstates that connect
24 them, as well as the Valley.
25 Another analysis that we looked at
.
10
1 was financial data on all of our state parks and
2 wildlife management areas. We started out with
3 the assumption that we should look at what people
4 were paying for when they visited our sites and
5 how successful our state Parks & Wildlife
6 management areas were in capturing revenue. It
7 was a little bit discouraging. Eleven of our 129
8 state parks pay for themselves on an operational
9 basis. Thirteen of our 52 wildlife management
10 areas do the same thing. But when you include
11 administrative overhead and capital costs, none of
12 our parks pay for themselves, or wildlife
13 management areas.
14 This graphic, it's a little hard to
15 see. But the red dots kind of stick out. These
16 are our 20 most popular state parks. This map
17 follows that assumption that people are visiting
18 those areas that are closer to their houses or
19 closer to where they live. The parks here are
20 basically followed in that triangle area and South
21 Texas, with the exception of Palo Duro Canyon and
22 Davis Mountains State Park, which are
23 destinations.
24 There's another figure that's hard
25 to see here. But we also looked at -- of our 20
.
11
1 most popular state parks, how much of -- how many
2 of them are associated with a water feature,
3 either a significant creek, river, coastline,
4 lake. And 80 percent of our top 20 were
5 associated with a water feature.
6 The next thing we did was take a
7 look at Parks and Wildlife and federal parks &
8 wildlife refuges and national forests and the
9 services that they were providing. We combined
10 them, and then we analyzed how they were serving
11 various city units, not city limits, but city
12 units. So we combined Houston and its major
13 suburbs, Dallas and its major suburbs. And Emily,
14 if you've got anything to add, please do.
15 This is a look at acreages provided
16 to each of the top 25 cities. The cities in
17 orange are the major cities in Texas, the top
18 five: Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio,
19 and Austin. The cities in light green are the
20 communities in the Valley, which are experiencing
21 some of the fastest growth in Texas. So the
22 highest acres per capita is there at Corpus
23 Christi, with 275 acres. And the lowest is
24 Wichita Falls, with, I think, less than two.
25 The next thing we looked at -- and
.
12
1 I'll go through these relatively quickly -- were
2 campsites per 100,000 people. And this is, again,
3 on federal property and on state parks and
4 wildlife management areas. An interesting thing
5 here is that Houston has the highest available
6 land to it, federal or state, but some of the
7 lowest campsites of the major cities -- or the
8 lowest campsites.
9 We looked at hiking trails the same
10 way. You can see that there's a fairly
11 significant drop-off and the major cities are
12 served less than some of the other communities.
13 Equestrian trails -- mountain biking --
14 We also conducted a conservation
15 analysis by ecoregion of land resources. We
16 looked at lands operated under wildlife management
17 plans, lands publicly owned or owned by nonprofits
18 strictly for conservation. And we looked at -- we
19 compared that to land fragmentation data from the
20 Texas A&M study, as well as population growth.
21 We also looked at diversity,
22 biodiversity by ecoregion, and came up with a
23 number of conclusions.
24 This map shows the conservation
25 lands by ecoregion. The highest would be the
.
13
1 Trans Pecos, with about seven and a half percent.
2 The lowest would be the rolling plains with less
3 than half a percent.
4 This next map is wildlife management
5 plans. The percentages are significantly higher.
6 The South Texas Plains has the highest lands
7 operated under wildlife management plans
8 percentagewise, 13.3. And the Rolling Plains, I
9 believe, is the lowest, with about 2.7.
10 The diversity analysis, South Texas
11 came up number one. The Gulf Coast Prairies were
12 number two. And the High Plains ended up with the
13 least diversity for any ecoregion in Texas.
14 We also looked at our historic
15 sites. We did two -- you could consider three
16 evaluations of our historic sites. First of all,
17 we evaluated all 35 of our sites and we ranked
18 them, categorized them. The sites that came out
19 relatively low were Acton, the Confederate Reunion
20 Grounds, Lipantitlan, and Starr Family Home. The
21 sites that came out high, as you could expect, the
22 Battleship, Huecotanks. I won't read them all,
23 but those are the sites that we have focused a lot
24 of resources on.
25 And we also -- the next analysis
.
14
1 that we did were gaps in our system, what areas,
2 what historic time periods that were missing. And
3 we're still in the process of finishing up that
4 analysis. And we'll report that to you as soon as
5 we're complete.
6 These are some general conclusions
7 from the plan. There are a number of more
8 conclusions, but we'll give you four here, and the
9 draft will have many more and we'll get your
10 comments on those.
11 But we're to focus acquisition near
12 growing urban centers. We should support the
13 implementation and continuation of our instream
14 flow studies. Doubling lands under wildlife
15 management plan will be a goal of this plan. And
16 working closely with the Historical Commission on
17 either divestiture or acquisition of additional
18 historic sites. And the draft of this plan will
19 be ready by mid-June. I think that's it, unless
20 you have any questions.
21 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Are there any
22 questions of Jeff and Emily?
23 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Just a
24 comment on great work. There's a lot to this.
25 They made it look a lot easier today.
.
