Part 2.
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
Chapter 53.
FINANCE
Subchapter A. FEES
1.
LICENSE, PERMIT, AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES
31 TAC §53.17
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts new §53.17,
concerning Miscellaneous Fees, without changes to the proposed text as published
in the December 23, 2005, issue of the
Texas Register
(30 TexReg 8628).
The new section establishes the fee for an off-highway vehicle decal. The
enactment of Senate Bill 1311 (S.B. 1311) by the 79th Texas Legislature (Regular
Session) added Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 29, which created the Off-Highway
Vehicle Trail and Recreational Area Program and added §11.046 and §11.046
regarding the Off Highway Vehicle Trails and Recreational Area Account. Under
the provisions of S.B. 1311, a person may not operate an off-highway vehicle
on a trail or in a recreational area established or maintained by the department
under Chapter 29, or on land purchased or developed under a grant made under
Chapter 29 or any other grant program operated or administered by the department
without having obtained an off-highway vehicle decal. The fee for the off-highway
vehicle decal is established by S.B. 1311 at $8. The rule is necessary to
ensure that a record of all fees imposed or collected by the department is
reflected in the Texas Administrative Code.
The new rule will function by providing a record in rule of the fee for
the off-highway vehicle decal.
The department received four comments opposing adoption of the proposed
rule. Three of the persons commenting in opposition elaborated or provided
specific reasons for opposition. Those comments, accompanied by the department’s
response, follow.
One commenter opposed adoption of the proposed rule and stated that the
fee would provide little or nothing in the way of benefit to the off-highway
vehicle user. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that
the purpose of the decal fee is to generate revenue for the Off-Highway Vehicle
Trail and Recreational Area Program, which was created to provide recreational
opportunities for the off-road community. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption of the proposed rule and stated that the
department was ‘making it too costly and complicated for the working
class.’ The department disagrees with the comment and responds that
the fee amount is established by statute, not by department action. No changes
were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption of the proposed rule and stated that there
was no benefit in requiring a decal, displaying the decal, or in charging
an $8.00 fee. The commenter also stated that the fee was ‘more unnecessary
administration, creating an additional burden for personnel to administer.’
The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the purpose of
the decal fee is to generate revenue for the Off-Highway Vehicle Trail and
Recreational Area Program, which was created by statute to provide recreational
opportunities for the off-road community. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
The department received seven comments supporting adoption of the proposed
rule.
No groups or associations commented on the proposed rule.
The new rule is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §29.003, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
the off-highway vehicle decal.
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 March 17, 2006.
TRD-200601683
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: April 6, 2006
Proposal publication date: December 23, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.50
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment
to §53.50, concerning Training and Certification Fees, without changes
to the proposed text as published in the December 23, 2005, issue of the
The amendment increases the fee for attending a hunter education class
from $10 to $15. The amendment is necessary to maximize instructor recruitment
efforts by increasing the monetary incentive for persons to become hunter
education instructors. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §62.014, the commission
by rule may establish a procedure to allow a volunteer hunter education instructor
to retain an amount from the fees collected by the instructor to cover the
instructor's actual and necessary out-of-pocket expenses. The current rule,
which has been in effect since 1995, authorizes an instructor to retain $5.
The department has determined that economic factors over the last 10 years
have affected the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by volunteer instructors,
and that it is appropriate to increase the amount retained by volunteer instructors
to $10. Volunteer instructors are critical to the viability of the hunter
education program. Last year, approximately 3,000 volunteers provided hunter
education training to 33,000 persons in Texas.
The amendment will function by requiring persons who attend a hunter education
class to pay a fee of $15.
The department received two comments opposing adoption of the proposed
rule. Of the two comments, one articulated a specific reason for opposing
adoption, stating that there should be no fees for residents because there
are too many taxes. The department disagrees with the comment and responds
that the fees for hunter education fund the delivery of the program services,
which have been conclusively proven to reduce hunting accidents and thereby
protect the safety of the hunting public. No changes were made as a result
of the comments.
The department received seven comments supporting adoption of the proposed
rule.
No associations or groups commented on the proposed rule.
The amendment is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §62.014,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee not to exceed $15 to defray
the costs of administering a hunter education program and to establish a procedure
to allow a volunteer instructor to retain an amount from the fees collected
by a volunteer hunter education to cover actual and necessary out-of-pocket
expenses.
