TITLE 31.NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

Part 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

Chapter 65. WILDLIFE

Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION

3. SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS--FISHING PROVISIONS

31 TAC §65.78

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment to §65.78, concerning the Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation, with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 27, 2002, issue of the Texas Register (27 TexReg 9138). The change shifts the calendar for the proposed 16-day closed season for crab traps from March 1 through March 16, 2003 to February 15 through March 2, 2003.

The crab resources in Texas support valuable sport and commercial fisheries. Over 6 million pounds are harvested annually with a dockside value of $4.0 million. Responsibility for establishing seasons, bag limits, means and methods for taking wildlife resources, including crabs, is delegated to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC) under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act (Wildlife Conservation Act of 1983). The crab fishery is managed using guidelines in the Crab Fishery Management Plan (FMP) adopted by the Commission in 1992 (Parks and Wildlife Code, §78.115). That FMP noted concerns about abandoned crab traps. Senate Bill 1410 from the 77th Texas Legislature provided the Commission new authority to establish a season closed to the use of crab traps for the purpose of removing abandoned crab traps. The legislation authorizes the Commission to create a closed season lasting a minimum of 10 days to a maximum of 30 days beginning no earlier than January 31st and ending no later than April 1st during any year of a closure.

The establishment of a closure should allow for the efficient removal of abandoned traps from state waters and protect crabs and other aquatic organisms through the removal of these traps. During the 2002 closed season 8,070 traps were collected and removed from the public waters of the state. TPWD biologists and observers randomly selected 647 traps to determine the composition of organisms within the abandoned traps. Twenty-one different species were encountered. The most frequent species observed were blue crabs and stone crabs, which made up over 77% of the organisms released. In addition, recreationally and commercially important finfish species including black drum, red drum, flounder, spotted seatrout and sheepshead were reported and released.

Currently lost or abandoned traps are subject to removal from the water through routine law enforcement activities. The closed season will create efficiency by clearly identifying abandoned traps for removal by law enforcement and volunteers. The closure provides easy identification of abandoned traps and allows for use of volunteers in removal of the traps after the seventh day of the closure when the traps become litter by definition in statute.

Anticipated benefits to the crab fishery include a reduction in current crab mortality associated with lost or abandoned traps. These crabs will be available for subsequent harvest and contribution to the spawning stock. Based on the number of traps removed in 2002 and the observed species found within the traps, it is estimated that on the day of the trap-removal event over 11,000 organisms were saved. The one-day release prevented the waste of over 5,500 crabs, 3,000 stone crabs, 855 sheepshead, and 36 diamond back terrapins.

Studies from Louisiana indicate an average loss of 26 crabs/trap/year when no degradable panels are installed. Based on the observed traps, 66 % of the traps collected did not appear to have degradable panels. Using the percent that did not have degradable panels and the total traps collected, it is estimated that over 138,000 crabs were saved on an annual basis due to the removal of abandoned traps in 2002. Based on average weights of 0.5 pounds/crab, the direct benefit from the cleanup in 2002 was 69,000 additional pounds of crabs available for harvest throughout the year. These gains do not consider the additional benefits associated with increased spawning capacity through reduced fishing mortality associated with these abandoned traps.

The benefits listed above are based on the cleanup of 2002. The benefits for this year may likely be less due to fewer traps that may be available for removal, but certainly benefits will be derived.

The public benefits anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be: a) better achievement of optimum yield for the crab fishery; b) increased conservation through reduced waste of the crab resource and other aquatic organisms, and; c) increased boating safety by decreasing current navigation hazards. Overall, increased benefits to the public will be to provide on a continuing basis greater protection and enhancement of the crab population.

The rule will function by establishing a 16-day closed season for crabbing, during which time abandoned crab traps may be removed. The ultimate function of the rule will be to conserve the marine resources of the state by removing abandoned crab traps that if left in place would continue to trap and kill organisms.

Comments made by the public concerning the proposed rules were presented to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. From October 17 through October 24, 2002 four public hearings were held in coastal counties. Approximately 41 people were in attendance at the public hearings and 24 offered comment. In addition to those speaking at the hearings, the department received 28 additional comments through signed statements, e-mails, or by telephone. At the final public hearing in Austin on November 7, 2003 no public comments were received by the Commission. The comments received ranged from support of the proposed closure and timeframe to not supporting the proposed closure at all for the next year. An individual comment may have included comments that can be categorized in more than one of the general comments summarized as follows.

There were 9 individual comments made in support of the closure. Two of these comments were from individuals who additionally represented the Recreational Fishing Alliance. Some of these individuals also asked that the closure occur every year.

TPWD agrees with the need for the closure this year based on the number of traps picked up last year. Since this is only the second year of the cleanup program, the Department needs to again review the cleanup effort after this closure to determine the need and extent of a closure for next year. The flexibility of closed areas and the option to close only in years when needed was provided by the legislation in Senate Bill 1410. The Department believes at the current time the closure should be reviewed annually to determine the need and extent of the closure in each subsequent year.

There were 7 individual comments that indicated some opposition to the proposed closure. These individuals spoke to one or more of the following options: do not have a closed season; do not close the entire coast, and/or do not close every year.

TPWD disagrees with those comments. After the initial closure picked up over 8000 traps there is need to have another closure. A coastwide closure with no exemptions provides the simplest closure for the Department and reduces confusion for volunteers who help in the cleanup. Since this is the second year of the cleanup program, the Department again will review the cleanup results to determine the need and extent of any closure in subsequent years. The Department believes at the current time the closure should be reviewed annually.

There were 31 individual comments that spoke to moving the closure back into February. Some of those comments suggested an earlier timeframe than last year or the same time frame as last year, which was approximately the last two weeks in February.

TPWD agrees with these comments. The proposed closure as published was modified to change the closed season from March 1 through March 16 to February 15 through March 2, 2003. The original proposal was based on a recommendation from the Department Crab Advisory Committee. The public comments indicate strong support to move the closure back into February similar to the closure in 2002. In addition, from the period 1996-2000 average coastwide landings is lower in February versus March, thus the Department believes this change will reduce the overall dockside loss to the industry.

The rule is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §78.115, which authorizes the commission to establish by rule a closed season for the use of crab traps in the public water of Texas, and requires that the closed season be not less than ten days or more than 30 days between January 31 and April 1 in years designated by the Commission. In addition, Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, authorizes the commission to regulate periods of time, means, methods, and places where it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess aquatic animal life, including crabs.

§65.78.Crabs and Ghost Shrimp.

(a) Bag, possession and size limits.

(1) It is unlawful while fishing on public waters to have in possession crabs or ghost shrimp in excess of the daily bag limit as established for those waters.

(2) There are no bag, possession, or size limits on crabs or ghost shrimp except as provided in these rules.

(3) It is unlawful to:

(A) possess egg-bearing (sponge) crabs or stone crabs;

(B) possess blue crabs less than five inches in width (measured across the widest point of the body from tip of spine to tip of spine) except that not more than 5.0%, by number, of undersized crabs may be possessed for bait purposes only, if placed in a separate container at the time of taking;

(C) remove or possess the left claw from a stone crab (each retained claw must be at least 2-1/2 inches long as measured from the tip of the immovable claw to the first joint behind the claw);

(D) fail to return immediately a stone crab to the waters where caught;

(E) buy or sell a female crab that has its abdominal apron detached; or

(F) possess more than 20 ghost shrimp (Callichiris islagrande, formerly Callianassa islagrande) per person.

(b) Seasons. There are no closed seasons for the taking of crabs, except as listed within this section.

(c) Closed Crab Trap Season: It is unlawful to place, fish, or leave a crab trap or crab trap component in the coastal waters of the state from 12:01 am Saturday, February 15, 2003 through 12:00 midnight Sunday, March 2, 2003.