15
1 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: I have some
2 comments. I've worked with Jeff and Emily and
3 staff since last fall, when we got underway on
4 this. And there was a lot of impetus to go
5 outside to do a lot of the work. And we wisely
6 chose to rely on our very, very capable staff.
7 And I just want you-all to know what a phenomenal
8 job this agency has done compiling the data, doing
9 the inventories, doing everything from the
10 graphics to the brainstorming to the different
11 meetings we've had. I couldn't be more proud.
12 And I believe that in August we will have a plan
13 that is results oriented, that is measurable, and
14 that is long on substance. And we have the staff
15 to thank for that. Thank you very much.
16 MR. FRANCELL: Thank you.
17 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 - STREAMBED TASK FORCE
18 UPDATE.
19 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Next item, number
20 three, streambed task force update. Dr. McKinney,
21 will you please make your presentation?
22 DR. McKINNEY: Madam Chairman and
23 members, appreciate the opportunity to talk with
24 you today. With me is Robert Sweeney. Bob
25 Sweeney will help answer any questions you might
.
16
1 have, particularly on legal issues.
2 In starting at this point I want to
3 thank the Commission and certainly the members of
4 our task force, our 25-person task force who --
5 all of them have other things to do and jobs. And
6 they took time off. Several -- throughout this
7 process to come and meet with us here and
8 different places. And I appreciate their work. I
9 think it was very valuable. I know that two
10 members are here today, John Robinson and Reagan
11 Houston, and maybe others. But two of those task
12 force members are here and I want to thank them
13 personally. They all put a lot of effort into it
14 and I appreciate it. There's John over there.
15 Also would mention staff folks who
16 have been working on this: Bob Spain, Melissa
17 Parker back here, Dr. Bill Harvey, who wrote on
18 this project, as well. A lot of folks put a lot
19 of time, not just those, but others in the staff
20 to put this together.
21 So what is it? Let's go over
22 some -- we have this report in just about every
23 permutation you can think of to make it accessible
24 to you. If you want it in hard copy, it's this.
25 If you want it on a CD, it's this. If you have
.
17
1 computer access to it, it's all on our Website.
2 So the complete set of things are available in any
3 other way. Melissa back here in the corner, for
4 anyone here, if you want anything today or
5 whatever, whatever form you want it in, Melissa
6 can get it to you, today or in the mail or however
7 you wish to. So that's the mechanics of what
8 we're doing. So let's kind of go over a brief
9 summary of the content.
10 First in kind of summarizing the
11 results of the task force, we tried to do that
12 very quickly under four headings, and which we'll
13 briefly head up just a couple of highlights on,
14 starting first with the use-versus-abuse type of
15 thing. And this was, of course, the attention of
16 a lot of our task force work, is trying to come to
17 the conclusion, is this one vehicle or is it a
18 hundred vehicles or is it no vehicles? How can
19 we -- how can you determine when you're using a
20 resource -- when a use of a resource of an area
21 becomes abuse? As you might expect, the opinions
22 have varied widely in the task force. There is no
23 consensus. But that was one of those issues that
24 we discussed.
25 We talk about access. All of the
.
18
1 groups, all the members of the task force were
2 very clear, they all supported and wanted to
3 promote access to these resources, but it was the
4 means, of course. And that some means, like
5 motorized vehicles to some, were not an
6 appropriate way of accessing these, that even
7 those that had concerns about motorized vehicles
8 wanted to make it clear that we're not talking
9 about a pedestrian walking, paddling, canoeing,
10 fishing, those types of things. That's not what
11 we're talking about. It's just one focused issue.
12 And one of the things that made it
13 particularly difficult for us is access and public
14 lands access here. And this issue of motorized
15 vehicles impacts is a nationwide issue. A lot of
16 it in the western states where we see lots of
17 public lands where they're dealing with these
18 issues. Our particular problem in Texas is that
19 we don't have a lot of public lands. Our public
20 lands are -- I guess I would say kind of two
21 dimensional. They're long and linear. And so
22 what that does is that focuses these types of
23 activities in a very small area and really makes
24 our problem much more acute perhaps, than other
25 parts of the country where they have options, they
.
19
1 can go other places and do other things. These
2 folks don't have those here. And so that has
3 certainly focused the problem for us.
4 While we do not have any particular
5 Texas studies on these issues and impacts, there's
6 been a lot of work done around the country. We've
7 reviewed that work. Our specialists have looked
8 at it and agree that these types of activities can
9 be ecologically harmful. And it is an issue that
10 we have to look at as far as resource impacts.
11 And user conflicts -- and this is
12 something that, again, kind of a
13 Texas-specific-type issue, where the way we
14 determine the separation between public and
15 private properties in the state, the gradient in
16 boundary process, where we talk about what rivers
17 and streams are navigable, and therefore
18 accessible to the public and are not, is just
19 extraordinarily confusing. We will -- unless the
20 Legislature were to take this up -- and it would
21 probably be foolish to do so, to some extent --
22 we're going to deal with this problem, you know,
23 into the future because it is just -- there's just
24 not a clear way of laying that out. So there will
25 be conflict -- and frankly growing conflict as
.
