Part 1.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE
Chapter 15.
COASTAL AREA PLANNING
Subchapter A. MANAGEMENT OF THE BEACH/DUNE SYSTEM
31 TAC §15.2, §15.6
The General Land Office (GLO) proposes to amend 31 TAC, Part
1, Chapter 15, relating to Coastal Area Planning, §15.2 relating to Definitions,
and §15.6, relating to Concurrent Dune Protection and Beachfront Construction
Standards. The proposed amendments update citations and make minor editorial
corrections. These rule amendments have been undertaken as a result of the
comprehensive review of the GLO's rules mandated by Texas Government Code §2001.039,
and will ensure that the rules are clear, necessary, and updated.
The proposed amendment of §15.2(6) updates the definition of "Beach/Dune
Rules." The definition currently refers to the Beach/Dune rules as §§15.1-15.10.
Section 15.12 has been added to the Beach/Dune Rules, so the proposed amendment
updates the definition to include §15.12.
The proposed amendment of §15.2(69) updates the definition of "Unique
flora and fauna." The definition currently refers to endangered or threatened
species listed "at" the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act) and/or Texas
Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 68. The proposed amendment clarifies that
the species are not listed in these statutes, but are listed "pursuant to"
the authority granted in these statutes. In addition, the proposed amendment
corrects the citation to the Act, which currently reads "16 United States
Code Annotated, §1531." The Act is codified in §§1531-1544,
so the phrase "et seq." is added to indicate that the Act is codified in multiple
sections.
The proposed amendment of §15.6(b) adds a period at the end of the
sentence.
The proposed amendment of §15.6(c) and (d) updates the citation to
the Coastal Coordination Council's rule related to Policies for Construction
in the Beach/Dune System, which has been renumbered. The proposed amendments
reflect the renumbering of 31 TAC §501.14(k)(2) to 31 TAC §501.26(b).
Pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.0225, a regulatory analysis
is not required for the proposed rulemaking as a "major environmental rule."
Under the Government Code, a "major environmental rule" is a rule the specific
intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health
from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect, in a material way,
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the
state. A regulatory analysis is required only when a major environmental rule
exceeds a standard set by federal law, exceeds an express requirement of state
law, exceeds a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the
state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement
a state or federal program, or are adopted solely under the general powers
of the GLO. The proposed rulemaking will not adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector
of the state. The proposed rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal
law, does not exceed an express requirement of state law, does not exceed
a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and
an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state
or federal program, and is not adopted solely under the general powers of
the GLO.
The GLO has reviewed these proposed rule amendments for consistency with
the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal Management Program (CMP)
and regulations of the Coastal Coordination Council (Council). The proposed
amendments are consistent with 31 TAC §501.12, relating to Goals; and
31 TAC §501.26, relating to Policies for Construction in the Beach/Dune
System, because the proposed amendments are non-substantive editorial corrections
and updates to citations that do not change the meaning or effect of the existing
rules.
The GLO has evaluated the proposed rulemaking in accordance with Texas
Government Code, §2007.043(b), and §2.18 of the Attorney General's
Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines, to determine whether
a detailed takings impact assessment is required. The GLO has determined that
the proposed rulemaking does not affect private real property in a manner
that requires real property owners to be compensated as provided by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Article I,
Sections 17 and 19, of the Texas Constitution. Furthermore, the GLO has determined
that the proposed rulemaking would not affect any private real property in
a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the property that would
otherwise exist in the absence of the rule amendments. The GLO has determined
that the proposed rulemaking will not result in a taking of private property
and that there are no adverse impacts on private real property interests.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has determined that for each year of the first five years the amended
sections as proposed are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for
the state or units of local government as a result of enforcing or administering
the amended sections as the amendments constitute minor clarifications to
the rules.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has also determined that there will be no economic cost to persons
required to comply with these regulations, as these amendments add no additional
restrictions or requirements that did not already exist. The public will benefit
from the proposed rule amendments because the amended rules will provide more
clarity. There will be no effect on small businesses, and a local employment
impact statement on these proposed regulations is not required, because the
proposed regulations will not adversely affect any local economy in a material
manner for the first five years they will be in effect.