(d) Places. There are no places closed for the taking of crabs, except as listed within this section.

(e) Devices, means and methods.

(1) It is unlawful to take, attempt to take, or possess crabs caught by devices, means, or methods other than as authorized in this subchapter.

(2) Only the following means and methods may be used for taking crabs:

(A) Crab line. It is unlawful to fish a crab line for commercial purposes that is not marked with a floating white buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length and six inches in width bearing the commercial crab fisherman's license plate number in letters of a contrasting color at least two inches high attached to the end fixtures.

(B) Crab trap. It is unlawful to:

(i) fish for commercial purposes under authority of a commercial crab fisherman's license with more than 200 crab traps at one time;

(ii) fish for commercial purposes under authority of a commercial finfish fisherman's license with more than 20 crab traps at one time;

(iii) fish for non-commercial purposes with more than six crab traps at one time;

(iv) fish a crab trap in the fresh waters of this state;

(v) fish a crab trap that:

(I) exceeds 18 cubic feet in volume;

(II) is not equipped with at least two escape vents (minimum 2-3/8 inches inside diameter) in each crab-retaining chamber, and located on the outside trap walls of each chamber; and

(III) is not equipped with a degradable panel. A trap shall be considered to have a degradable panel if one of the following methods is used in construction of the trap:

(-a-) the trap lid tie-down strap is secured to the trap by a loop of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 530) or sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 390). The trap lid must be secured so that when the twine degrades, the lid will no longer be securely closed; or

(-b-) the trap lid tie-down strap is secured to the trap by a loop of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. The trap lid must be secured so that when the wire degrades, the lid will no longer be securely closed; or

(-c-) the trap contains at least one sidewall, not including the bottom panel, with a rectangular opening no smaller than 3 inches by 6 inches. Any obstruction placed in this opening may not be secured in any manner except:

(-1-) it may be laced, sewn, or otherwise obstructed by a single length of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 530) or sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 390) knotted only at each end and not tied or looped more than once around a single mesh bar. When the twine degrades, the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed; or

(-2-) it may be laced, sewn, or otherwise obstructed by a single length of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. When the wire degrades, the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed; or

(-3-) the obstruction may be loosely hinged at the bottom of the opening by no more than two untreated steel hog rings and secured at the top of the obstruction in no more than one place by a single length of untreated jute twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 530), sisal twine (comparable to Lehigh brand # 390), or by a single length of untreated steel wire with a diameter of no larger than 20 gauge. When the twine or wire degrades, the obstruction will hinge downward and the opening in the sidewall of the trap will no longer be obstructed.

(vi) fish a crab trap for commercial purposes under authority of a commercial crab fisherman's license:

(I) that is not marked with a floating white buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length, and six inches in width attached to the crab trap;

(II) that is not marked with a white buoy bearing the commercial crab fisherman's license plate number in letters of a contrasting color at least two inches high attached to the crab trap;

(III) that is marked with a buoy bearing a commercial crab fisherman's license plate number other than the commercial crab fisherman's license plate number displayed on the crab fishing boat;

(vii) fish a crab trap for commercial purposes under authority of a commercial finfish fisherman's license:

(I) that is not marked with a floating white buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length, and six inches in width attached to the crab trap;

(II) that is not marked with a white buoy bearing the letter 'F' and the commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number in letters of a contrasting color at least two inches high attached to the crab trap;

(III) that is marked with a buoy bearing a commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number other than the commercial finfish fisherman's license plate number displayed on the finfish fishing boat;

(viii) fish a crab trap for non-commercial purposes without a floating white buoy not less than six inches in height, six inches in length, and six inches in width, bearing a two-inch wide center stripe of contrasting color, attached to the crab trap;

(ix) fish a crab trap in public salt waters without a valid gear tag. Gear tags must be attached within 6 inches of the buoy and are valid for 30 days after date set out.

(x) fish a crab trap within 200 feet of a marked navigable channel in Aransas County; and in the water area of Aransas Bay within one-half mile of a line from Hail Point on the Lamar Peninsula, then direct to the eastern end of Goose Island, then along the southern shore of Goose Island, then along the eastern shoreline of the Live Oak Peninsula past the town of Fulton, past Nine Mile Point, past the town of Rockport to a point at the east end of Talley Island including that part of Copano Bay within 1,000 feet of the causeway between Lamar Peninsula and Live Oak Peninsula or possess, use or place more than three crab traps in waters north and west of Highway 146 where it crosses the Houston Ship Channel in Harris County;

(xi) remove crab traps from the water or remove crabs from crab traps during the period from 30 minutes after sunset to 30 minutes before sunrise;

(xii) place a crab trap or portion thereof closer than 100 feet from any other crab trap, except when traps are secured to a pier or dock;

(xiii) fish a crab trap in public waters that is marked with a buoy made of a plastic bottle(s) of any color or size; or

(xiv) use or place more than three crab traps in public waters of the San Bernard River north of a line marked by the boat access channel at Bernard Acres.

(C) Sand pump. It is unlawful for any person to use a sand pump:

(i) that is not manually operated; or

(ii) for commercial purposes.

(D) Other devices. Devices legally used for taking fresh or salt water fish or shrimp may be used to take crab if operated in places and at times authorized by a proclamation of the Parks and Wildlife Commission or the Parks and Wildlife Code.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on November 26, 2002.

TRD-200207882

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: December 16, 2002

Proposal publication date: September 27, 2002

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


Subchapter T. SCIENTIFIC BREEDER'S PERMITS

31 TAC §§65.609 - 65.611

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to §§65.609-65.611, concerning Scientific Breeder's Permits, with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 27, 2002, issue of the Texas Register (27 TexReg 9141). The change to §65.609, concerning Purchase of Deer and Purchase Permit, eliminates the last sentence of subsection (c), which was inadvertently not indicated for removal in the proposed text.

The emergence of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in both captive and free-ranging deer populations in other states is cause for concern due to the potential threat to wild deer and livestock populations in Texas. The biological and epidemiological nature of CWD is not well understood and has not been extensively studied, but it is known to be communicable, incurable, and invariably fatal.

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has worked closely with the Texas Animal Health Commission to characterize the threat potential of CWD to native wildlife and livestock, and to determine the appropriate level of response. The department strongly believes that vigilance and early detection are crucial to minimizing the severity of biological and economic impacts in the event that an outbreak occurs in Texas, and that the implementation of reasonable rules to prevent the spread of the disease if, in fact, it is present in Texas is warranted. At the present time, regulations promulgated by the Texas Animal Health Commission are deemed by the department to be sufficiently stringent to prevent the importation of diseased cervids into the state. Therefore, the department is rescinding the temporary suspension on importation of deer. However, the department remains concerned about potential opportunities for infection, even those of a relatively slight probability. Therefore, the department feels it is necessary to stipulate that deer moved under the provisions allowing temporary relocation must remain in Texas at all times, since even a temporary removal beyond the department’s jurisdiction and oversight represents a potential for the acquisition of CWD. Further, the department is concerned that a lack of clarity in rules governing purchase permit documentation creates the possibility of a situation in which a person potentially could be lawfully in possession of scientific breeder deer with no documentation whatsoever. This scenario would pose tracking difficulties for the department if such deer were to test positive for CWD and the person in possession were unable or unwilling to divulge the origin of the animals. Therefore, the department will require at least one party to each transaction to have a purchase permit on their person while during any transaction.

The amendment to §65.609, concerning Purchase Permit and Purchase of Deer will function by rescinding the temporary suspension on importation of deer as it relates to purchase permits.