20
1 more and more of these resources are being used in
2 public for access. And so that's just going to be
3 an ongoing issue that we will have to -- likely
4 have to deal with.
5 One of the things that we added to
6 this report was a section of conclusions. And I
7 want to make sure that you understand in the
8 conclusions that these -- the conclusions section
9 of the report was put together by staff. It's not
10 necessarily the result of the consensus or
11 agreement by the task force. But as staff went
12 through and worked with this task force and
13 accumulated all this material that we looked at,
14 we felt it was important to kind of lay down some
15 basic issues that we've found. And that's what I
16 would review with you now.
17 And a couple of those is -- one, of
18 course, is that in talking with the other
19 agencies, TNRCC and the GLO and others, that we
20 reached the conclusion that no state agency has
21 the authority to regulate those motorized vehicle
22 uses in Texas streambeds. It doesn't exist. We
23 certainly could find no consensus solution within
24 existing law that gained support of all the
25 stakeholders to try to resolve this without
.
21
1 looking at -- we couldn't come up with anything.
2 Our staff concluded and looked at
3 that, in fact, the use of motor vehicles in
4 streambeds is an ecologically harmful activity in
5 Texas. I think the basic point there is that it's
6 not a sustainable activity. That we use resources
7 across the state in many ways, but this is one of
8 those activities that just could not be sustained
9 through the future. So that was the conclusion we
10 reached. And that is certainly a conclusion and a
11 view that's held by organized users and
12 manufacturers and others where they have come up
13 with their guidelines called "Tread Lightly,"
14 where it recognizes that we should minimize these
15 impacts to streams and rivers. That supported the
16 conclusion. How you actually apply that may be --
17 have a different view on it. But that was the
18 conclusion our staff reached.
19 As part of this, we also looked at
20 river access. It certainly exists, and some areas
21 it's good and other places it's not. But it is
22 largely inadequate. That's one of the reasons
23 that we have a problem. Certainly venues for
24 off-road vehicle recreation are not adequate
25 because they are in the river and the riverbeds.
.
22
1 They are using those public lands and they don't
2 have other places to go. So that was certainly an
3 issue. And those two points are important should
4 the Legislature take this issue up and try to
5 address it, that actions to address this issue
6 have to consider these facts. Because if you deal
7 with this issue as it probably appropriately
8 should be, then the pressure will still be there
9 to make use of these resources. So we have to
10 address that issue or we'll create more of a
11 problem than perhaps we already have.
12 Towards that end, two legislative
13 committees have been looking at this issue. The
14 Joint Interim Committee on Water has held a
15 hearing on this topic. In that hearing, they
16 commended the work of the task force that we
17 presented to them at that time. They appreciated
18 all the -- thought it had worked and that it was a
19 good stakeholder group that represented all the
20 views.
21 One of the things that they
22 requested of us -- and this is -- we need your
23 guidance -- is that the work of the task force be
24 extended to look at some -- developing some
25 options that that interim committee could consider
.
23
1 in developing their legislative package. They
2 have asked us to do that and for you-all to
3 consider extending that work to that end. And
4 they have requested an update report from us on
5 June 12th. That's tentative right now. They have
6 a June 12th hearing on this interim committee and
7 they've asked us to report. That has not been
8 confirmed yet, but we're pretty sure that's going
9 to happen. So that would be the next level of
10 activity for us.
11 I've met with Representative Dan
12 Ellis. He has been appointed by Chairman Kuempel
13 in the House Committee on Recreational Resources
14 to head up a subcommittee on this issue. He is
15 anticipating that they will probably hold a
16 hearing or hearings on this topic sometime in
17 July. And will ask us obviously to support them
18 then. So that's kind of -- that's the extent of
19 where we are legislatively. I think that was it.
20 So at this point -- and I tried to
21 keep this brief. But certainly Bob or I or any
22 others will be glad to answer any questions or go
23 with it -- where you want at this point. So we're
24 open to questions.
25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Are there any
.
24
1 questions of the Commission? This has been a very
2 important issue. If you have any comments or
3 questions -- Commissioner Montgomery?
4 COMMISSIONER MONTGOMERY: Well, when
5 you first brought up the question should we take
6 any action, I assume the assumption here is that
7 there is no action, even tangential, that you
8 think is appropriate for us to take and that this
9 is something that needs to be addressed by the
10 Legislature.
11 DR. McKINNEY: As we worked through
12 this process, we looked at all the options of
13 things that we could do. And none of them didn't
14 create more problems than we already had without
15 that direction. So that's correct, the
16 Legislature seemed to be the appropriate -- to lay
17 out -- what do you want to do.
18 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Larry, I
19 don't know if this is for you or for Robert, but
20 expound a little bit on the conclusion that there
21 is no authority in this streambed and is there any
22 disagreement on that issue? Is that pretty clear?
23 MR. SWEENEY: If you'd like me to
24 take that -- Bob Sweeney. The one concern I have
25 about addressing that issue with a great deal of
.
25
1 frankness in this forum is that, you know, it's
2 still within y'all's authority to direct us to do
3 something under existing law. And I could -- I
4 don't want to give a road map for the challenges
5 that could be offered to a -- to something that
6 you could direct us to do under existing
7 authority.