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 March 17, 2006.
TRD-200601684
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: April 6, 2006
Proposal publication date: December 23, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
Subchapter K. SCIENTIFIC AREAS
31 TAC §57.921
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment
to §57.921, concerning the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area (RBSSA),
with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 30, 2005,
issue of the
Texas Register
(30 TexReg 6239).
The change to subsection (c) alters the provisions of paragraph (1) to
exclude the property of the Port of Corpus Christi Authority from the boundaries
of Redfish Bay State Scientific Area.
The change to subsection (e) establishes an effective date of May 1, 2006,
for the subsection. The change also makes nonsubstantive syntactic changes
to enhance readability, clarity, and sense.
The change to subsection (e) also makes explicit allowance for the usage
of anchors and trolling motors within the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area.
The change excludes proposed subsections (g) and (h), which proposed no-propeller
zones, specific ingress and egress lanes where operation of submerged propellers
would be allowed, and set forth exceptions.
The rules are necessary because submerged seagrass meadows are a dominant,
unique subtropical habitat in many Texas bays and estuaries and there is concern
over damage accumulating in these meadows from the improper use of propeller
driven vessels (Pulich et al. 1997). Seagrasses are highly evolved marine
flowering plants which play critical roles in the coastal environment, including
nursery habitat for estuarine fisheries, as a major source of organic biomass
for coastal food webs, effective agents for stabilizing coastal erosion and
sedimentation, and major biological agents in nutrient cycling and water quality
processes (Brown-Peterson et al. 2002, Perez-Dominguez and Holt 2003, Stunz
et al. 2003). Recent studies show that seagrasses are sensitive to physical
stress from human disturbances (Montagna et al. 1998). As a result, many Texas
scientists, resource managers and environmentally aware citizens have concerns
about the health of these seagrass resources.
In January 1999, TPWD, the Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (now the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality-TCEQ) published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas' (TPWD 1999).
The Seagrass Conservation Plan (Plan) recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Plan and previous studies (Montagna et al. 1998) have identified
propeller scarring as a factor in seagrass destruction. This conclusion mirrored
findings in Florida, where prop-scarring is a major environmental concern;
and the Plan’s management options reflected management actions that
Florida had successfully implemented to prevent scarring (Sargent et al. 1995,
Ehringer and Anderson 2002, Stowers et al. 2002). Florida has enacted mandatory
measures to prevent propeller scarring of seagrasses in its bays and estuaries.
TPWD created the RBSSA by rule in 2000 to study seagrass resources and
protect them from the effects of boat propellers. The rule TPWD adopted for
the RBSSA in 2000 focused on education and voluntary compliance as the principal
means of protecting seagrass resources. Unfortunately, despite extensive and
costly efforts by TPWD over the past five years, the voluntary approach proved
ineffective.
The proposed amendment to §57.921 consisted of two different, but
complementary, regulatory approaches to conserve seagrasses within the RBSSA.
Of the two, only one was adopted during the November 3, 2005 meeting of the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. The approach that was adopted (proposed §57.921(d)
- (e)) prohibits the uprooting of seagrasses throughout the entire area of
the RBSSA by submerged propellers, and defines "seagrass plant" to include
the five species prevalent within the RBSSA. Further, the rule as adopted
clarifies that it is not a violation to operate an electric trolling motor
or anchor a vessel within the RBSSA. The rule as adopted also expands the
list of purposes for which signs may be placed in RBSSA to include signs that
mark special zones within the area. The rule as adopted prohibits the uprooting
or digging out of seagrasses by submerged propeller except as allowed under
a GLO coastal lease, or as may result from: (1) using an electric trolling
motor, (2) anchoring a vessel within the area, or (3) other activities permitted
under state law. The prohibition would apply throughout the entire RBSSA (32,144
acres) starting May 1, 2006.
In summary, TPWD in 2000, after extensive research into the issues surrounding
seagrass resources in Texas, complied with the "Seagrass Conservation Plan
in Texas" by establishing the RBSSA and using a voluntary approach to the
protection of seagrass in the area. Through observation of boaters in the
area from TPWD staff it was determined that the voluntary prop-up areas (zones)
were not effective in getting boaters to change their behavior. Additionally,
bottom scarring is still very visible in the area. The lack of compliance
and the inability to see improvement in the area in regards to bottom scarring
led the department to consider other options to protect seagrass in the area.