The amendment to §65.610, concerning Transport of Deer and Transport Permit, will function by stipulating that deer may not leave the state while being temporarily relocated for nursing or veterinary purposes. The amendment also rescinds the temporary restriction on the importation of deer as it relates to transport permits.

The amendment to §65.611, concerning Prohibited Acts, will function by creating an offense for the act of selling deer if at least one party to the transaction does not possess a valid purchase permit.

One commenter opposed adoption of any rule that allowed the importation of deer. The department disagrees and responds that importation per se is not the issue. Rather, the issue is one of acceptable and effective monitoring and detection. The department is confident that regulations imposed and administered by the Texas Animal Health Commission will be sufficient to prevent the importation of infected deer. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

One commenter opposed adoption of the rule, stating that the rule contained no testing requirements and that Texas already has plenty of deer and needs no more. The agency disagrees with the comment, specifically with respect to testing requirements. The testing requirements for imported deer are administered under the rules of the Texas Animal Health Commission. Those rules impose rigorous standards for any source of imported deer; if the source cannot furnish the required documentation to verify that the deer come from certified disease-free herds, then the deer cannot be imported into Texas. No changes were made as a result of the comment.

The Texas Wildlife Association commented in support of the adoption of the proposed rules.

The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, which authorizes the Parks and Wildlife Commission to establish regulations governing the possession of white-tailed and mule deer for scientific, management, and propagation purposes.

§65.609.Purchase of Deer and Purchase Permit.

(a) Deer may be purchased or obtained for:

(1) holding for propagation purposes if the purchaser possesses a valid scientific breeder's permit; or

(2) liberation for stocking purposes.

(b) Deer may be purchased or obtained only from:

(1) the holder of a valid scientific breeder's permit; or

(2) a lawful out-of-state source.

(c) An individual may possess or obtain deer only after a purchase permit has been issued by the department. A purchase permit is valid for a period of 30 days after it has been completed (to include the unique number of each deer being transferred), dated, signed, and faxed to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin prior to the transport of any deer. The purchase permit shall also be signed and dated by the buyer or buyer's agent prior to or at the time that the transfer of possession of any deer occurs.

(d) A purchase permit is valid for only one transaction and expires after one instance of use.

(e) A one-time, 30-day extension of effectiveness for a purchase permit may be obtained by notifying the department prior to the original expiration date of the purchase permit.

(f) A person may amend a purchase permit at any time prior to the transport of deer; however:

(1) the amended permit shall reflect all changes to the required information submitted as part of the original permit;

(2) the amended permit information shall be reported by phone to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin at the time of the amendment; and

(3) the amended permit information shall be faxed to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin within 48 hours of transport.

(g) The department may issue a purchase permit for liberation for stocking purposes if the department determines that the release of deer will not detrimentally affect existing populations or systems.

(h) Deer lawfully purchased or obtained for stocking purposes may be temporarily held in captivity:

(1) to acclimate the deer to habitat conditions at the release site;

(2) when specifically authorized by the department;

(3) for a period to be specified on the purchase permit, not to exceed six months;

(4) if they are not hunted prior to liberation; and

(5) if the temporary holding facility is physically separate from any scientific breeder facility and the deer being temporarily held are not commingled with deer being held in a scientific breeder facility. Deer removed from a scientific breeder facility to a temporary holding facility shall not be returned to any scientific breeder facility.

(i) No person may sell deer to another person unless either the purchaser or the seller possesses a purchase permit valid for that specific transaction.

§65.610.Transport of Deer and Transport Permit.

(a) The holder of a valid scientific breeder's permit may, without any additional permit, transport legally possessed deer:

(1) to another scientific breeder when a valid purchase permit has been issued for that transaction;

(2) to another scientific breeder on a temporary basis for breeding purposes. The scientific breeder providing the deer shall complete and sign a free, department-supplied invoice prior to transporting any deer, which invoice shall accompany all deer to the receiving facility. The scientific breeder receiving the deer shall sign and date the invoice upon receiving the deer, and shall maintain a copy of the invoice during the time the deer are held in the receiving facility. At such time as the deer are to return to the originating facility, the invoice shall be dated and signed by both the scientific breeder relinquishing the deer and the scientific breeder returning the deer to the originating facility, and the invoice shall accompany the deer to the original facility. A photocopy of the original of the invoice shall be submitted to the department with the annual report required by §65.608 of this title (relating to Annual Reports and Records). In the event that a deer has not been returned to a facility at the time the annual report is due, a scientific breeder shall submit a photocopy of the incomplete original invoice with the annual report. A photocopy of the completed original invoice shall then be submitted as part of the permittee's annual report for the following year.

(3) to another person on a temporary basis for nursing purposes, provided the deer do not leave this state. The scientific breeder shall complete and sign a free, department-supplied invoice prior to transporting deer to a nursery, which invoice shall accompany all deer to the receiving facility. The person receiving the deer shall sign and date the invoice upon receiving the deer, and shall maintain a copy of the invoice during the time the deer are held by that person. At such time as the deer are to return to the originating facility, the invoice shall be dated and signed by both the person holding the deer and the scientific breeder returning the deer to the originating facility, and the invoice shall accompany the deer to the original facility. A photocopy of the original of the invoice shall be submitted to the department with the annual report required by §65.608 of this title.

(4) to an individual who does not possess a scientific breeder's permit if a valid purchase permit for release into the wild for stocking purposes has been issued for that transaction;

(5) to and from an accredited veterinarian for the purpose of obtaining medical attention, provided the deer do not leave this state; and

(6) to a facility authorized under Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to Deer Management Permit) to receive buck deer on a temporary basis. The scientific breeder shall complete and sign a free, department-supplied invoice prior to transporting deer to a DMP facility, which invoice shall accompany all deer to the receiving facility. The DMP permittee or authorized agent receiving the deer shall sign and date the invoice upon receiving the deer, and shall maintain a copy of the invoice during the time the deer are held by that person. At such time as the deer are to return to the facility of origin, the invoice shall be dated and signed by both the person holding the deer under a DMP permit and the scientific breeder, and the invoice shall accompany the deer to the facility of origin. A photocopy of the original of the invoice shall be submitted to the department with the annual report required by §65.608 of this title.

(b) The department may issue a transport permit to an individual who does not possess a scientific breeder's permit if the individual is transporting deer within the state and the deer were legally purchased or obtained from a scientific breeder or lawful out-of-state source.

(c) Except as provided in this subchapter, no person may transport deer during any open season for deer or during the period beginning 10 days immediately prior to an open season for deer unless the person notifies the department by contacting the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin no less than 24 hours before actual transport occurs.

(d) During an open season for deer or during the period beginning 10 days immediately prior to an open season for deer, deer may be transported for the purposes of this subchapter without prior notification of the department; however, deer transported under this subsection shall be transported only from one scientific breeder facility to another scientific breeder facility. Deer transported under this subsection shall not be liberated unless the scientific breeder holding the deer notifies the Law Enforcement Communications Center no less than 24 hours prior to liberation.

(e) Transport permits shall be effective for 30 days from the date that the scientific breeder has completed (to include the unique number of each deer being transported), dated, signed, and faxed the permit to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin prior to the transport of any deer. The transport permit shall also be signed and dated by the other party to a transaction (or their authorized agent) upon the transfer of possession of any deer.

(f) A transport permit is valid for only one transaction, and expires after one instance of use.

(g) A person may amend a transport permit at any time prior to the transport of deer; however:

(1) the amended permit shall reflect all changes to the required information submitted as part of the original permit;

(2) the amended permit information shall be reported by phone to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin at the time of the amendment; and

(3) the amended permit information shall be faxed to the Law Enforcement Communications Center in Austin within 48 hours of transport.

