31 TAC §§61.132 - 61.137
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments
to §§61.132 - 61.137, concerning the Texas Recreation and Parks
Account Grants Program, without changes to the proposed text as published
in the December 24, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 11918).
The proposed amendments are a result of the department’s review process
under the provisions of Government Code, §2001.039, which requires each
state agency to perform a review of all regulations not less than every four
years and to either readopt, amend, or repeal each rule as necessary and appropriate.
As a result of the review process, which included surveys, focus groups, and
public hearings, the department determined that modifications should be made
to improve the effectiveness of programs, simplify and improve the scoring
systems, and address new constituent needs.
In general, the amendments modify the scoring systems for outdoor, indoor,
and small community grants by simplifying the criteria for awarding points
for master plan priorities, restructuring the criteria for awarding priority
points for land acquisition, increasing the potential point total for renovations,
and simplifying the evaluation process for outside matching fund criteria.
The changes reflect statewide recreation trends that indicate an increased
preference for the rehabilitation of existing facilities and create extended
flexibility in providing required matching funds. The amendments eliminate
obsolete department program references and add a criterion to reduce the competitive
weight given to new applicants with balances remaining on previously funded
projects. Regional grant scoring criteria have been reorganized to better
reflect department priorities and sponsor needs in developing inter-governmental
relationships and protecting a diversity of natural resources. Administrative
changes will allow larger metropolitan areas to simultaneously submit and
receive funding for more than one grant at a time in order to return funding
to those communities with larger sales tax contributions to the Texas Recreation
and Parks Account.
The amendments are also necessary to implement administrative and scoring
system changes for existing grant programs under the Texas Recreation and
Parks Account, and therefore require changes to the Texas Recreation and Parks
Account Grant Manual (which is adopted by reference) and adoption of the revised
scoring criteria used to evaluate candidate projects for possible funding
under the Texas Recreation and Parks Account Program.
The amendments are necessary, in the aggregate, to establish the purpose,
priorities, standards, and scoring systems for grant applications submitted
by communities.
The amendment to §61.132, concerning the Texas Recreation and Parks
Account Grants Manual, is necessary for the ease and convenience of potential
customers and will function by updating phone and e-mail contact information
for the program.
The amendment to §61.133, concerning Grants for Outdoor Recreation
Projects replaces the word ‘increase’ with the word ‘provide’
in order to clarify the intent of the criterion, to avoid the implication
of inappropriate development or quantitative standards, and to emphasize environmentally
sensitive opportunities where appropriate. The changes are necessary to ensure
that terminology is accurate. The amendment also introduces ‘innovative
use’ as a priority criterion, which is necessary to acknowledge that
innovation also plays a role in developing outdoor recreation opportunity.
The amendment modifies terminology by using the term ‘sponsors’
to replace ‘park and recreation providers’ and ‘governmental
and/or educational’ entities. The change is necessary to create one
subsection to address matching fund criteria, rather than addressing it piecemeal.
The amendment also combines provisions regarding sources of matching funds
for the same reason. The amendment also replaces the phrase ‘wise use
of natural resources’ with the phrase ‘environmentally responsible
activities and development,’ which is nonsubstantive but necessary to
more clearly articulate the department’s goals in administering the
program. The amendment increases the timeframe for plan accomplishment from
five years to ten; specifies required information for plan updates; and requires
sponsors who submitted plans prior to 2000 to submit new plans (but allows
a five-year extension for plans submitted since 2000), all of which are necessary
to allow local sponsors to more effectively plan for and fund recreational
development. The amendment also allows separate priority lists to be submitted
for indoor and outdoor priorities; requires a discussion and map to accompany
plans for open space acquisitions; provides for renovation and redevelopment
needs to be prioritized; and requires plan revisions involving more than progress
updates to be reformulated to include all new priorities, which is necessary
to, respectively: allow local sponsors to receive separate priority points
for master planning for outdoor and indoor applications; justify the need
for open space and renovation proposals that might receive priority points
elsewhere in the scoring criteria; and to ensure public input when master
plan priorities are revised. The amendment also reduces the maximum number
of priority points from 20 to 15; reorganizes the priority need structure
to eliminate ‘point ranges’ in favor of a 1:1 correspondence between
criterion and points awarded; and reduces the possible point values for each
priority need to accommodate the changes to the overall point total and individual
priority values. The changes are necessary to simplify the method for awarding
master planning priority points while still acknowledging the importance of
meeting locally determined priority planning needs in the project proposal.