To comment on the proposed rulemaking or its consistency with the CMP goals
and policies, please send a written comment to Mr. Walter Talley,
Texas Register
Liaison, Texas General Land Office, P.O. Box 12873,
Austin, TX 78711-2873, facsimile number (512) 463-6311 or email to walter.talley@glo.state.tx.us.
Comments must be received no later than thirty (30) days from the date of
publication of this proposal.
The amendments are proposed under authority granted in the Open
Beaches Act, Texas Natural Resources Code §61.011, which provides the
Commissioner of the GLO the authority to adopt rules for the public beach
easement; and the Dune Protection Act, Texas Natural Resources Code §63.121,
which authorizes the Commissioner of the General Land Office to adopt rules
for protection of critical dune areas.
The proposed amendments are necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources
Code §33.204, and the Open Beaches Act and Dune Protection Act, Texas
Natural Resources Code Chapters 61 and 63.
§15.2.Definitions.
The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall
have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) - (5)
(No change.)
(6)
Beach/Dune Rules--31 TAC §§15.1-
15.12
[
(7) - (68)
(No change.)
(69)
Unique flora and fauna--Endangered or threatened plant
or animal species listed
pursuant to
[
(70)
(No change.)
§15.6.Concurrent Dune Protection and Beachfront Construction Standards.
(a)
(No change.)
(b)
Location of construction. Local governments shall require
permittees to locate all construction as far landward as is practicable and
shall not allow any construction which may aggravate erosion
.
(c)
Prohibition of erosion response structures. Local governments
shall not issue a permit or certificate allowing construction of an erosion
response structure. Notwithstanding the general prohibition on constructing
erosion response structures, a local government may authorize the construction
of a structural shore protection project that conforms with the policies of
the Coastal Coordination Council promulgated in
31 TAC §501.26(b)
[
(1)
A local government shall not issue a permit authorizing
the construction of a retaining wall within the area 200 feet landward of
the line of vegetation.
(2)
A local government may issue a permit authorizing construction
of a retaining wall in the area more than 200 feet landward of the line of
vegetation.
(d)
Existing erosion response structures. In no event shall
local governments issue permits or certificates authorizing maintenance or
repair of an existing erosion response structure on the public beach or the
enlargement or improvement of the structure within 200 feet landward of the
natural vegetation line. Notwithstanding the general prohibition on maintaining
or repairing erosion response structures, a local government may authorize
the maintenance or repair of a structural shore protection project that conforms
with the policies of the Coastal Coordination Council promulgated in
31 TAC §501.26(b)
[
(1)
When failure to repair the structure will cause unreasonable
hazard to a public building, public road, public water supply, public sewer
system, or other public facility immediately landward of the structure.
(2)
When failure to repair the structure will cause unreasonable
flood hazard to habitable structures because adjacent erosion response structures
will channel floodwaters to the habitable structure.
(e) - (h)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 30, 2005.
TRD-200502697
Trace Finley
Policy Director
General Land Office
Earliest possible date of adoption: August 14, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §§15.41, 15.42, 15.44
The Texas General Land Office (GLO) proposes to amend 31
TAC, Part 1, Chapter 15, relating to Coastal Area Planning, §15.41, relating
to Evaluation Process for Coastal Erosion Studies and Projects, §15.42,
relating to Funding Projects From the Coastal Erosion Response Account, and §15.44,
relating to Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials.
The amendments are proposed pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Planning and
Response Act (CEPRA), Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter
H, §§33.601 - 33.612. CEPRA requires the GLO to implement a program
of coastal erosion avoidance, remediation, and planning. The proposed amendments
are necessary to clarify evaluation criteria and procedures for proposed CEPRA
projects. These rule amendments have been undertaken as a result of the comprehensive
review of the GLO's rules mandated by Texas Government Code §2001.039
and statutory changes from the 79th Texas Legislature, and will ensure that
the rules are clear, necessary, and updated.
The proposed amendment of the first sentence of §15.41 clarifies that
the two-stage evaluation process described in §15.41 is intended to apply
to those projects that are proposed by potential project partners, rather
than those projects that are undertaken solely by the GLO.