This led to the adoption of the current rule which prohibits seagrass uprooting
in the RBSSA. Literature Cited Brown-Peterson, N. J., M. S. Peterson, D.
L. Nielson, M. D. Murphy, R. G. Taylor, and J. R. Warren. 2002. Reproductive
biology of female spotted seatrout in the Gulf of Mexico: differences among
estuaries? Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:405-415. Ehringer, J. N., J.
Anderson. 2002. Seagrass Transplanting and Restoration in Tampa Bay. pages
39-46 in H.S. Greening, ed. Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients!
2000 Aug 22-24; St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 246 p. Montagna,
P. A., S. A. Holt, C. Ritter, S. Herzka, K. F. Binney, and K. H. Dunton. 1998.
Characterization of Anthropogenic and Natural Disturbance on Vegetated and
Unvegetated Bay Bottom Bay Bottom Habitats in the CCBNEP study area- CCBNEP-25
Vol. 1. 108pp. Perez-Dominguez, R., and G. J. Holt. 2003. How do diel fluctuations
in temperature and dissolved oxygen in seagrass beds affect growth of red
drum larvae? Annual Proceedings of the Texas Chapter of the American Fisheries
Society. page 2. Pulich, W. Jr., C. Blair, and W. A. White. 1997. Current
Status and Historical Trends of Seagrass in the Corpus Christi Bay National
Estuary Program Study Area. Publication CCBNEP-20. 71pp. Sargent, F. J., T.
J. Leary, D. W. Crewz, and C. R. Kruer. 1995. Scaring of Florida’s seagrasses:
assessment and management options. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
FMRI Technical Report TR-1. 66pp. Stowers, J. F., E. Fehrmann, A. Squires.
2002. Seagrass scarring in Tampa Bay: impact analysis and management options.
pages 47-54 in H.S. Greening, ed. Seagrass Management: It's Not Just Nutrients!
2000 Aug 22-24; St. Petersburg, FL. Tampa Bay Estuary Program. 246 p. Stunz,
G. W., T. J. Minello, and P. S. Levin. 2003. Selection of estuarine nursery
habitats by wild-caught and hatchery-reared juvenile red drum. Annual Proceedings
of the Texas Chapter of the American Fisheries Society. page 1. TPWD Publication.
1999. The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas. PWD BK R0400-041. 84pp.
Comments made by the public concerning the proposed rules were presented
to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission (TPWC). Three public hearings were
held October 19 and 20, 2005 in addition to the hearing at the TPWC meeting
on November 3, 2005. The department received comments from the following coastal
organizations that were in support of the proposal: Port Aransas Boatmen,
Inc., and the Coastal Bend Guides Association. The department received comments
from the following coastal organizations that opposed the proposal: Recreational
Fishing Alliance, Save Cedar Bayou, The Port of Corpus Christi Authority,
and City By The Seas Property Owner’s Association. The department received
comments from the following coastal organizations that opposed the "no-prop
zones," but supported the other portions of the proposal: Coastal Conservation
Association of Texas, and the Rockport Chamber of Commerce. The department
received a total of 232 comments on the proposed regulations which include
the organization comments listed above. Each comment category was totaled
individually even when a single individual may have commented on more than
one category (e.g., a single individual may have been accounted for in 3 separate
comment categories). However, most of the comments received only addressed
a portion of the proposal package. Of those that addressed the complete regulation
package 43 were in support of the complete proposal and 42 expressed that
there was no need for the regulations. Additionally, 10 supported only the
seagrass and damage definitions while 41 disagreed with that portion of the
proposal. The "no-prop zone" portion of the proposal received 70 comments
in support and 26 disagreed.
Of the 109 that opposed all or part of the proposal, 53 did not elaborate
upon their opposition or give alternatives to the published proposals. The
agency’s response to general, non-specific opposition to the rule as
proposed has been addressed earlier in this preamble and is summarized as:
TPWD disagrees with the comments, continues to see the need for protection
of seagrass in the RBSSA, and sees the rules as adopted (which prohibit uprooting
of seagrass in the area) as a reasonable approach to protecting seagrass while
continuing to allow the greatest access to the area.