8 We don't -- there's certainly -- we
9 can all say that there is nothing in our Parks and
10 Wildlife Code that says that the Texas
11 Department -- Parks and Wildlife Department has
12 authority to regulate motor vehicles in
13 state-owned riverbeds or has any general authority
14 except in Chapter 1 where it talks about -- there
15 are some general statements about the riverbeds in
16 Chapter 1.
17 So it's not clear. And we've had
18 this -- we've had the -- when we're dealing with
19 an issue that has, I think, this much -- a lot of
20 issues on both sides, and absent any kind of clear
21 direction from the Legislature like that, it's
22 been our judgment that we haven't been given that
23 kind of authority by the Legislature. And we
24 would certainly expect to be challenged if we
25 tried to assert it based on some -- on some of the
.
26
1 theories that have been offered by various people
2 on -- under the Parks and Wildlife Code.
3 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Mr. Sweeney, we
4 would not -- or you would not be comfortable
5 issuing a legal opinion to the effect that we do
6 not have authority?
7 MR. SWEENEY: I'm happy to say, yes,
8 that is my opinion. We do not have the authority.
9 I think that -- I think that's -- the case is much
10 better that we don't have that authority and we
11 would be more likely to -- and that's -- under the
12 current -- and let me point out that under the
13 current facts as we -- that my opinion is limited
14 to the current facts as we know them. If other
15 facts are learned, if the facts change, then the
16 opinion could change. But under the facts as we
17 know them and the law that we have, no, I don't
18 believe -- I think the better answer is that we
19 don't have authority.
20 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: And the
21 GLO participated in this task force, also?
22 DR. McKINNEY: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: And it's
24 their opinion, likewise, that they do not have
25 authority to regulate?
.
27
1 MR. SWEENEY: That's right.
2 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Okay. But
3 you're saying that we don't have the authority to
4 stop the ecological damage to the Texas riverbeds?
5 MR. SWEENEY: The facts that we have
6 right now are that we have preliminary views from
7 our scientists about -- limited data about what
8 they're seeing out there in the riverbeds.
9 I don't say that if we didn't have
10 more evidence, a greater evidence about habitat
11 destruction, that we might not be able to do more.
12 But of the facts that we have right now, no, I
13 don't think we have sufficient authority to go
14 ahead.
15 COMMISSIONER WATSON: Well, I had a
16 conversation over the last two days with a very
17 senior member of the Legislature. You know, he
18 felt like that the Legislature would be more
19 receptive to assisting us if we did take a stand
20 and somebody said -- you know, took an opposite
21 opinion and that they would be more compelled to
22 step in and help us. And I can understand that.
23 Because I think every fair-minded Texan would
24 understand that this is an inappropriate use of
25 the resource. And I think that we -- you know, I
.
28
1 think that we need to -- I just think we need to
2 do everything we can. I think we need to be
3 aggressive. I think we -- you know. But anyway,
4 that's just the way I feel about it.
5 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: If I could add,
6 I've looked into it to some extent. And I agree
7 with you, the jurisdiction is questionable and
8 very limited at best. And I agree with you,
9 Commissioner Watson, that this is clearly an
10 inappropriate use of the riverbeds. But whether
11 we have the jurisdiction is a serious issue. And
12 perhaps we ought to listen to the Legislature and
13 let them give us some guidance or determine who
14 should take jurisdiction. But it's a very serious
15 problem. I mean, it's disruptive to families out
16 on riverbeds and children that are out there
17 playing. So it's a serious issue.
18 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: I thought
19 it was very interesting when I read the report
20 that the manufacturers are unanimous that this is
21 inappropriate.
22 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner
23 Angelo?
24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: I had a couple
25 of questions. One, do you envision the members of
.
29
1 this committee or representatives of the committee
2 or study committee meeting with the legislative
3 committee or giving testimony, other than
4 presenting the report in writing?
5 DR. McKINNEY: In fact, a number of
6 them did. At the hearing that the interim
7 committee called -- and I can't remember the date,
8 I'm sorry -- in February. They invited several
9 members of our task force. They tried to be
10 balanced between all views to come and testify in
11 a divided forum, and they did. They also took
12 public testimony that day. And that went on
13 throughout the day. So I know the question --
14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Is that going
15 to occur in July, though?
16 DR. McKINNEY: I don't know the form
17 of what they will do in June -- on June 12th. I
18 don't know if they'll have public testimony. They
19 have just informed me they wanted an update on our
20 final report and also a response to the request
21 where we continue to do a little more work with
22 them. Whether they take it further for public
23 testimony, they have not told me that.
24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Well, in line
25 with what Commissioner Watson said, certainly
.
30
1 we've had a lot of individuals and property
2 owners, whatever, that have come before us and
3 talked about the concerns that they have about
4 the -- what they believe to be improper use of the
5 streambed by vehicles and so on. But I also feel,
6 at the same time, that this is clearly a matter
7 for the Legislature to take up.