The proposed amendment of §15.41(1)(A)(xiii)(VI) adds a category for
identification of the type of project proposed by potential project partners.
The category includes projects for removal of debris or structures, or relocation
of structures from the public beach, with a shared project cost determined
by the Commissioner of the GLO. The 79th Legislature, 2005, provided authority
for this type of project category in Senate Bill 517, amending Texas Natural
Resources Code §33.603, effective September 1, 2005.
The proposed amendment of §15.41(1)(B) changes the order of the list
of methods by which the GLO prefers to receive project goal summaries to put
email first, because the GLO has determined that email is the quickest and
most efficient method of delivery.
The proposed amendment of §15.41(1)(D)(viii) deletes one of the priority
criteria for the review of proposed projects during the GLO's initial evaluation
of project goal summaries. The criterion regarding "the economic benefits
to the state relative to the cost to the state of the project" is unnecessary
and does not serve the same purpose as the other criteria in subparagraph
(D) because the GLO has determined that it cannot adequately determine the
economic benefits to the state relative to the cost to the state for a proposed
project. In addition, the criterion proposed for deletion is not one of the
required criteria for evaluating proposed projects found in Texas Natural
Resources Code §33.605(b). Therefore, the GLO has determined that this
criterion serves no useful purpose and should be deleted.
The proposed amendments of §15.41(1)(E)(ii) and 15.41(2)(A) and (B)
make it permissive, rather than required, for the GLO to invite a potential
project partner to become a qualified project partner by entering into a project
cooperation agreement to evaluate alternatives during the second stage of
the evaluation process under §15.41(2). Section 15.41(2) currently requires
the GLO and a potential project partner to enter into a project cooperation
agreement to perform a cooperative evaluation of alternatives for addressing
erosion problems. Upon entering into a project cooperation agreement, a potential
project partner will become a qualified project partner. Through its experiences
since these rules were promulgated, however, the GLO has found that it is
sometimes unnecessary to enter into a project cooperation agreement to perform
an evaluation of alternatives for every proposed project, because the GLO
already has the necessary information through previous evaluations of alternatives
for similar projects. In addition, the requirement to enter into a project
cooperation agreement to perform an evaluation of alternatives during the
second stage of project evaluation can make the evaluation process so lengthy
that projects cannot be started in a timely manner, increasing the likelihood
that construction will continue into bird and turtle nesting season. The typical
CEPRA project is comprised of preliminary engineering, permitting, final engineering
design, and construction phases. Many time and resource constraints are encountered
during the course of a project, including time required for permitting, bird
and turtle nesting windows when construction is not allowed, and securing
cost effective sand resources proximal to project locations. Although the
CEPRA program continues to improve its processes for project evaluation, selection,
and contracting, the minimum time frames for these elements are substantial.
The proposed amendment of §15.41(2)(C)(ii) and (D) recognizes that the
project partner may be either a potential project partner or a qualified project
partner, depending on whether they have entered into a project cooperation
agreement.
The proposed amendment of §15.42(a) clarifies that the funding requirements
in §15.42 pertain to projects requested by qualified and potential project
partners, rather than to projects or studies conducted solely by the GLO.
In addition, the proposed amendment recognizes that the GLO and a project
partner may or may not have entered into a cooperation agreement under §15.41(2)
for the evaluation of alternatives. Section 15.42(a) currently provides that
the GLO and a qualified project partner must amend their existing cooperation
agreement to provide for funding under §15.42, since they are currently
required to enter into a cooperation agreement for the purpose of evaluating
erosion response project alternatives under §15.41(2). However, if the
GLO and a potential project partner have opted to forego a project cooperation
agreement to evaluate alternatives under the proposed changes to §15.41(2),
then the proposed changes to §15.42 assure that they will enter into
a project cooperation agreement for funding conditions and for management
of the project before the GLO can fund the project. The last sentence of §15.42(a)
is changed to remove the word "amended" to indicate that the project cooperation
agreement may be either new or amended.
The proposed amendment of §15.42(b) removes the word "amended" before
"project cooperation agreement," so that it is consistent with the proposed
changes to §15.42(a).