(h) A one-time, 30-day extension of effectiveness for a transport permit may be obtained by notifying the department prior to the original expiration date of the transport permit.

(i) No person may possess, transport, or cause the transportation of deer in a trailer or vehicle under the provisions of this subchapter unless the trailer or vehicle exhibits an applicable inscription, as specified in this subsection, on the rear surface of the trailer or vehicle. The inscription shall read from left to right and shall be plainly visible at all times while possessing or transporting deer upon a public roadway. The inscription shall be attached to or painted on the trailer or vehicle in block, capital letters, each of which shall be of no less than six inches in height and three inches in width, in a color that contrasts with the color of the trailer or vehicle. If the person is not a scientific breeder, the inscription shall be "TXD". If the person is a scientific breeder, the inscription shall be the scientific breeder serial number issued to the person.

§65.611.Prohibited Acts.

(a) Deer obtained from the wild under the authority of a permit or letter of authority issued pursuant to Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter C, E, or R shall not be commingled with deer held in a permitted scientific breeder facility.

(b) A person commits an offense if that person places or holds deer in captivity at any place or on any property other than property for which a scientific breeder's permit, or a permit authorized under other provisions of this title or Parks and Wildlife Code, is issued, except that a permittee may transport and temporarily hold deer at another location for breeding, nursing, or veterinary purposes as provided in this subchapter.

(c) No live deer taken from the wild may be possessed under a scientific breeder's permit or held in a scientific breeder's facility.

(d) No deer shall be held in a trailer or other vehicle of any type except for the purpose of immediate transportation from one location to another.

(e) Possession of a scientific breeder's permit is not a defense to prosecution under any statute prohibiting abuse of animals.

(f) No scientific breeder shall hunt or kill, or allow the hunting or killing of deer held pursuant to this subchapter.

(g) No scientific breeder shall exceed the number of deer allowable for the permitted facility, as specified by the department on the scientific breeder's permit.

(h) No person may sell deer to another person unless either the purchaser or the seller possesses a purchase permit valid for that specific transaction.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on November 26, 2002.

TRD-200207883

Gene McCarty

Chief of Staff

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Effective date: December 16, 2002

Proposal publication date: September 27, 2002

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


Part 10. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Chapter 356. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT

Subchapter B. DESIGNATION OF GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AREAS

31 TAC §§356.21 - 356.23

The Texas Water Development Board (the Board) adopts new §§356.21 - 356.23 to 31 TAC Chapter 356, concerning Groundwater Management. Sections 356.21 - 356.23 are adopted without changes to the proposed rules as published in the September 6, 2002, issue of the Texas Register (27 TexReg 8414) and will not be republished.

The new sections will comprise new Subchapter B, Designation of Groundwater Management Areas. The purpose of the new sections is to designate and delineate groundwater management areas (GMAs) as required by statute.

Chapter 35, §35.004 of the Texas Water Code requires the Board, with assistance from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), to designate GMAs covering all major and minor aquifers in the state. The initial designation is to be completed by September 1, 2003. The statute provides that each GMA shall be designated with the objective of providing the most suitable area for the management of groundwater resources. The GMAs so designated, shall, to the extent feasible, coincide with the boundaries of a groundwater reservoir or subdivision of a groundwater reservoir (aquifer). The legislation also authorizes the Board to consider other factors in making its designation, including the boundaries of political subdivisions.

The Board staff explored three possible approaches to delineate and designate proposed GMAs, considering hydrology, water-use patterns, and political boundaries to varying extents and received public comments on the proposed boundary designations. The proposed rule utilized a hydrologic approach almost exclusively.

A combination hydrology and political boundaries approach is selected as the basis for delineating boundaries of the GMAs in this new rule, designating boundaries in a manner that coincides closely with the boundaries of existing aquifers and political subdivisions of the state, primarily groundwater conservation districts or county lines. The Board used aquifers and other hydrologic boundaries, the boundaries of both groundwater conservation districts and counties, and highways and other geographical reference points to guide the delineation. The boundaries generally respect the boundaries of the major aquifers of Texas as identified by the Board. In areas with multiple major aquifers, preference generally was placed on the overlying aquifer unless water use was primarily from the non-overlying aquifer. Also, several of the major aquifers were divided into multiple GMAs. These divisions are based on hydrogeology, political boundaries, and current water-use patterns. The Board determined that this methodology was the most appropriate basis for the designation of GMAs in the adopted rule. This decision was based upon the statutory direction set forth in the Texas Water Code §35.004 that the GMA boundaries are to coincide with the groundwater reservoir boundaries to the extent feasible and that the Board may consider other factors as well. Some of the other factors considered by the Board include whether or not a groundwater conservation district or county is split or divided among multiple GMAs; whether groundwater conservation districts are already cooperating concerning groundwater reservoirs; the amount of groundwater withdrawn in a particular county's portion of a groundwater reservoir; and how that water is put to use.

To delineate the GMAs, Board staff developed a GMA geographic information system (GIS) layer that utilizes relevant portions of other GIS layers. These other GIS layers are: major aquifers, river basins, counties, groundwater conservation districts, priority groundwater management areas, rivers, roads, and international and state boundaries. The selected information from these layers constitutes a data set denoting the GMAs.

New §356.21 describes the scope of the subchapter as a delineation of groundwater management areas as required by Texas Water Code, Chapter 35, §35.004. New §356.22 provides for definition of terms in the new subchapter.

New §356.23 designates and delineates the new GMAs. Three digital files collectively constituting a data set delineating the GMA boundary lines are adopted by reference. A CD-ROM containing the data is located in the offices of the Board and is on file with the Secretary of State, Texas Register. The CD-ROM contains all of the GIS data used to create the boundaries as well as software and instructions on how to locate a specific area by coordinates or other means on a digital map. The same information can also be found on the Board's web site at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us.

Comments on the proposed new sections were accepted for 30 days following publication of the proposed rules. In addition, public meetings concerning the proposed rules were held in several locations throughout the state in September of 2002, including the cities of Alpine, Corpus Christi, Fredericksburg, Plainview, San Angelo, Stephenville, Tyler, and Wharton. The Board also held a public hearing in Austin on September 30, 2002.

The following provided comments which generally oppose the proposed boundary delineations based on aquifer boundaries and instead support following political boundaries: State Senator David Bernsen, Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District, Coastal Bend Groundwater Conservation District, Coastal Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Collingsworth County Judge, Culberson County Groundwater Conservation District, Emerald Underground Water Conservation District, State Senator Troy Fraser, Glasscock County Groundwater Conservation District, Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District, Hemphill County Underground Water Conservation District, High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, Hill Country Underground Water Conservation District, Irion County Water Conservation District, Jeff Davis County Underground Water Conservation District, Jeff Davis County Underground Water Conservation District, Lipan-Kickapoo Water Conservation District, Live Oak Underground Water Conservation District, Menard County Underground Water District, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, Panhandle Water Planning Group, Pineywoods Groundwater Conservation District, Roberts County Judge, Sandy Land Groundwater Conservation District, Springhills Water District, Sterling County Underground Water Conservation District, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, and Texas Association of Counties.

One commenter suggested that §356.23 should be established to coincide with existing governmental bodies, including groundwater conservation districts, to avoid future disputes. To support this position many commentators suggested that the proposal splits districts and, as a consequence, joint planning and coordination becomes burdensome, creates taxing authority problems, is administratively onerous, and has a negative fiscal impact upon political subdivisions of the state. Also, grouping areas primarily based on hydrology negates the different user groups of that aquifer, pitting rural and municipal interests against each other. Additionally, some supporters of following political boundaries noted that voters in groundwater conservation districts have already decided on acceptable boundaries and that districts are the state's preferred method of managing groundwater.