8 So I don't know whether it's a
9 matter of them helping us so much as it is helping
10 the property owners in solving the problem. So do
11 you feel that it's -- from your study of it and
12 your exposure to the legislative process, that
13 they're expecting us to come to tell them what we
14 want them to do? Or where do you think it lies at
15 this point?
16 DR. McKINNEY: The request from the
17 interim committee was that to make use of our task
18 force, which has a well-balanced group of
19 stakeholders, to develop some options for them to
20 consider, the interim committee to consider. And
21 then the interim committee, as you would typically
22 do, they would take those and perhaps use them or
23 not and take them on and develop --
24 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Do you feel
25 that you've done that -- that we've done that?
.
31
1 DR. McKINNEY: No, we have not done
2 that --
3 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: We're not
4 there yet?
5 DR. McKINNEY: We have not done
6 that. All we have done in this report is -- put
7 together here -- is to lay the facts out as best
8 we can and reach a few conclusions. We have not
9 developed any legislative options -- or that we
10 would offer or we would have presented them to you
11 today, obviously. But that really wasn't the
12 charge of the committee at this point. So we
13 haven't done that.
14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: When would you
15 expect to do that?
16 DR. McKINNEY: Well, if you so -- if
17 you-all so direct us to continue to work with the
18 task force and the interim committee, we -- my
19 anticipation would -- that our staff, working with
20 that task force, would develop some options
21 this -- over this June, that type of thing, and
22 report to the interim committee by the end of the
23 month, something like that, with those options.
24 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner Avila?
25 COMMISSIONER AVILA: Which
.
32
1 legislator would introduce, you know, the bill or
2 whatever to -- based on our -- who is going to
3 champion this? Is it Chairman Kuempel?
4 DR. McKINNEY: No. I don't know at
5 this time. We've talked to -- have been requested
6 by several legislators that have interest in this.
7 They're going to -- they're going to -- in fact --
8 I'm sorry, I can't remember the representative's
9 name from the San Antonio area -- Jones?
10 Representative Jones?
11 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Elizabeth Jones.
12 DR. McKINNEY: Elizabeth Jones. And
13 she said, "I'm going to do something" and several
14 others have done so. So the interest is there.
15 Certainly the interim committee could, some member
16 of that committee could do something. My opinion
17 is, yes, there's going to be more than one
18 legislator introduce some bill of some type, but I
19 don't know what they might be, but they will.
20 COMMISSIONER AVILA: It sounds like,
21 like they've have all said, they're looking to us
22 to provide the ammunition.
23 DR. McKINNEY: Well, they would
24 like -- at least mostly they've said, look, y'all
25 put together a task force that had everybody's
.
33
1 views on it. You collected all this information.
2 It's a good resource for us. And would you ask
3 that task force, not to necessarily come up with
4 the piece of legislation that would work, but lay
5 out some options and put them in front of the task
6 force and have the members of the task force give
7 the pluses and minuses of those options so they
8 can have that, so they can move the process along.
9 It's what they would -- frankly, they would do it.
10 The legislative interim committee would do it, but
11 we've already got the task force together. That's
12 why they asked us to do it.
13 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Commissioner
14 Fitzsimons?
15 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Question
16 for Bob. This is a -- calls for a short answer.
17 I know it's more complicated than this. But could
18 you give us a brief overview of what other states
19 have done, maybe in categories of legislation? I
20 would guess mainly western and arid states that
21 have dry riverbeds.
22 MR. SWEENEY: Yes, sir. I'd say
23 what the other states have done fall into four
24 categories. First of all, there are -- there is
25 at least one state where the practice is legal and
.
34
1 they haven't -- it's just allowed. And that's
2 Kansas, the one that I know of. And I haven't
3 done a comprehensive survey, but I've looked at
4 about 20 states. Some states responded to us that
5 they just didn't have this issue in their state,
6 and typically those were the wetter states, places
7 where it's just not practical to drive. In some
8 states, they have just simply banned the practice,
9 Wisconsin and Missouri come to mind. In other
10 states, they have essentially enacted a
11 comprehensive river-use law. And Montana is
12 probably the best example of that. And basically
13 if you go to Montana, you know you can't drive in
14 the rivers, but you also do know what you can do.
15 And there are a lot of provisions about how you
16 enjoy the rivers in Montana that address a lot of
17 the issues about river use, river access, river
18 enjoyment that are really not as well addressed in
19 other states.
20 Louisiana, like 33 states, has a
21 scenic rivers law, which allows for the creation
22 of management plans. And that's another mechanism
23 whereby individual rivers could be protected or
24 dealt with under a management plan that's directed
25 specifically at that water body. They don't have
.
35
1 a blanket prohibition, but that's a mechanism.
2 And then there are a couple of other
3 states, New Mexico and Arizona, that have sort of
4 a game and fish approach to the deal, that --
5 that -- where if you can demonstrate habitat
6 issues, habitat destruction, then you can ban the
7 use of motor vehicles in certain areas. So there
8 are a lot of different approaches. To my way of
9 thinking, the Montana approach is particularly --
10 is particularly strong.
11 Let me make one other point, though,
12 at the risk of making a long answer even longer.