Of the 109 that opposed all or part of the proposal, 56 offered a specific
reason or reasons for their opposition. Those comments and the agency’s
response follow.
COMMENT: Seventeen persons opposed adoption of the rules, stating that
the destruction of seagrass in RBSSA was primarily because the department
failed to conduct an adequate education program for boaters and fishermen
in the area.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the education program
for boaters and fishermen is ongoing and will always be an important aspect
of the efforts to protect seagrass. Throughout the history of the RBSSA many
educational efforts have been undertaken. Signage on the water and at key
boat ramps was established and maintained as a key educational tool. A boating
video was produced and many groups were contacted and given various educational
materials regarding the need for protection of seagrass in the RBSSA. The
continued accumulation of prop-scars within RBSSA suggests that regardless
of the form taken by the education program, individuals continued to ignore
the conservation needs of the seagrass meadows. The voluntary aspect of the
program was not working. The department agrees to work with organizations
within the community to enhance existing education programs and develop new
ones. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: Twelve persons opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
destruction of seagrass in RBSSA was primarily because the department failed
to maintain adequate signage for boaters and fishermen in the area.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that damage to seagrass
is not related to how well a no-prop zone was marked. Early in the history
of RBSSA considerable effort and expense was expended to provide and maintain
signage on the voluntary no-prop zones within the area. However, Beau Hardegree
(formerly with TPWD) currently with U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service, unpublished
data) found that there was no compliance with the voluntary no-prop zones
where there was adequate signage regardless of the zone (n=212 vessels observed).
Nonetheless, the department intends to work with organizations within the
community to improve signage warning the public of shallow water where seagrass
meadows are most vulnerable. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: Two persons opposed adoption of the rules, stating that a mandatory
boating license should be required of anyone operating a vessel in Texas waters
and that license should require a minimum of 8 hours of educational programs
about boating safety and the vulnerability of seagrass meadows in shallow
water.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that damage to seagrass
is a concern of the department and the focus of these rules. However, regulation
of boating licensing and safety is outside the scope of authority provided
in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 81, Subchapter F, which is related to
the creation and regulation of State Scientific Areas and, thus, falls outside
the scope of these rules. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: Two persons opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the department
inadequately studied the problem and used inadequate science in concluding
that action was needed.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, GLO, and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas' (TPWD
1999) The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the plan cited many studies
that have been conducted that demonstrate extent and severity of seagrass
damage from submerged propellers, and the difficulty and expense of attempting
to restore propeller damaged seagrass. In addition, the department evaluated
numerous studies that have concluded that seagrass meadows play a critical
role in the coastal environment, including nursery habitat for estuarine fisheries,
as a major source of organic biomass for coastal food webs, effective agents
for stabilizing coastal erosion and sedimentation, and major biological agents
in nutrient cycling and water quality processes. And finally, the continued
damage to seagrass in the RBSSA area and the lack of compliance among boaters
were documented after the initial rule was passed in 2000. No changes were
made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
department inadequately studied the problem and that the shuffling feet of
wade fishermen produced as much damage to seagrass meadows as did submerged
propellers.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, the GLO and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas'
(TPWD 1999). The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the plan cited many studies
that have been conducted that demonstrate extent and severity of seagrass
damage from submerged propellers, and the difficulty and expense of attempting
to restore propeller damaged seagrass. In addition, the continued damage to
seagrass in the RBSSA area and the lack of compliance among boaters were documented
after the initial rule was passed in 2000. No changes were made as a result
of these comments.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
department inadequately studied the problem and that jet skis sucking grass
into their intakes when running in shallow water produced as much damage to
seagrass meadows as did submerged propellers.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, the GLO and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas'
(TPWD 1999). The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the plan cited many studies
that have been conducted that demonstrate extent and severity of seagrass
damage from submerged propellers, and the difficulty and expense of attempting
to restore propeller damaged seagrass. In addition, the continued damage to
seagrass in the RBSSA area and the lack of compliance among boaters were documented
after the initial rule was passed in 2000. No changes were made as a result