The amendment allows low-impact facilities to be evaluated as a group, rather
than individually, if desired. The change is necessary to assure that priority
points are awarded for significant recreation facilities. The amendment relocates
the criteria for evaluating water-based recreation acquisition opportunities;
eliminates ‘complementary’ opportunities for water-based opportunities;
clarifies that only existing water bodies qualify for consideration; clarifies
the definitions of ‘river’ and ‘pond’; and reduces
the point potential for wetland development projects. This portion of the
amendment is necessary in order to relocate provisions governing the award
of priority points for water acquisition to a single section; to eliminate
confusing wording regarding eligible development; to prevent environmentally
unsuitable pond development; to provide definitions for certain water-body
types; and to eliminate potential duplication of priority point awards for
wetlands that receive significant points under other criteria. The amendment
also provides for proposals to be evaluated on innovative use of recreation
lands and facilities; reduces the potential point total for categorical project
criteria; clarifies the term "recreation opportunity," and eliminates the
minimum percentage requirement for applicability of the criterion. The changes
are necessary to alleviate concerns about the perceived need for local sponsors
to budget for low-priority new facilities in addition to higher-priority facility
development. The amendment also clarifies that trees and drip-irrigation systems
are considered recreational rather than support improvements, which is necessary
to properly award priority points for environmentally appropriate use of landscaping.
The amendment also allows for individual applicability of special population
criteria and revises the definition for "low income," which is necessary to
clarify that special population categories may be cumulative or apply individually,
and to standardize the definition of "low income" using a readily accessible
source that is updated annually. The amendment also requires documentation
of outside matching fund contributions; consolidates governmental, educational,
and private sector sources (including land dedication) of matching funds under
a single criterion; clarifies that publicly owned non-parkland is eligible
as match; and reduces the maximum available points from 25 to 20 by eliminating
the separate criterion for the permanent dedication of non-sponsor-owned public
non-parkland only. The changes are necessary to simplify the awarding of priority
points for outside matching fund sources and to provide auditable evidence
of outside contributions. The amendment also allows priority points to be
awarded for publicly owned non-parkland used as acquisition match when such
acquisition meets the resource definitions under this criterion; increases
the required open space acreage from 1 acre to 2 acres; eliminates use of
the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan for evaluation of wetland
sites; allows habitat enhancement to qualify for open space designation; reduces
the priority points awarded for each resource under the criterion; and removes
the population-density requirement for proposals that seek only the acquisition
of land. The changes are necessary to clarify that dedication of publicly
owned non-parkland is an eligible method of increasing a local community’s
recreational estate; to group all resource acquisitions into a single criterion
for ease of evaluation; to recognize functional habitat limits and development
potential for open space sites; to allow flexibility of biological evaluation
criteria for wetland determination; to acknowledge local sponsor requests
to reduce scoring weight for land acquisition in relation to other local priority
needs without compromising the department’s preference for the acquisition
and preservation of significant natural resources; and to provide flexibility
for smaller or less densely developed communities to acquire land. The amendment
also expands the definition of renovation to include "adaptive reuse" and
increases the potential number of priority points awarded for this criterion.
The changes are necessary to properly address the fiscal and environmental
potential of the use of existing structures for new purposes, and to meet
the demonstrated local need for renovated facilities as opposed to land acquisition
and development of new facilities. The amendment also replaces the phrase ‘the
conservation of natural resources’ with the phrase ‘environmentally
responsible activities and development’; deletes the phrase ‘renovation
of obsolete lighting systems with more’; and adds the elements ‘alternative
energy sources’ and ‘water catchment systems’ to the list
of eligible conservation items. The changes are necessary to standardize the
program nomenclature, which is used in several grant programs. The amendment
also substitutes the word ‘significant’ for the word ‘greenbelt’;
reduces the number of priority points from five to three; and removes the
hierarchy of destinations. These changes are necessary to reward a greater
variety of linkages whose significance may vary from community to community
while acknowledging the documented reduction in local priority for providing
greenbelt linkages. The amendment also adds the term ‘site-based’
in regard to cultural resources and adds the phrase ‘through interpretive
facilities or preservation strategies’. These changes are necessary
to restrict award of priority points to only those resources specifically
related to the site for development and to clarify the methodology for evaluation.