The proposed amendment of §15.42(c) adds a reference to subsection
(h) of Texas Natural Resources Code §33.603 in order to be consistent
with the statutory change to Texas Natural Resources Code §33.603 by
the 79th Legislature, 2005, in Senate Bill 517, effective September 1, 2005.
The proposed amendment of §15.44(d) updates the citation to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) publication regarding the beneficial use of
dredged materials.
The proposed amendment of §15.44(e)(3) updates the citation for the
listing of hazardous substances in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The GLO has evaluated the proposed rulemaking action in light of the regulatory
analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and determined
that the action is not subject to §2001.0225 because it does not meet
the definition of a "major environmental rule" as defined in the statute.
"Major environmental rule" means a rule, the specific intent of which is to
protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental
exposure and that may adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public
health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The proposed amendments
to Chapter 15, Subchapter B are not anticipated to adversely affect in a material
way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector
of the state because the proposed rulemaking implements legislative requirements
in CEPRA relating to coastal erosion studies or projects undertaken in cooperation
with a qualified project partner under an agreement with the Commissioner
of the GLO.
The proposed rulemaking is not subject to the Texas Coastal Management
Program (CMP), Texas Natural Resources Code §33.2053 and 31 TAC §505.11,
relating to the Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program.
Individual erosion response projects undertaken in compliance with these rules
may be subject to the CMP, and consistency with the CMP will be individually
determined at the appropriate stage of project planning.
The GLO has evaluated the proposed rulemaking in accordance with Texas
Government Code, §2007.043(b), and §2.18 of the Attorney General's
Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines, to determine whether
a detailed takings impact assessment is required. The GLO has determined that
the proposed rulemaking does not affect private real property in a manner
that requires real property owners to be compensated as provided by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Article I,
Sections 17 and 19, of the Texas Constitution. Furthermore, the GLO has determined
that the proposed rulemaking would not affect any private real property in
a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the property that would
otherwise exist in the absence of the rule amendments. The GLO has determined
that the proposed rulemaking will not result in a taking of private property
and that there are no adverse impacts on private real property interests.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has determined that for each year of the first five years the amended
sections as proposed are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for
the state or units of local government as a result of enforcing or administering
the amended sections as the amendments constitute minor clarifications to
the rules.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has determined that there will be no economic cost to persons required
to comply with these regulations, as these amendments add no additional restrictions
or requirements that did not already exist. The public will benefit from the
proposed rule amendments because the amended rules will provide more clarity.
There will be no effect on small businesses, and a local employment impact
statement on these proposed regulations is not required, because the proposed
regulations will not adversely affect any local economy in a material manner
for the first five years they will be in effect.
To comment on the proposed rulemaking, please send a written comment to
Mr. Walter Talley,
Texas Register
Liaison,
Texas General Land Office, P.O. Box 12873, Austin, TX 78711-2873, facsimile
number (512) 463-6311 or email to walter.talley@glo.state.tx.us. Comments
must be received no later than thirty (30) days from the date of publication
of this proposal.
The amendments are proposed under the Texas Natural Resources
Code, §33.602(c) that provides the Commissioner of the General Land Office
with the authority to adopt rules necessary to implement Chapter 33, Subchapter
H, Texas Natural Resources Code, concerning coastal erosion.
The proposed amendments are necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources
Code §§33.601 - 33.612.
§15.41.Evaluation Process for Coastal Erosion Studies and Projects.
The General Land Office (Land Office) will evaluate potential projects
proposed by potential project partners
for funding from the coastal
erosion response account (Account) based on a two-stage evaluation process
as described in this section, including an initial evaluation of project goal
summaries followed by a further evaluation of preferred alternatives.
(1)
Initial evaluation of project goal summaries submitted
to the Land Office by potential project partners.
(A)
A potential project partner seeking funds from the Account
must submit a project goal summary to the Land Office no later than July 1
immediately preceding the state fiscal biennium in which funding is sought;
provided that the Land Office in its discretion may accept a project summary
that will address an emergency situation after July 1. The project goal summary
must include the following:
(i) - (xii)
(No change.)