of these comments.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
department inadequately studied the problem and that this approach had been
tried elsewhere and it did not produce the desired results.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, the GLO and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas'
(TPQD 1999). The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the plan cited many studies
that have been conducted that demonstrate extent and severity of seagrass
damage from submerged propellers, and the difficulty and expense of attempting
to restore propeller damaged seagrass. The conclusion that propeller scarring
is a factor in seagrass destruction mirrored findings in Florida, where prop-scarring
is a major environmental concern; and the Plan’s management options
reflected management actions that Florida had successfully implemented to
prevent scarring (Sargent et al. 1995, Ehringer and Anderson 2002, Stowers
et al. 2002). And finally, the continued damage to seagrass in the RBSSA area
and the lack of compliance among boaters were documented after the initial
rule was passed in 2000. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that lower
fishing limits and closed seasons should be used to reduce boating traffic
in the area.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that PWC Chapter 61
directs the Commission to provide reasonable and equitable access to wildlife
resources and to deal effectively with changing conditions to prevent depletion
or waste. In this chapter, "Waste" means the failure to provide for the regulated
harvest of surplus wildlife resources when that harvest would allow, promote,
or optimize a healthy and self-sustaining population of a species. The agency
believes that damage to seagrass meadows is the result of the way vessels
are operated in RBSSA and can be addressed without reducing bag limits and
closing seasons. If the bag limits in the area were reduced and it resulted
in fewer people fishing in the area, there would be economic losses to the
local economy that would not be justified based on protection of seagrass
or based on the biological productivity of fish in the area. No changes were
made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that instead
the department should reduce or stop the dumping of dredge spoil into seagrass
meadows.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the department
does not have the authority to regulate the deposition of spoil. Dredging
and deposition of spoil is regulated by the U. S. Corps of Engineers (CORPS)
under the Rivers and Harbors Act and under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, and by the GLO (i.e., which is the owner of the bay bottom), or, in certain
bays and channels, a navigational district or harbor/port authority who owns
the bottom in lieu of the GLO. TPWD’s role in the process is only to
review and comment on permits issued by the CORPS. No changes were made as
a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that regulations
should be promulgated for a much smaller area than RBSSA.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that seagrass meadows
exist in discontinuous patches along the whole Texas coast. The management
strategy protects seagrass throughout the entire RBSSA which constitutes the
largest concentration of this type of marine habitat found anywhere along
the coast. Through protecting the larger area of the RBSSA the rule will also
protect smaller more concentrated patches of seagrass within the RBSSA. The
department responds that protecting only a small portion of the area would
be inadequate and inappropriate when concern is for the meadows of the whole
area. No changes were made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
public was inadequately notified to develop and make comments on the proposals.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that discussions in
the area predate the publication of the "The Seagrass Conservation Plan" (TPWD
1999) and the establishment of the RBSSA in 2000. The results of the information
gathered from 2000 until now were scoped with stakeholders in the area beginning
April 2005 and with the Seagrass Advisory Committee in May 18, 2005. Additionally,
the proposal was publicly presented to the Regulations Committee August 24,
2005, published in the
Texas Register
September
20, 2005, and distributed through a news release September 26, 2005 describing
the proposals and notifying the public of Public Hearings to be held in San
Antonio, Rockport, and Corpus Christi. The news release further gave contact
names and other alternative ways in which the public could comment on the
proposals. The fact that 232 comments were made suggests that there was adequate
notification of the proposed action. No changes were made as a result of this
comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that regulations
prohibiting uprooting of seagrass plants would force fishermen to use only
jet skis and air boats.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the intent of the
regulation is aimed at propeller driven vessels that run in water too shallow
for their draft and uproot seagrass plants as a result. While one way of avoiding
such uprooting would be to use a jet ski or air boat, it certainly isn’t
the only way. Use of deep water channels within seagrass meadows as run lanes;
drifting, poling, or trolling with an electric trolling motor between deep
water channels; and tilting a motor to prevent contact with the bottom are
all proven methods of avoiding uprooting of seagrass without needing to resort
to using jet skis or air boats. No changes were made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that regulations
prohibiting uprooting of seagrass plants would require certain disabled individuals
to buy specialized equipment in order to navigate the RBSSA.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the intent of the
regulation is aimed at propeller driven vessels that run in water too shallow