The amendment to §61.134, concerning Grants for Indoor Recreation
Projects, consists of several actions. The amendment incorporates limitations
on eligibility of local projects for consideration by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Commission, and revises the introductory listing of recommended priorities
to track the revisions made elsewhere in the scoring system by this rulemaking.
The change is necessary to standardize review procedures among the Texas Recreation
and Parks Account grant programs. The amendment increases the timeframe for
plan accomplishment from five years to ten; requires plans older than two
years to be updated; and requires sponsors who submitted plans prior to 2000
to submit new plans (but grants a five-year extension for plans submitted
since 2000). The amendment is necessary to allow local sponsors to more effectively
plan for and fund recreational development and to establish consistency between
grant programs. The amendment also allows for separate priority lists to be
submitted for indoor and outdoor needs; requires a map (accompanied by a discussion)
to accompany plans for open space acquisitions; provides for renovation and
redevelopment needs to be prioritized; and requires plan revisions involving
more than progress updates of existing updates to be reformulated to include
all new priorities. The amendment is necessary to allow local sponsors to
be awarded priority points for separate master planning for outdoor and indoor
applications; to justify the need for open space and renovation proposals
which might be eligible for priority points under other criteria; and to ensure
public input when master plan priorities are revised. The amendment also reduces
the maximum number of priority points from 20 to 15; reorganizes the priority
need structure to eliminate ‘point ranges’ in favor of a 1:1 correspondence
between criteria and points awarded; and reduces the possible point values
for each priority need to accommodate the changes to the overall point total
and individual priority values. The changes are necessary to simplify the
method for awarding master planning priority points while still rewarding
the importance of meeting locally determined priority planning needs in the
project proposal. The amendment reduces the number of potential priority points
available for recreational diversity. The change is necessary to standardize
the method of allocating diversity points and to provide consistency with
the outdoor grant scoring system. The amendment eliminates the award of priority
points for outdoor education or conservation facilities. The change is necessary
to eliminate duplication, since priority points are awarded for such facilities
under other criteria. The amendment also adds "innovative use" as a priority
criterion and allows the award of points on a per-opportunity basis rather
than as a percentage of construction cost. The changes are necessary to acknowledge
that innovation also plays a role in developing indoor recreation opportunities,
and to correct a methodology error. The amendment eliminates requirements
regarding the number of citizens served by a project. The change is necessary
because most communities propose to serve the entire population or service
area and the inclusion of priority points no longer makes a substantive addition
to the project rankings. The amendment removes the category of youth-at-risk
as a stand-alone criterion. The change is necessary in order to consolidate
all special-population review criteria in one place. The amendment also replaces
the term "governmental or educational institutions" with the term "public
or private entities;" increases the number of priority points awarded from
15 to 20; includes publicly owned non-parkland from sources other than the
sponsor as a source of matching funds; allows for non-grant assisted facility
contributions to be eligible for priority points; and prohibits credit for
permanent dedication of land from a source other than the sponsor. The changes
are necessary to simplify and standardize the eligibility of outside matching
sources by incorporating public and private sources into a single criterion;
to clarify that the use of publicly owned non-parkland is eligible as match;
to standardize the priority points awarded under the equivalent criterion
for outdoor grants; and to remove conflicting wording resulting from the combination
of outside matching fund sources. The amendment also consolidates provisions
governing public and private matching fund sources in a single criterion,
for the same reasons discussed in the portion of this preamble relating to
the adoption of §61.133. The amendment also modifies the criteria by
adding "adaptive reuse" as a method to increase the priority points awarded
under the section. The change is necessary to address the fiscal and environmental
potential in the use of existing structures for new purposes and to meet the
demonstrated local need for renovated facilities as opposed to land acquisition
and development of new facilities. The amendment also includes youth-at-risk
citizens in the special-population criteria; revises the definition of "low
income;" and increases the number of potential priority points available for
the criterion. The changes are necessary to standardize the special-populations
criteria and the method of dispensation of priority points among grant programs,
and to standardize the definition of "low income" by using a readily accessible
source that is updated annually. The amendment replaces the phrase ‘conservation
of natural resources and environmental values’ with the phrase ‘environmentally
responsible activities and development’; eliminates the phrase ‘renovation
of obsolete lighting systems with more’; and adds activities for alternative
energy sources and water catchment systems. The changes are nonsubstantive
and are necessary to more clearly articulate the department’s goals
in administering the program and to standardize the nomenclature used in the
different grant programs.