13 And that is that when you look at Arizona and
14 California, in particular, they have very
15 well-developed off-highway vehicle recreational
16 programs in their states. There are at least a
17 hundred sites in the state of California. A lot
18 of them are snowmobile sites, to be fair. But
19 there are a lot of places where you can go in the
20 state -- there is a division of their state parks
21 that develops these sites, that promotes them,
22 funded by a state -- by a portion of the state gas
23 tax, as well as federal gas tax revenues. Same
24 thing in Arizona. We don't have that. We don't
25 have anything approaching that in Texas.
.
36
1 So you're talking about essentially
2 a constituency here, if you will, people who enjoy
3 a certain form of outdoor recreation in an
4 inappropriate place, but other states have figured
5 out a way to move that recreational use to a more
6 appropriate place. And that is something that
7 could be a component of a solution, it seems to
8 me, that would get broader stakeholder support in
9 this state.
10 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Thank you.
11 That was very helpful.
12 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Answer your
13 question?
14 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Yeah.
15 Learned more right there than I have --
16 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: One other
17 issue. Do any of these other states, are they
18 focusing on their legislation or on their laws on
19 a public safety issue as compared to an impact on
20 the environment, or is it a combination of both?
21 Because I can see some public safety issues. If
22 you have a family that's wading in the middle of
23 that river and there's a 4x4 racing up the river,
24 that's clearly a public safety issue.
25 MR. SWEENEY: I think one thing
.
37
1 that's really unusual -- no, I don't think you see
2 that, Commissioner Ramos. And the reason I think
3 that we have such an unusual situation in this
4 state, and it's just a fluke, I would say, of how
5 our -- how the ownership and management of our
6 state riverbeds has come about. In almost every
7 state, unappropriated state land is dedicated to
8 the management of the state land commission. And
9 I can't say that's true for all 50 states, but
10 that's certainly the norm. Somebody has
11 authority, generally speaking, over unappropriated
12 state lands. The General Land Office would be a
13 logical person in the state because they're the
14 Land Commission. But for reasons of constitution
15 and case law, they don't.
16 So in most places, you would have
17 that, you know -- whether it's speed limits or
18 traffic laws or that sort of thing, or just the
19 general power, like we have on our state parks, to
20 say, "Yeah, you can drive here but you can't drive
21 there. You can swim here, you can't swim there."
22 You know, those sorts of safety-related things.
23 And that's just a gap, if you will, in the
24 management of unappropriated lands in this state.
25 COMMISSIONER RAMOS: Thank you.
.
38
1 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Will our
2 legislative options address that issue, or could
3 they address that issue of authority and who --
4 where should it lie, where does it -- what is the
5 logical place for it to be?
6 DR. McKINNEY: We can. We can make
7 whatever recommendations that we need to. We
8 certainly can.
9 MR. SWEENEY: The Legislature could
10 dedicate the surface estate in riverbeds to the
11 General Land Office, as they have dedicated the
12 mineral estate. They granted the land office the
13 authority to regulate and to permit easement
14 crossings. You know, they've given little pieces
15 of authority. We have the sand and gravel
16 authority for state-owned riverbeds. But nothing
17 more.
18 DR. McKINNEY: Since the GLO is not
19 here, we'll recommend it.
20 MR. SWEENEY: You know, they could
21 give it to us, they could give it to TxDOT, they
22 can give it to DPS. I mean, it's up to the
23 Legislature. They can give it to whomever they
24 want.
25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Any other
.
39
1 questions?
2 COMMISSIONER FITZSIMONS: Good work.
3 Thanks.
4 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: This, again, is
5 working the way it should work. The task force
6 has done a marvelous job, thanks to the two that
7 are here today, but there are many others who have
8 been involved throughout this process, which I
9 know has been time-consuming but worthy work.
10 Thank you very much.
11 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Madam
12 Chairman? It's understood, then, we're going to
13 get some options?
14 DR. McKINNEY: Thank you. Good
15 point. I do need that clarification, so I can
16 report back. So we will take that forward and
17 keep you informed.
18 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Thank you.
19 DR. McKINNEY: Just please let one
20 of us or Melissa know today if you want a copy of
21 the report today, otherwise we'll be sending this
22 to you so you don't have to carry it around with
23 you and what form you'd like it in. We'll make
24 arrangements.
25 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Thank you.
.
40
1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 - NOMINATION FOR OIL AND GAS
2 LEASE - JEFFERSON COUNTY.
3 CHAIRMAN IDSAL: Committee item
4 number 4, nomination of oil and gas lease,
5 Jefferson County, Mr. Bauer.
6 MR. BAUER: Madam Chairman,
7 committee members, my name is Jack Bauer. I'm
8 director of the Land Conservation Program. You
9 are probably aware that the General Land Office,
10 on occasion, offers state lands where there are
11 mineral rights to the public for nomination for
12 oil and gas lease. And that occurred a couple of
13 months ago and there was a nomination at the J.D.
14 Murphree area for an oil and gas lease. The Board
15 for Lease for Parks and Wildlife Lands holds the
16 authority to decide what those -- the terms of
17 those leases will be. But they are very happy and
18 encouraged to take recommendations from the
19 Commission.
20 So the goal of this briefing and
21 hopefully the Commission tomorrow will be to
22 formulate a set of recommendations for the Board
23 for Lease.