Response: The Board has made adjustments to the rule/map as a result of these comments and concerns; however, the Board is not always able to follow county or groundwater conservation district boundaries for all parts of the GMAs because the statutory direction set forth in the Texas Water Code §35.004 specifically directs that GMA boundaries coincide with aquifer boundaries to the extent feasible. Regarding the fiscal impact on political subdivisions of the state, the Board responds that joint planning and coordination are voluntary and may just involve the exchange of already existing information. Nonetheless, the Board also considered the other factors noted in this comment and agrees that the following GMA boundaries should be modified for the reasons listed in the comments.

(1) The common boundary between GMAs 2 and 6 as initially proposed primarily followed the eastern extent and occurrence of the Ogallala and Dockum aquifers as defined in the Board's major and minor aquifer maps. As a result of comments, the Board modified that boundary to coincide with the westernmost boundaries of Hall, Motley, Dickens, and Kent counties. In addition, that boundary is contiguous with the common boundary that Motley County has with Briscoe County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(2) The common boundary between GMAs 6 and 7 as initially proposed primarily followed the eastern extent and occurrence of the Ogallala and Dockum aquifers and the northern extent and occurrence of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer as defined by the Board's major and minor aquifer maps. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary to coincide with the southern boundary of Kent County, the western boundary of Fisher County, and the southern boundary of Fisher and Jones counties to the point along the Jones County line where it meets the common boundary between GMAs 7 and 8. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(3) The common boundary between GMAs 6 and 8 as initially proposed primarily followed the northern and western extent of the Trinity aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary to start at the intersection of boundary between 7 and 8 with the southern Jones County line and to follow the southern boundaries of Shackelford, Stephens, and Palo Pinto counties; thereafter, traveling northward along the eastern boundaries of Palo Pinto, Jack, and Clay counties. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(4) The common boundary between GMAs 2 and 3 as initially proposed primarily followed the northern extent and occurrence of the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer as defined by the Board's major and minor aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary to coincide with the southern boundary of Andrews County from its contact with New Mexico until it meets the common boundary between Andrews and Ector counties. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(5) The common boundary between GMAs 2 and 7 as initially proposed primarily followed the southern extent of the Ogallala aquifer, the northern extent and occurrence of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer, and the southern extent of the Dockum aquifer as defined by the Board's major and minor aquifer maps. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary to coincide with the southern boundaries of Andrews, Martin, and Howard counties, and then northward along the eastern boundaries of Howard and Borden counties, and then east along the southern Garza County line until it meets Kent County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(6) The common boundary between GMAs 3 and 7 as initially proposed primarily followed the lateral extent of the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary to coincide with the eastern boundary of Winkler County, the northern and eastern boundaries of Crane County, traveling south to the northern boundary of Crockett County, then west and south along the Crockett County line until it intersects the southern extent and occurrence of the Cenozoic Pecos Alluvium aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map in Pecos County. Continuing west until it intersects the common line between Pecos and Reeves counties, and then southward along that same county line to its intersection with Jeff Davis County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(7) The common boundary between GMAs 13 and 16 as initially proposed primarily followed the western and northern extent and occurrence of the Gulf Coast aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies a portion of the boundary to coincide with the northern, eastern and southern Zapata County boundaries and to coincide with parts of the western and northern county lines of Duval County. As a result of these changes, Zapata County is wholly within GMA 13 and Duval County is wholly within GMA 16. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(8) The common boundary between GMAs 13 and 15 as initially proposed primarily followed the western extent and occurrence of the Gulf Coast aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that portion of the boundary in Gonzales County. The proposed rule had that boundary overlying the down dip limit of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map. The change now shifts that boundary to the southeast to coincide with the common boundary between Gonzales, De Witt, and Lavaca counties. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(9) The common boundary between GMAs 12 and 14 as initially proposed followed the western and northern extent and occurrence of the Gulf Coast aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies a portion of the boundary to generally coincide with the northern and western boundaries of Washington and Grimes counties and the northern boundaries of Walker, San Jacinto, Polk, Tyler, Jasper, and Newton counties. However, the original proposal continues where the upper extent of the aquifer that reaches into Brazos County remains, tying Washington County with Grimes County by following the aquifer boundary through Brazos County. As a result of these changes Washington, Grimes, Walker, San Jacinto, Polk, Tyler, and Jasper counties are wholly within GMA 14 along with a small portion of Brazos County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(10) The common boundary between GMAs 8 and 12 as initially proposed primarily followed the western extent and occurrence of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies a portion of the boundary to coincide with the Bastrop, Freestone, and Robertson county lines. The result is that Bastrop, Freestone, and Robertson counties are now wholly in GMA 12. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(11) The common boundary between GMAs 8 and 11 as initially proposed primarily followed the western extent and occurrence of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer as delineated in the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies a portion of the boundary to coincide with the western and northern county lines of Henderson, Van Zandt, and Titus counties. The result is that Henderson, Titus, and Van Zandt counties are now wholly in GMA 11. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(12) The common boundary between GMAs 7 and 8 as initially proposed primarily followed the western extent of the Trinity aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifers map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies that boundary. It now begins at the intersection of U.S. Highway 83 as it enters Taylor County, travels southward along the highway, coincides with the southern county line and moves eastward from that point following the common boundary between Taylor, Runnels, and Coleman counties until it intersects the eastern Coleman County line, travels further eastward along the common county line among Brown, McCulloch, and San Saba counties, goes southward along the eastern county line of San Saba and Llano counties, and from its intersection with Blanco County trends eastward along the remaining portion of that county line until it terminates at Travis County. Consequently, most of Taylor and all of Coleman, San Saba, and Llano counties are wholly within GMA 7. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

(13) The common boundary between GMAs 7 and 9 in Uvalde County as initially proposed primarily followed the western extent of the Trinity aquifer in Uvalde County as defined by the Board's major aquifer map. As a result of comments, the Board modifies the boundary to include the common boundary between Uvalde and Bandera counties and the common boundary between Uvalde and Medina counties north of its intersection with the boundary of GMA 10. Consequently, Uvalde County is no longer in GMA 9. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

Commenters expressing support for the proposed delineation included the Jackson County Judge and the Lavaca Water Planning Group. Overall support is also noted from the Houston Regional Group of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club and Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District. Two of these supporters requested that the inventory, study, and protection of shallow groundwater resources be part of any GMA mandate.

Response: While this comment is not applicable to GMA boundaries, the Board notes that Board staff already inventory and study the groundwater resources of the state. The protection of groundwater resources is already an assigned task of the TCEQ and, where they exist, groundwater conservation districts. GMAs are not regulatory or policing bodies.

Mesa Underground Water Conservation District and the Lipan-Kickapoo Water Conservation District commented that there is no need to have GMAs covering the entire state.

Response: Groundwater resources underlie the entire state and are not totally captured on the Board's major or minor aquifer maps. Consequently, the Board did not make any changes in response to this comment.

The following are geographically specific comments:

The following groups expressed opposition to specific portions of the proposed delineation and offered suggestions: Bee County Groundwater Conservation District, Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District, Brewster County Groundwater Conservation District, Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District, City of Corpus Christi, Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group, State Representative Frank J. Corte, Jr., Culberson County Groundwater Conservation District, East Texas Regional Water Planning Group, Edwards Aquifer Authority, Emerald Underground Water Conservation District, Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District, State Senator Troy Fraser, Glasscock County Groundwater Conservation District, Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District, Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District, Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District, High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, State Representative Harvey Hilderbran, Hill County Underground Water Conservation District, Jeff Davis County Underground Water Conservation District, Kendall County, Kerr County Judge, Live Oak Underground Water Conservation District, Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District, Lower Colorado Regional Water Planning Group, Menard County Underground Water District, Mesa Underground Water Conservation District, Neches & Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District, Refugio County Groundwater Conservation District, City of Stephenville, South Texas Water Authority, Sterling County Underground Water Conservation District, Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts, Uvalde Underground Water Conservation District, and State Representative Gary Walker.