The amendment to §61.135, concerning Grants for Community Outdoor
Outreach Projects, consists of several actions. The amendment revises the
introductory listing of recommended priorities to track the revisions to the
scoring system, which is necessary to standardize review procedures among
the Texas Recreation and Parks Account grant programs. The amendment also
implements standardized review procedures, which is necessary to make the
administration of all grant program project priority scoring systems consistent.
The amendment also provides for a new priority point total for the criterion,
which is necessary because the previous total was incorrect. The amendment
also allows for points to be awarded on the basis of populations at given
sponsor locations (inner-city or rural or neither, but not both). The change
is necessary to clarify the existing method of determining population priority
points. The amendment also revises the definition of a ‘rural county.’
The change is necessary to be consistent with other Texas Recreation and Parks
Account grant program specifications regarding rural and/or small community
populations. The amendment also implements language to clarify that the target
population with respect to minorities includes only those populations that
are ethnic minorities, which is necessary to prevent confusion. The amendment
also implements the federal standard for determination of low-income status.
The change is necessary to standardize the definition of "low income" by using
a readily accessible source that is updated annually. The amendment also requires
that agreements between local sponsors and other partnerships be kept current.
The change is necessary to ensure that the most up-to-date version of an agreement
is available for audit purposes. The amendment also requires written proof
of sponsor contributions, which is necessary to provide auditable records
of contributions for which priority points may be awarded. The amendment also
requires the identification of specific department facilities in proposals
that would involve the use of department facilities, which is necessary for
the department to provide the program with a way to maintain records of facility
use by program participants and to allow accurate proposal review. The amendment
also requires the applicant to obtain a verification letter from department
staff involved with a project, which is necessary to ensure proper coordination
between local sponsors and department staff. The amendment also eliminates
the award of points for use of TPWD instructional materials. The change is
necessary because the use of instructional materials alone is insignificant
in the overall scope of a project and should not qualify for priority points.
The amendment also eliminates the award of priority points for participation
in the TPW Outdoor Kids Program. The change is necessary because the program
no longer exists. The amendment also provides a formula for determining the
point value reductions for applicants that have not fulfilled all previous
community outdoor outreach grant reimbursement requirements. The change is
necessary to ensure that sponsors are in compliance with guidelines in order
to be eligible for additional funding, and to create a definitive formula
for making such determinations.
The amendment to §61.136, concerning Small Community Grants Programs,
consists of several actions. The amendment revises the introductory listing
of recommended priorities to track the revisions in the scoring system made
by this rulemaking. The change is necessary to standardize review procedures
among the Texas Recreation and Parks Account grant programs. The amendment
reduces the potential number of priority points awarded for recreational diversity,
which is necessary to acknowledge local communities’ requests for a
reduced emphasis on the number of facilities in a proposal as opposed to other
considerations. The amendment also allows for consideration of ‘innovative
use,’ which is necessary to acknowledge that innovation also plays a
role in developing small community recreation opportunities. The amendment
also replaces the term ‘recreation opportunity’ with ‘public
park,’ which is necessary to more accurately describe the type of recreational
facility eligible to receive points as a park setting, as well as to distinguish
this criterion from others that involve new and different recreational opportunities.