(xiii)
a description of the type of project for which funding
is sought from the Account, including an identification of the project as:
(I) - (III)
(No change.)
(IV)
any other coastal erosion response study or project with
a 40% cost-sharing requirement; [
(V)
a project for which funding is sought from the Account
is a large-scale project without a shared project cost requirement in accordance
with Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.603(f);
or
(VI)
a project for removal of debris or structures,
or relocation of structures from the public beach with a cost-sharing requirement
to be determined by the Land Office, in accordance with Texas Natural Resources
Code, §33.603(b)(11) and (h).
(xiv) - (xv)
(No change.)
(B)
The Land Office will accept project goal summaries by:
(i)
email sent to coastalprojects@glo.state.tx.us;
(ii)
mail sent to the General Land Office, Attn:
Director, Coastal Resources Program Area, Coastal Stewardship Division, P.O.
Box 12873, Austin, TX 78711-2873;
or
(iii)
[
[(iii)
email sent to coastalprojects@glo.state.tx.us].
(C)
(No change.)
(D)
After evaluation of proposed projects according to the
criteria detailed in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph, the Land Office will
further evaluate project goal summaries received based on the following priority
criteria:
(i) - (vi)
(No change.)
(vii)
whether funding the proposed project will contribute
to balance in the geographic distribution of benefits for coastal erosion
response projects in Texas that are proposed or have received funding from
the Account;
and
[(viii)
the economic benefits to the state
relative to the cost to the state of the project; and]
(viii)
[
(E)
The Land Office will conduct the initial evaluation in
consultation and coordination with the potential project partner, as deemed
necessary by the Land Office. Based on the initial evaluation, the Land Office
will designate proposed projects as either priority projects or alternative
projects.
(i)
(No change.)
(ii)
If the Land Office's initial evaluation results in a designation
of a proposed project as a priority project, the Land Office
may
[
(2)
Evaluation of preferred alternatives with qualified project
partners for priority projects.
(A)
The Land Office
may require the
[
(B)
The project cooperation agreement with the qualified project
partner
may
[
(C)
During the alternatives-evaluation process, the Land Office
will evaluate projects based on the following criteria:
(i)
(No change.)
(ii)
whether the
potential or
qualified project
partner has already made or received a binding commitment to fund all or a
portion of a given project.
(D)
The Land Office will determine whether a
potential
or
qualified project partner should receive funds from the Account based
on the final prioritization of preferred alternatives according to the considerations
detailed in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph.
(E)
(No change.)
§15.42.Funding Projects From the Coastal Erosion Response Account.
(a)
If the Land Office determines that a project
requested
by either a qualified project partner or potential project partner
should
receive funds from the Account, the Land Office and the qualified project
partner will amend the project cooperation agreement that was entered into
earlier in the evaluation process
, or the Land Office and the potential
project sponsor will enter into a project cooperation agreement, in which
case the potential project partner will become a qualified project partner
. The Land Office shall explicitly describe in the [
(b)
The [
(1)
the project will be managed by the Land Office, with payment
to the Land Office by the qualified project partner of the required percentage
of the shared project cost; or
(2)
the project will be managed by the qualified project partner
with reimbursement from the Account to the qualified project partner for project
expenses for work completed in the amount provided in the project cooperation
agreement.
(c)
Except as provided in Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.603(f)
and (h)
, qualified project partners are required to pay a specified
percentage of the shared project costs that is not less than the minimum amount
prescribed by Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.603(e) as follows:
(1) - (2)
(No change.)
(d) - (g)
(No change.)
§15.44.Beneficial Use of Dredged Materials.
(a) - (c)
(No change.)
(d)
In determining the suitability and practicality of dredged
material for beach placement the Land Office may refer to the guidance found
in Chapter 9 of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Publication No. EM 1110-2-5026,
"Engineering & Design, Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material," USACE, June
1987 and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Publication No. EM 1110-2-
1100,
"Coastal Engineering Manual - Part V," Chapter 4, Beach Fill Design
.
[
(e)
In this section "beach-quality sand" means sediment material
that:
(1) - (2)
(No change.)
(3)
contains no hazardous substances listed in the Code of
Federal Regulations,
Title
[
(f) - (g)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 30, 2005.