State Senator Troy Fraser requests that Bandera, Blanco, Gillespie, and Kerr counties be in GMA 7. The idea to move any or all of these counties into GMA 7 is supported by State Representative Harvey Hilderbran, Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District, Kerr County Judge, Hill County Underground Water Conservation District, and Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts. The reasons expressed include ongoing joint planning efforts, the economic similarities of these counties with those already in GMA 7, the strong reliance on different sources, including the Ellenberger-San Saba and Hickory aquifers as defined by the Board's minor aquifer map, and a desire to not be in the same GMA as Bexar County.

Response: The Board partially concurs with these comments. Based on water use and location of the groundwater reservoirs, the Board moved all of Gillespie County into GMA 7. The proposed rule originally had the common boundary between GMAs 7 and 9 in Gillespie County as the northern county line. With the adoption of this rule, that boundary in Gillespie County is now modified to include all of Gillespie County into GMA 7. Blanco, Bandera, and Kerr counties remain in GMA 9 as originally proposed, because each is underlain by the Hill County portion of the Trinity aquifer, which serves as the primary groundwater resource and which is contained in GMA 9.

Kerr County Commissioners Court resolved to oppose any stacking of GMAs such that one may overlie another.

Response: The Board agrees and no changes to GMA boundaries are impacted. Stacking would be administratively onerous and burdensome. Additionally, stacking of GMAs does not facilitate the joint planning and cooperation cited.

The Uvalde Underground Water Conservation District requests that the district not be in GMA 10 as proposed, citing that the district has no authority to plan or manage the Edwards Aquifer, as that belongs exclusively to the Edwards Aquifer Authority.

Response: The Board did not change the boundaries of GMA 10 in Uvalde County as a result of this request because it is important to keep the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) aquifer in one GMA. This recognizes the necessity to manage this resource as a whole, and promotes joint management by groundwater conservation districts that manage the Edwards (Balcones Fault Zone) aquifer.

The Emerald Underground Water Conservation District requests that the district, wholly comprising Crockett County, be only in GMA 7 because the proposed rule splits the district due to a hydrologically insignificant amount of Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer occurring in a portion of Crockett County. This comment is also supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and has changed the boundary of GMA 7 so that the Emerald Underground Water Conservation District is wholly within GMA 7. The common boundary followed a small portion of the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer, as defined by the Board's major aquifer map, as it encroached into Crockett County along the north and west county lines in the extreme northwest corner of the county. The change now follows county lines. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Jeff Davis County Underground Water Conservation District requests that their district and the Brewster County Groundwater District be together and wholly within proposed GMA 4 due to the limited occurrence and use of groundwater from either the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer or the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer. To remain with the current proposal would be administratively onerous and financially burdensome. This comment is also supported by the Brewster County Groundwater Conservation District and the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board agrees and has made changes in response to this request. The proposed rule established the boundaries between these counties and GMAs 3 and 7 by following the southern and western extent of both the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium and the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifers as defined by the Board's major and minor aquifer maps. Consequently, small portions of these aquifers occurred in GMA 4 where Jeff Davis and Brewster counties reside. The boundary between these counties and GMA 7 is now established as extending from the point where Jeff Davis, Culberson, and Reeves counties meet, thereafter following the northeast county lines of Jeff Davis and Brewster counties southeastward to the Rio Grande. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Culberson County Groundwater Conservation District requests the district not have any portion within GMA 7 due to the limited occurrence and use of groundwater from either the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer or the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer. To remain with the current proposal would be administratively onerous and financially burdensome. This comment is also supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and has adjusted the boundaries among GMAs 3, 4, and 7 to reflect this request. Prior to this change, GMAs 3 and 7 in Culberson County had been delineated along the westernmost extent of the Cenozoic-Pecos Alluvium aquifer and the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer according to the Board's major and minor aquifer maps. The boundary between GMAs 3 and 4 and GMAs 4 and 7 is now the eastern county line of Culberson County, the northeastern county line of Jeff Davis County, and the northeastern county line of Brewster County, such that Culberson County is entirely within GMA 4. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 suggests that the southern boundary of GMA 1 should run concurrently with the northern boundary of the district because (1) ongoing coordination already exists, (2) to do otherwise would be administratively burdensome, and (3) groundwater districts and their existing boundaries are already the preferred method of managing groundwater in the state. This view is generally supported by the North Plains Groundwater Conservation District and the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts. The Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District and the Panhandle Regional Water Planning Group requests that the southern boundary of GMA 1 run concurrently with the Panhandle Regional Water Planning Group's boundary and notes that the current proposal would split the City of Amarillo and thus make coordination more difficult. Several county judges agreed and expressed their support, including those from Childress, Collingsworth, Wheeler, and Hall counties.

Response: The Board partially agrees with the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1 request and adjusts the southern boundary of GMA 1 to include all of Oldham County and thus be consistent with the boundaries of that district. The Board also partially agrees with the request from the Panhandle Groundwater Conservation District and the Panhandle Regional Water Planning Group to not split Amarillo and to follow the planning group boundary lines for Potter, Randall, Armstrong, and Donley counties. However, the hydrogeology of Collingsworth, Childress, and Hall counties requires that they remain in GMA 6. The Board did make adjustments to make the GMA boundaries coterminous with county boundaries where hydrologically feasible. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

One individual suggests that the southern boundary of GMA 9 should consist of the southern boundary of Bandera County, the northern boundary of Bexar County, the southeastern boundary of Comal County, the southeast boundary of Hays County, and the northern boundary of Hays County to minimize disputes. This comment is generally supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board did not change GMA 9 to reflect this request. The Trinity aquifer in GMA 9 extends into Medina, Bexar, Hays, and Comal counties. The Board proposes to facilitate joint management and planning for the Trinity aquifer by continuing to include those counties in GMA 9.

The Sterling County Underground Water Conservation District requests that the district be located wholly within GMA 7 because of the limited occurrence and use of groundwater from the Ogallala aquifer. To remain with the current proposal would be administratively onerous and financially burdensome. Irion County Water Conservation District reiterates the request. This comment is also supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and has adjusted the boundary of GMA 7 to encompass all of Sterling County. Consequently, where the rule proposed that the northern extent of GMA 7 coincide with the northern occurrence of the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer in Sterling County, the revised rule instead coincides with parts of the northern Sterling County line and includes all of Sterling County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Live Oak Underground Water Conservation District asks that the district be wholly within one GMA because of the limited occurrence and usage of groundwater from the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer in the district. This comment is supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and has changed the boundary of GMA 16 to encompass, wholly, the district and county. The rule proposed the northern extent of the Gulf Coast aquifer, as defined by the Board's major aquifer map, as the northwestern boundary in Live Oak County between GMAs 13 and 16. As a result of the change, that boundary is now the entire county line dividing Live Oak County from Atascosa County. Thus, Live Oak County occurs wholly within GAM 16. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District suggests that the county line between Brazoria and Matagorda counties is more appropriate as the boundary between GMAs 14 and 15, such that all of Brazoria County would be in GMA 14 to avoid additional administrative burdens and because, hydrologically, the districts are the same so there is no impact. This comment is supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and changes the boundary so that GMA 14 encompasses all of Brazoria County. The proposed rule had the boundary between GMAs 14 and 15 following the San Bernard River as it flowed through Brazoria County. In the revised rule, that boundary now coincides with the county line between Brazoria and Matagorda counties so that Brazoria County is now wholly within GMA 14. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Refugio County Groundwater Conservation District suggests that Refugio, Goliad, Victoria, and De Witt counties should all be in the same GMA for prudent and effective groundwater management. This suggestion is concurrent with that of the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and is supported, to an extent, by the Goliad County Groundwater Conservation District.