24 This view is of a component of the
25 J.D. Murphree Area. We are in Jefferson County in
.
41
1 extreme southeast Texas. The Murphree Area lies
2 to the south and east of Port Arthur, about 25,000
3 acres of primarily marshland. It's surrounded by
4 other lands in conservation to include the
5 McFaddin National Wildlife Refuge and to the south
6 the Sea Rim State Park. Some of the landscape
7 features here you may recognize. The specific
8 region that the lease is being nominated for is
9 the Salt Bayou Unit, and it is just south of the
10 Intercoastal Canal.
11 The specific property that's been
12 designated for nomination is approximately 4700
13 acres, shown here in red. This aerial photo gives
14 you some idea of the landscape features. It is a
15 fairly pristine marsh. We have some background
16 for lease history. It was leased when it was
17 formerly a component of Sea Rim State Park in
18 1992. It was leased under very similar lease
19 conditions that we are recommending today. No
20 drilling occurred. There was a well, I
21 understand, drilled off our property that was a
22 dry hole. And we did collect about $270,000 of
23 revenue off this lease.
24 We own 50 percent of the minerals
25 here and the remainder of the minerals is retained
.
42
1 in the McFaddin family.
2 What we are proposing that the
3 Commission accept would be term conditions of a
4 three-year lease, $150-per-acre cash bonus, 25
5 percent royalties, and a $10-per-acre delay
6 rental.
7 Of special concern would be some
8 lease conditions that would -- that would be
9 directed at the major threat that is typical or
10 has occurred in the past in oil and gas operations
11 in the area. And that's impacts to wetlands and
12 impacts from saltwater intrusion into the marsh.
13 So we are suggesting that there be lease
14 conditions here of no entry onto the property,
15 that the operator would be required to develop a
16 surface-use agreement with Parks and Wildlife.
17 If minerals were discovered and they
18 were to be extracted, that would occur after a
19 plan of operation would be formulated with the
20 department. And we would -- there would be
21 special considerations given for the protection of
22 wetlands during exploration and removal or
23 extraction of minerals. Both on our property and
24 area around. This fourth one is really not
25 inconsistent with Corps 404 permitting actions
.
43
1 that the applicant would be required to do in any
2 regard. Are there questions that you might have
3 on this proposal?
4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Are there
5 off-property locations where a drill site could be
6 established that could explore under this
7 property?
8 MR. BAUER: Yes, sir.
9 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The McFaddin
10 mineral estate on it, do they have any
11 requirements for us that we have to lease it or
12 have to make it available? Because if we didn't
13 lease it, obviously they couldn't get theirs
14 evaluated, either.
15 MR. BAUER: Right. We're in contact
16 with the McFaddins only indirectly. And that's
17 through the nominator. The nominator is a Houston
18 company, and they have told us that they intend to
19 get a lease, would have a similar lease with the
20 McFaddins.
21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: So they're
22 obviously -- they're aware of the terms that we
23 would have and --
24 MR. BAUER: Yes. We have provided
25 this set of recommendations both -- they know --
.
44
1 they are aware of what the lease was in 1992.
2 They are aware that the terms and conditions for
3 this lease are quite similar. And we have
4 communicated through the Land Office and directly
5 with the nominator, what the expectations would be
6 for us. And they are willing to consider the
7 nomination the way we have it prepared.
8 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other
9 questions?
10 COMMISSIONER AVILA: The McFaddins
11 will also provide the same stipulations in their
12 lease agreement?
13 MR. BAUER: Well, we are presuming
14 that because in our communication with the
15 nominator, that's the inference that we have
16 gotten.
17 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Since we
18 control the surface, they wouldn't -- they
19 couldn't preclude our position on that.
20 MR. BAUER: Right.
21 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Any other
22 questions? If there's no objections, we'll place
23 this item on the agenda for Thursday commission
24 meeting for discussion and action. Hearing none,
25 that will be taken care of.
.
45
1 MR. BAUER: Thank you, sir.
2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 - PRAIRIE DOG CONSERVATION
3 PLAN.
4 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: The next item
5 is prairie dog conservation plan. It will be
6 presented by Paul Robertson.
7 MR. HERRON: Thank you, Mr.
8 Vice-chairman and commission members. My name is
9 John Herron. I'm the chief of the Wildlife
10 Diversity Branch within the Wildlife Division.
11 And Paul and I are here today to brief you-all on
12 our prairie dog conservation plan efforts. We
13 wanted to make sure the Commission was aware of
14 this because it's a very sensitive issue, a
15 sensitive issue with landowners in Texas, as well
16 as a sensitive issue with many conservationists in
17 the state. And also to let you know what we are
18 doing in regards to planning for prairie dog
19 conservation and making sure that prairie dog
20 conservation is done right in a way that benefits
21 both prairie dogs and the citizens of Texas. With
22 that, I'm going to introduce Paul Robertson, who
23 will give the briefing. Paul is our chief -- or
24 head of our wildlife diversity nongame and rare
25 species section. Paul and Bob Sullivan in our
.