TRD-200502698
Trace Finley
Policy Director
General Land Office
Earliest possible date of adoption: August 14, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §15.51, §15.52
The General Land Office (GLO) proposes to amend 31 TAC, Part
1, Chapter 15, relating to Coastal Area Planning, §15.51, relating to
Coastal Area Planning, and §15.52, relating to Criteria for Certification;
Assignment of Priorities for Acquisition; Revocation of Certification. The
proposed amendments are necessary to update citations in the rules. These
rule amendments have been undertaken as a result of the comprehensive review
of the GLO's rules mandated by Texas Government Code §2001.039, and will
ensure that the rules are clear, necessary, and updated.
The proposed amendment of §15.51(a) and §15.52(1) updates the
citation to the Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Act. Sections 15.51(a) and 15.52(1)
currently refer to Texas Civil Statutes Article 5415e-3, which has been codified
at Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter G, §§33.231-33.238.
Pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.0225, a regulatory analysis
is not required for the proposed rulemaking as a "major environmental rule."
Under the Government Code, a "major environmental rule" is a rule the specific
intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health
from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect, in a material way,
the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the
environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the
state. A regulatory analysis is required only when a major environmental rule
exceeds a standard set by federal law, exceeds an express requirement of state
law, exceeds a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the
state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement
a state or federal program, or are adopted solely under the general powers
of the GLO. The proposed rulemaking will not adversely affect, in a material
way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs,
the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector
of the state. The proposed rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal
law, does not exceed an express requirement of state law, does not exceed
a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and
an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state
or federal program, and is not adopted solely under the general powers of
the GLO.
The proposed rulemaking is not subject to the Texas Coastal Management
Program (CMP), Texas Natural Resources Code §33.2053 and 31 TAC §505.11,
relating to the Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program.
The Land Office has evaluated the proposed rulemaking in accordance with
Texas Government Code, §2007.043(b), and §2.18 of the Attorney General's
Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act Guidelines, to determine whether
a detailed takings impact assessment is required. The GLO has determined that
the proposed rulemaking does not affect private real property in a manner
that requires real property owners to be compensated as provided by the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution or Article I,
Sections 17 and 19, of the Texas Constitution. Furthermore, the GLO has determined
that the proposed rulemaking would not affect any private real property in
a manner that restricts or limits the owner's right to the property that would
otherwise exist in the absence of the rule amendments. The Land Office has
determined that the proposed rulemaking will not result in a taking of private
property and that there are no adverse impacts on private real property interests.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has determined that for each year of the first five years the amended
sections as proposed are in effect there will be no fiscal implications for
the state or units of local government as a result of enforcing or administering
the amended sections as the amendments constitute minor clarifications to
the rules.
Sam Webb, Deputy Commissioner for the Coastal Resources Program Area of
the GLO, has determined that there will be no economic cost to persons required
to comply with these regulations, as these amendments add no additional restrictions
or requirements that did not already exist. The public will benefit from the
proposed rule amendments because the amended rules will provide more clarity.
There will be no effect on small businesses, and a local employment impact
statement on these proposed regulations is not required, because the proposed
regulations will not adversely affect any local economy in a material manner
for the first five years they will be in effect.
To comment on the proposed rulemaking, please send a written comment to
Mr. Walter Talley,
Texas Register
Liaison,
Texas General Land Office, P.O. Box 12873, Austin, TX 78711-2873, facsimile
number (512) 463-6311 or email to walter.talley@glo.state.tx.us. Comments
must be received no later than thirty (30) days from the date of publication
of this proposal.
The amendments are proposed under authority granted in Texas
Natural Resources Code §31.051, which provides the Commissioner of the
GLO the authority to make and enforce suitable rules consistent with the law;
and Texas Natural Resources Code §§33.231-33.238, which require
the Land Office to certify coastal wetlands which are most essential to the
public interest in accordance with criteria developed by the Land Office.
The proposed amendments are necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources
Code §31.051 and the Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Act, Texas Natural
Resources Code §§33.231-33.238.
§15.51.Policy; Scope of Rules; Definitions.