Response: The Board agrees to a certain extent; however, hydrology and the comments from the Bee County Groundwater Conservation District suggest that part of the proposed boundary remain in place. The original rule proposed having De Witt and Victoria counties and a portion of Goliad County north of the San Antonio River in GMA 15 with the rest of Goliad County and Refugio County remaining in GMA 16. As a result of the comments, the northern boundary of GMA 16 is shifted to include the southern portion of the Karnes-Gonzales County line from its intersection with the Gulf Coast aquifer boundary, the county lines that separate Karnes and De Witt counties, and the northern and eastern county lines of Goliad County such that the portion of Karnes County south of the Gulf Coast aquifer boundary and all of Goliad County are now entirely within GMA 16. De Witt and Victoria counties remain in GMA 15.

The Clearwater Underground Water Conservation District asks that the Williamson County district be left in GMA 8 as originally proposed.

Response: The Board agrees. No change is necessary as a result of the comment.

The Bee County Groundwater Conservation District suggests that Refugio County be wholly within GMA 15. The Live Oak Underground Water Conservation District concurs.

Response: The Board did not modify any boundaries as a result of this request. The Board notes that implementing such a request would contradict the specific request of the Refugio County Groundwater Conservation District cited earlier as suggesting Refugio, Goliad, Victoria, and De Witt counties be placed together in a single GMA. The Board considered the hydrology between GMAs 15 and 16 and concluded that a more practical northern boundary for GMA 16 could be pushed further north and not south as the current suggestion would require. Also, this change facilitates the administration and coordination among existing groundwater conservation districts. Thus, the change properly expresses the purpose of GMA delineation to encourage joint planning and coordinated management of groundwater reservoirs.

The Glasscock County Groundwater Conservation District asks that it be removed from GMA 2 because of the limited occurrence and usage of groundwater from the Ogallala aquifer, and since the primary aquifer which underlies the district is the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer. The change is supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board agrees and has placed the district wholly within GMA 7 using the northern Glasscock County line as the boundary between GMAs 2 and 7. Previously, the southern extent and occurrence of the Ogallala aquifer was used to delineate the upper reaches of GMA 7 in Glasscock County. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

State Representative Frank J. Corte, Jr. requests that the southern boundary of GMA 9 coincide with the southern boundary of the Trinity-Glen Rose Groundwater Conservation District to avoid administrative burdens. This request is supported by the Trinity-Glen Rose Groundwater Conservation District.

Response: The Board agrees and has changed the southern boundary of GMA 9 to coincide with the district boundary. The original proposal used the northern extent of the Edwards aquifer in Bexar County as the boundary between GMAs 9 and 10. The boundary now follows the southern boundary of the Trinity-Glen Rose Groundwater Conservation District in Bexar County. Additionally, that same boundary in Comal, Hays, and Travis counties is also modified as a result of this comment. The Board realizes the amount of study and effort, as well as the administrative burdens associated with the original proposal. Consequently, the boundary between GMAs 9 and 10 in Comal, Hays, and Travis counties is changed by extending that boundary further east-southeastward to coincide with the southern limits of the local groundwater conservation districts.

The Lost Pines Groundwater Conservation District and Lower Colorado Regional Water Planning Group suggest that the boundary of GMA 12 be moved south to encompass all of Bastrop County to avoid being split between GAM modeling efforts concerning the southern and middle Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer.

Response: The Board concurs and has moved the boundary between GMAs 12 and 13 further south as a result. The common boundary in the original rule was the Colorado River; however, because of the concerns expressed, this boundary is now the common boundary between Bastrop and Caldwell counties. For the same reason, the GMA boundary that followed the Colorado River in Fayette County has also been moved south to coincide with the common boundary between Fayette and Gonzales counties. The latter, while shifting the boundary between middle and southern portions of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer, does not impact the southeastern extent of either GMA as that boundary continues to be the upper extent of the Gulf Coast aquifer.

The Edwards Aquifer Authority suggests that the boundary of GMA 10 be expanded slightly to include whole counties, including Kinney County, rather than just hydrologic boundaries, because of significant communication and lack of knowledge about hydrologic boundaries between the Edwards aquifer, the Trinity aquifer, and the Edwards-Trinity (Plateau) aquifer. This comment agrees with a suggestion by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board did not change the boundary in response to this comment because (1) the hydrology of the Trinity, Edwards-Trinity (Platuea), and Edwards aquifers is significantly different and therefore justifies different management areas and (2) the Edwards Aquifer Authority's boundaries extend into GMA 9, and therefore it will be able to participate in joint planning in both management areas.

The Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District requests that Karnes County not be split and instead be placed wholly within GMA 15 because of the limited hydrological communication among area aquifers and for better management. This change is supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board partially agrees and has adjusted the boundary between GMAs 15 and 16 to correspond with the suggestion. The proposed rule split the county into three GMAs using the San Antonio River and the upper extent of the Gulf Coast aquifer; consequently, cooperation among management areas may have been difficult. The new boundary now establishes the common line between GMA 15 and GMA 16 further north at the county boundary between De Witt and Karnes counties and going northwestward along the county boundary between Gonzales and Karnes counties until it reaches the northern extent of the Gulf Coast aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map. However, the same portion of the northern extent of the Gulf Coast aquifer continues to be the boundary between GMAs 13 and 16 because of the comments from the Refugio County Groundwater Conservation District and the Bee County Groundwater Conservation District. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The East Texas Regional Water Planning Group requests that Angelina County be wholly within GMA 11. This comment is supported by the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts.

Response: The Board concurs and has adjusted the southern boundary for GMA 11 so that Angelina County is wholly within the GMA. The proposed boundary was established using the northern extent and occurrence of the Gulf Coast aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map of Texas. As a result of the change, the common boundary between GMA 11 and 14 in the Angelina County area has changed and now reflects the common political boundary among Angelina, Polk, Tyler, and Jasper counties. This change is made because the nature of the aquifer boundary in this area is transitional, therefore a political subdivision boundary is equally as appropriate as a boundary based on hydrology. In such cases, the Board chooses to honor political subdivision boundaries, including existing districts and counties, to better facilitate the administration and coordination of groundwater management in the area.

The Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts asked that those counties with the Seymour aquifer be bound together in GMA 6 and that GMAs 7 and 9 should work together to improve management.

Response: The Board believes that GMA 6 should continue to contain, for the most part, the Seymour aquifer as defined by the Board's major aquifer map. Consequently, where changes to the boundary and extent of GMA 6 occur, they are the result of a general request noted earlier to not split groundwater conservation districts and to follow political boundaries as a way to facilitate joint management of groundwater resources. Regarding the suggestion that GMAs 7 and 9 work together, the Board believes that both a common aquifer and adjacent boundaries along with the current rules should facilitate cooperation among groundwater conservation districts and serve to achieve that suggestion; however, GMAs are not required to work together to improve management of a groundwater reservoir.

The following comments address process-related materials, not the proposed boundaries, but are nonetheless addressed as follows.

The Mesa Underground Water Conservation District suggested delaying the delineation of GMA boundaries in order to further study potential adjustments to those boundaries and their consequences, noting that the Board is not required to complete this effort until September, 2003. The Sandy Loam Groundwater Conservation District, North Plains Groundwater Conservation District, and Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District concur.