46
1 division have really had the lead in spearheading
2 and guiding this conservation planning effort.
3 And I'll let Paul tell you more details about that
4 now.
5 MR. ROBERTSON: Good morning,
6 Commissioners. In March of 1999, the Fish and
7 Wildlife Service placed the black-tailed prairie
8 dog on the threatened species candidate list.
9 That means that based on the information that was
10 available at that time, a listing was considered
11 warranted but was precluded by higher priorities.
12 This listing or this action was in
13 response to a petition and lawsuit by several
14 conservation groups. The action that was taken
15 was based on historical decline throughout the
16 species range, indications of continued decline,
17 and current threat levels.
18 A plan was considered needed to
19 avoid a listing, to comply with the interstate
20 effort, and to recover the species. For the plan
21 to be effective, states must show that they have
22 plans that will secure the species in its
23 remaining range. Lack of action by states or
24 evidence of continued decline in status is likely
25 to lead to a federal listing. And the species
.
47
1 status is reviewed by the service annually to see
2 if there's been any change.
3 The -- to avoid a circumstance that
4 neither the Fish and Wildlife Service or the
5 States wanted, an interstate committee was formed
6 in 1999. The cooperation was delivered -- was
7 driven by the collective desire to avoid severe
8 problems that would arise from a listing. The
9 committee's effort has been supported by nine --
10 formally supported by nine of the 11 states within
11 the species' range. And stakeholder working
12 groups have been created in all of the 11 states.
13 That is to say that even though two states did not
14 sign on to the MOA, that they are cooperating by
15 forming state working groups.
16 The status of the prairie dog in
17 Texas as follows: Its range once included all 79
18 Texas counties. And it still occurs over much of
19 that range, but has been greatly reduced. The
20 estimated reduction has been in the neighborhood
21 of 95 percent. Most of that occurred in the early
22 part of the nineteen -- of the 20th century.
23 Fortunately the species is still abundant enough
24 to manage for recovery. Even a small percentage
25 of tens of millions still amounts to quite a few
.
48
1 prairie dogs, fortunately.
2 The standard measure for -- that's
3 being used by the interstate and the state
4 committee and accepted by the Fish and Wildlife
5 Service is actually acres of prairie dogs, rather
6 than actual numbers of individuals simply because
7 it's so much easier to get those -- the acreage.
8 The acres inventoried -- we're inventorying the
9 acreage in Texas using the most current remote
10 sensing techniques and publicly available images.
11 And our statewide survey will be completed at the
12 end of this year.
13 In Texas, a prairie dog working
14 group was formed very soon after the interstate
15 group was formed, that is, in 1999. We've met 11
16 times. The group consists of diverse
17 stakeholders, represented by private landowners,
18 ranching interests, other producers, groups, state
19 and federal agencies, and conservation groups.
20 The mission statement of the -- for
21 the working group is as follows: "To develop and
22 initiate a statewide plan that will conserve the
23 black-tailed prairie dog, while simultaneously
24 protecting personal and private property rights."
25 Progress to date: The draft plan
.
49
1 will be -- the final draft plan will be available
2 later this summer. We have obtained a Section 6
3 planning grant to fund a State Coordinator to
4 implement the plan. And we -- that coordinator
5 should be hired by the end of the summer.
6 I'd like to add that three years
7 ago, we didn't know very much about prairie dogs
8 in Texas nor in many other states. And there's
9 been a virtually herculean interstate and state
10 effort to find out about -- to inventory prairie
11 dogs and to assess threats. And so we're in much
12 better shape than we were three years ago. Any
13 questions?
14 COMMISSIONER ANGELO: Anyone have
15 any questions? I know there's a lot of prairie
16 dogs in West Texas, so I'm glad to know they're
17 doing well.
18 No further questions? Thank you.
19 Thank you all. Appreciate it. Look forward to
20 hearing the -- seeing the report.
21 The balance of the items on the
22 conservation committee, items 6 through 9, will be
23 taken up further in executive session. So at this
24 point, we'll recess the conservation committee and
25 move on to the Finance Committee.
.
50
1 *-*-*-*-*
2 (MEETING ADJOURNED.)
3 *-*-*-*-*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.
51
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 STATE OF TEXAS )
3 COUNTY OF TRAVIS )
4 I, MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, a Certified
5 Court Reporter in and for the State of Texas, do
6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing 49
7 pages constitute a full, true and correct
8 transcript of the minutes of the Texas Parks &
9 Wildlife Commission on MAY 29, 2002, in the
10 commission hearing room of the Texas Parks &
11 Wildlife Headquarters Complex, Austin, Travis
12 County, Texas.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that a stenographic
14 record was made by me a the time of the public
15 meeting and said stenographic notes were
16 thereafter reduced to computerized transcription
17 under my supervision and control.
18 WITNESS MY HAND this the 29th day of
19 July, 2002.
20
21
MELODY RENEE DeYOUNG, RPR, CSR NO. 3226
22 Expiration Date: 12-31-02
3101 Bee Caves Road
23 Centre II, Suite 220
Austin, Texas 78746
24 (512) 328-5557
25