(a)
Policy. The protection and preservation of certain of the
coastal wetlands of this state are essential to the public interest. The General
Land Office incorporates by reference the policy statement as set forth in
Texas
Natural Resources Code §33.232
[
(b) - (c)
(No change.)
§15.52.Criteria for Certification; Assignment of Priorities for Acquisition; Revocation of Certification.
In selecting and certifying those coastal wetlands most essential to
the public interest, assigning priorities for acquisition of such wetlands,
and determining whether to revoke such a certification, the commissioner will
consider the following criteria:
(1)
Coastal wetlands. The commissioner may consider whether
such lands are coastal wetlands within the definition, intent, and purpose
of the Coastal Wetlands Acquisition Act, Texas
Natural Resources Code §§33.231-33.238
[
(2) - (5)
(No change.)
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority
to adopt.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 30, 2005.
TRD-200502699
Trace Finley
Policy Director
General Land Office
Earliest possible date of adoption: August 14, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
Chapter 155.
LAND RESOURCES
Subchapter A. COASTAL PUBLIC LANDS
15.10
].
at
] 16 United
States Code Annotated, §1531
et seq.,
the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, and/or the Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 68, or any plant
or animal species that a local government has determined in their local beach/dune
plan are rare or uncommon.
31 TAC §501.14(k)(2)
]. However, a local government
may issue a permit or certificate authorizing construction of a retaining
wall, as defined in §15.2 of this title (relating to Definitions), under
the following conditions. These conditions only apply to the construction
of a retaining wall; all other erosion response structures are prohibited.
31 TAC §501.14(k)(2)
]. Also
within 200 feet landward of the natural vegetation line, local governments
shall not issue a permit or certificate allowing any person to maintain or
repair an existing erosion response structure if the structure is more than
50% damaged, except under the following circumstances.
Subchapter B. COASTAL EROSION PLANNING AND RESPONSE
or
]
(ii)
] fax sent to (512) 475-0680
[
; or
]
(ix)
] the cost of the proposed
project in relation to the amount of money available in the Account.
will
] invite the potential project partner to continue to work cooperatively
with the Land Office by becoming a qualified project partner.
and
]
potential project partner for a priority project
to
[
must
] enter into a project cooperation agreement
before continuing
[
to continue
] the evaluation process. Upon entering into
a project cooperation agreement, the potential project partner will become
a qualified project partner. The Land Office
may require a
[
and
] qualified project partner
to
[
will
] cooperatively
evaluate alternatives for addressing the erosion problem(s) identified in
the project goal summary of a priority project.
will
] explicitly define the activities
to be undertaken by the Land Office and the qualified project partner in the
evaluation of alternatives. Funds from a source other than the Account expended
by a qualified project partner in conformance with the project cooperation
agreement can be used to offset the qualified project partner's cost-sharing
requirement. The Land Office may, at its sole discretion, fund studies or
activities that are part of the alternatives-evaluation process.
amended
]
project cooperation agreement the terms and conditions under which the Land
Office will fund the project.
amended
] project cooperation agreement
shall provide for management of the project by either the Land Office or by
the qualified project partner. The Land Office, in its sole discretion, may
determine whether:
3301, "Design of Beach Fills," USACE, May 1995.
] Copies of these
publications can be obtained on request by mail sent to the General Land Office,
Attn: Director, Coastal Resources Program Area, Coastal Stewardship Division,
P.O. Box 12873, Austin, TX 78711-2873 and/or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
web site located at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/eng-manuals
/cecw.htm
. Only beach-quality sand shall be considered for beach placement.
Volume
] 40, Part
261,
Subpart D - Lists of Hazardous Wastes
[
300
], in concentrations
which are harmful to human health or the environment as determined by applicable,
relevant, and appropriate requirements established by the local, state, and
federal governments.
Subchapter D. CERTIFICATION OF COASTAL WETLANDS
Civil Statutes
Article 5415e-3, §2
].
Civil Statutes Article 5415e-3, §2
], as elaborated
by the definition of coastal wetlands contained in §15.51 of this title
(relating to Policy; Scope of Rules, Definitions).
Part 4.
SCHOOL LAND BOARD