Response: The Board acknowledges the September 2003 deadline but has decided to complete the designation at this time in order to allow the boundaries to be completed so the Legislature may consider them in any action on groundwater district creation or modification. The timing also will allow affected Board staff to be available for activities during and immediately following the 78th Legislative Session.

One individual asked about future state control of groundwater.

Response: This comment does not relate to GMA designations.

The Post Oak Groundwater Conservation District asked about the peer review process where districts within the same GMA disagree or are uncooperative. Reference to this process and potential disputes was also made by the Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District and the Mayor of Stephenville.

Response: The Board notes that this rule is only for the delineation and establishment of groundwater management area boundaries. The resolution of disputes among groundwater conservation districts resides with the TCEQ.

The North Plains Groundwater Conservation District notes that GMAs cover the entire state, even areas with no apparent major or minor aquifers. The observation was also expressed by another individual.

Response: Shallow aquifers cover much of the state; the Board recognizes these "other aquifers" as sources of water for Texas.

One individual noted that the process discourages groundwater conservation district growth through annexation.

Response: This comment does not ask for change to GMA boundaries and thus is beyond the scope of the rules.

One individual asked why GMA 5 was so small.

Response: The Board delineated its boundaries primarily using hydrologic information and after considering the area's isolation, PGMA status, users, and the nature of usage.

The Neches & Trinity Valleys Groundwater Conservation District asked who would manage GMAs. Similar comments come from an individual with Save Our Springs of Northeast Texas and another individual who commented on the management and apparent duplication of effort. Additionally, one individual expressed concern about state regulation of private wells and another individual stated that landowers should control groundwater, not the state. This comment is similar to another expressed concern.

Response: GMAs are not entities, but geographic areas that may result in facilitating joint management of aquifers where multiple districts have the same or similar interests in groundwater resources. To the extent that such districts cooperate, the process may streamline other ongoing efforts, such as regional water planning. Ownership and regulation of groundwater are legislative functions. Also, GMA boundaries do not duplicate efforts. They require and encourage a certain amount of joint planning within a delineated area. GMAs also help define the boundaries within which the TCEQ can create groundwater conservation districts.

One commenter asked why GMAs 11, 12, and 13 were split, given that they cover the same aquifer.

Response: The Board notes that some aquifers cover such a large extent of the state and provide substantial amounts of water under varying conditions, including political, that they cannot readily be combined into a single GMA. In this particular situation, the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer is, for many of the same reasons, being similarly broken apart to ease groundwater modeling efforts; also, portions of the aquifer are hydrologically different. For example, most of the water produced from it in GMA 13 is from the Carrizo Formation but comes from the Simsboro Formation of the Wilcox Group in GMA 12.

The North Plains Groundwater District noted that regional water planning areas should not be the primary justification for delineating GMA boundaries.

Response: They are not. The Board followed statute and relies, where feasible, on hydrologic boundaries, but also takes into consideration political boundaries where they may allow for more effective management of the resource. Where the rule relies on political boundaries, they generally do not follow those of regional water planning areas; instead, they rely primarily on county and groundwater district lines in order to facilitate cooperation among districts.

A Kendall County representative asked whether the Edwards Aquifer Authority would be coordinating with other districts.

Response: With this rule, the mechanism is in place to encourage such cooperation.

One individual commented that the Board should make its web site more "user friendly."

Response: The Board is constantly modifying and updating the way information is presented on the web site and attempts to make adjustments that will allow ease of use and information gathering whenever possible.

A comment from the Blanco-Pedernales Groundwater Conservation District asked what happens to PGMAs if GMAs are adopted.

Response: The GMA process is separate from the PGMA process. TCEQ is responsible for PGMA designations.

One individual asked how GMA 11 relates to any PGMAs or districts in northeast Texas.

Response: GMA 11 wholly includes all confirmed and non-confirmed groundwater conservation districts in the area. There are no PGMAs delineated in GMA 11.

A commenter from the South Texas Water Authority and the Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group asked whether most districts are not subject to falling entirely within one GMA and what is the impact of GMAs on regional water planning. The commenter also asked to what extent the peer panel review process is enforceable.

Response: In the proposed rule, many groundwater districts were split. Based upon comments on this proposed rule, however, the Board has made many changes to honor district boundaries. The Board hopes that where districts cooperate and do joint management and planning, those results can be utilized by regional water planning groups to complement their efforts in developing ideas on how to meet identified water needs for the future. The Board suggests that the enforceability question is properly answered by the TCEQ.

One individual commented that joint planning by districts may not be as open to the public as other processes.

Response: Groundwater districts are political subdivisions of the state and are subject to the Texas Open Meetings Act and its sister act on Public Information Records. The scope of this rule cannot address the public process of joint planning.

A commenter from the City of Corpus Christi asked how groundwater modeling efforts (GAMs) would impact GMAs. This question is supported by an individual with the South Texas Water Authority and the Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Group.

Response: GAMs can be used by groundwater conservation districts, individually or collectively, in a GMA to investigate impacts of groundwater management strategies.

One individual asked when the rules governing coordination take effect.

Response: The GMA delineation rule becomes effective 20 days after filing with the Texas Register. The coordination clauses in statute would then be applicable.

Mesa Underground Water Conservation District and the Lipan-Kickapoo Water Conservation District commented that the GMA process should not require districts to conform to each others rules.

Response: The Board notes that there is no authority to require districts to change their rules. The GMA process only attempts to facilitate joint planning and coordination.

One commenter from the City of Stephenville asked why the TCEQ is the agency to settle disputes among districts and whether GMAs could/may be subdivided.

Response: The Legislature designated the TCEQ as the agency to which issues relating to joint planning are presented. The GMA delineations are subject to change through a rulemaking process.

The Headwaters Groundwater Conservation District asked about the specific regulations for joint planning.

Response: This question is within the jurisdiction of TCEQ.

State Representative Gary Walker made a general statement of concern about the initial stakeholder process on which the original proposal was based and how it resulted in giving non-local interests influence in the management of groundwater. He also noted that GMAs will have managerial authority in the future, and that GMAs may hinder the successful creation of future groundwater conservation districts.

Response: The Board understands that there are always multiple interests that may influence groundwater management and that many existing districts currently deal with this reality. The initial stakeholder process for GMA designation dealt with this by soliciting suggestions from multiple interests in this ongoing process. As noted, the Board spent several months soliciting public comments and concerns both about the process and the results. The Board notes that only the Legislature can give GMAs management functions.

Several individuals asked questions concerning the regulatory authority of groundwater districts.

Response: The Board cannot respond as such authority belongs to individual groundwater conservation districts under Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code or in special enabling legislation relating to particular districts.

The Menard County Underground Water District commented that many existing groundwater districts are funded through ad valorem taxation; consequently, splitting districts along non-county lines will be very cumbersome/burdensome.

Response: The Board has modified many portions of the GMA boundaries in order to avoid splitting districts. Nonetheless, in some areas similar splits may continue to occur because the Board followed statutory guidelines and relied primarily on hydrological assignments. Originally, 42 groundwater conservation districts were split into multiple GMAs. With the adoption of this new rule, only 15 districts will be split between multiple GMAs. A groundwater district split by a GMA does not affect the ability of a district to collect ad valorem taxes.

The new sections are adopted under the authority of the Texas Water Code, Chapter 6, §6.101 which provides the Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties in the Water Code and other laws of the State, as well as under the authority of Texas Water Code, Chapter 35, §35.004 which provides that the Board shall designate groundwater management areas covering all major and minor aquifers in the state.

This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on November 25, 2002.

TRD-200207852

Suzanne Schwartz

General Counsel

Texas Water Development Board

Effective date: December 15, 2002

Proposal publication date: September 6, 2002

For further information, please call: (512) 463-7981