The amendment also eliminates the award of points for projects that would
be either the first public park or, if not the first park, would introduce
new and different facilities to a community. The change is necessary to distinguish
the opportunity for providing new and different facilities from the opportunity
for providing the first public park, and to establish consistency between
grant programs with the same criteria. The amendment also clarifies that special-population
categories may be cumulative or apply individually, which is necessary to
offer flexibility. The amendment also provides that the federal poverty definition
midpoint in the USDA National School Lunch Program Income Eligibility Guidelines
is the standard for defining low-income status. The changes are necessary
to standardize the definition of "low income" by using a readily accessible
source that is updated annually and to eliminate unnecessary verbiage. The
amendment also requires documentation of fund sources and broadens the eligibility
standards to encompass all public entities. The changes are necessary to require
auditable proof of contributions and to consolidate all sources of matching
funds. The amendment also standardizes the terminology to create a single
set of terms that mean the same things in different grant programs. The amendment
also clarifies that publicly owned non-parkland is eligible for matching funds
and reduces the potential number of priority points for that criterion from
five to ten. The change is necessary to acknowledge local sponsor requests
to place more scoring emphasis on the need for renovation of existing facilities
as opposed to acquisition or development of new areas and facilities. The
amendment also replaces the phrase ‘conservation of natural resources’
with the phrase ‘environmentally responsible activities,’ which
is necessary to standardize the nomenclature used in the different grant programs.
The amendment to §61.137, concerning Grants for Regional Parks Grant
Programs, consists of several actions. The amendment revises the introductory
listing of recommended priorities to track the revisions made to the rules
governing the scoring system, which is necessary to standardize review procedures
among the Texas Recreation and Parks Account grant programs. The amendment
creates a range of priority points instead of a fixed number per criterion,
which is necessary to allow for flexibility in evaluating the quality and
number of intensive-use recreation opportunities. The amendment similarly
allows for flexibility in evaluating the quality and function of linear greenways
and conservation areas. The amendment also relocates all provisions applicable
to acquisition of water access in a single section, which is necessary to
consolidate all natural resource acquisition functions under a single criterion
and to allow for flexibility in evaluating the type and quality of water bodies.
The amendment also allows for the evaluation of proposed acquisition of access
to natural resources other than water. The change is necessary to incorporate
all natural resource acquisition functions into a single criterion and to
promote equity among regions of the state with few opportunities to provide
water access but with other valuable natural resources of recreational value,
as well as to allow for flexibility in evaluating the type and quality of
the natural resource. Similarly, the amendment relocates the criteria relating
to development of significant natural resource-based recreation opportunities,
including water-based recreation, natural resource-based recreation other
than water, and conservation of aquatic habitat, into a single section. The
change is necessary to consolidate similar requirements for greater ease of
use and to allow for greater flexibility in evaluating the type and quality
of the resources. The amendment also requires the dedication of publicly owned
non-parkland included as match, replaces the phrase ‘multiple political
jurisdictions’ with the phrase ‘sources other than the sponsor;’
increases the potential priority points for these criteria from 5 to 15; and
clarifies that ‘contribution value’ means the value of contributions
from outside sources. The changes are necessary to clarify that the use of
publicly owned non-parkland is eligible as match, and to simplify and standardize
the awarding of points for all sources of outside matching funds rather than
sponsor resources alone. The amendment also requires documentation of suggested
master plans; adds conservation projects to the list of eligible types of
master plans; and adds public service organizations to the list of eligible
master-plan providers. The changes are necessary to provide an auditable record
of master plans, which can be used to provide the source of priority points
to be awarded for this criterion; to appropriately define the types of master
plans eligible for points; and to further define the types of organizations
whose plans are eligible for consideration. The amendment also allows private
sector contributions to be combined with other sources of matching funds for
the purpose of simplifying evaluation of outside matching sources and to standardize
matching fund criteria among grant programs. The amendment also removes the
requirement that publicly owned non-parkland be dedicated from a source other
than the sponsor. The change is necessary to designate dedication of publicly
owned non-parkland as an eligible matching fund source, and to allow sponsor-owned
as well as non-sponsor-owned non-parkland as match. The amendment also reduces
the number of priority points per linkage from five to two and alters terminology
to reflect the more significant recreational impact of the destination on
either end of a linkage as opposed to the political jurisdiction in which
such a linkage terminates. The amendment also adds a criterion for ‘sustainable
development’ regarding resource conservation eligibility, which is necessary
to standardize wording of the same criterion appearing in different grant
programs.
The department received no comments concerning adoption of the proposed
rules.
The amendments are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter
24, which requires the department to adopt regulations for grant assistance.
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 April 11, 2005.
TRD-200501497
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: May 1, 2005
Proposal publication date: December 24, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775