for their draft and uproot seagrass plants as a result. Use of deep water
channels within seagrass meadows as run lanes; drifting, poling, or trolling
with an electric trolling motor between deep water channels; and tilting a
motor to prevent contact with the bottom are all proven methods of avoiding
uprooting of seagrass. This is true regardless of whether a fisherman had
a disability or not. No changes were made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that regulations
prohibiting uprooting of seagrass plants were not needed because there was
more seagrass now than there ever had been.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, the GLO and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas'
(TPWD 2000). The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the plan cited many studies
that have been conducted that demonstrate extent and severity of seagrass
damage from submerged propellers, and the difficulty and expense of attempting
to restore propeller damaged seagrass. The fact that propeller scarring is
accumulating, means that there is more exposed bottom without seagrass so
that there cannot be, therefore, more seagrass than there was before there
was propeller scarring. No changes were made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
department inadequately studied the problem and that if staff would inspect
seagrass meadows at night they would find them full of fish.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in January 1999,
TPWD, the GLO and TCEQ published 'The Seagrass Conservation Plan for Texas'
(TPWD 1999). The Seagrass Conservation Plan recommends that these three agencies
take measures within their jurisdictions to conserve this critical coastal
resource. The Seagrass Conservation Plan identified propeller scarring as
a factor in seagrass destruction. In addition, the department evaluated numerous
studies that have concluded that seagrass meadows play a critical role in
the coastal environment, including nursery habitat for estuarine fisheries,
as a major source of organic biomass for coastal food webs, effective agents
for stabilizing coastal erosion and sedimentation, and major biological agents
in nutrient cycling and water quality processes. And finally, the continued
damage to seagrass in the RBSSA area and the lack of compliance among boaters
were documented after the initial rule was passed in 2000. There is no dispute
that seagrass meadows are important to marine life and that fish would be
expected to use these areas. The issue is the damage done to these seagrass
meadows from submerged propellers. No changes were made as a result of these
comments.
COMMENT: One individual representing the Port of Corpus Christi Authority
(PCCA) opposed adoption of the rules, stating that land belonging to PCCA
had been inappropriately included in RBSSA and should be removed from the
regulation.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency agrees and responds that the department was
unaware that (a) the land in question belonged to the PCCA; (b) that PCCA
would be opposed to protecting seagrass meadows on their property; or that
(c) the designation of RBSSA in anyway inhibited any other use of the land
to PCCA. PCCA did not comment on the 2000 proposal or the renewal proposal
of RBSSA in 2005, both of which included this submerged land. In response
to the comment, the coordinates on the south boundary of RBSSA have been amended
to exclude this land.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the "general definitions" portion
of the rules, stating that regulations prohibiting uprooting of seagrass plants
were too vague and needed to include "submerged propeller" to clarify specifically
what was prohibited.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency agrees and responds that the intent of the
regulation is aimed at propeller driven vessels that run in water too shallow
for their draft and uproot seagrass plants as a result. Language was added
to exempt trolling motors and anchoring, and to specifically identify damage
done by a "submerged propeller" as the focus of the prohibitions as a result
of this comment.
COMMENT: One individual opposed adoption of the "general definitions" portion
of the rules, stating that regulations prohibiting uprooting of seagrass plants
were too vague and would prevent vessel operators from anchoring in the RBSSA.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency agrees and responds that the intent of the
regulation is aimed at propeller driven vessels that run in water too shallow
for their draft and uproot seagrass plants as a result. Language was added
to exempt trolling motors and anchoring, and to specifically identify damage
done by a "submerged propeller" as the focus of the prohibitions as a result
of this comment.
COMMENT: Nine individuals opposed adoption of the "no-prop zones" portion
of the rules, while stating various reasons why they should not be implemented.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The "no-prop zones" were not adopted by the TPWC.
The amendment is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §81.501,
which authorizes the commission to create state scientific areas for the purposes
of education, scientific research, and preservation of flora and fauna of
scientific or educational value, §81.502(c), which authorizes adoption
of rules and regulations necessary for the management and protection of scientific
areas, and Chapter 13, Subchapter B, which authorizes the commission to adopt
regulations governing state scientific areas.
§57.921.Redfish Bay State Scientific Area.
(a)
Purpose: The Redfish Bay State Scientific Area is established
for the purpose of education, scientific research, and preservation of flora
and fauna of scientific or educational value.
(b)
Term: July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2010.
(c)
Boundaries:
(1)
27 59.538N; 097 3.858W (Northern extremity of island forming
northern boundary of Estes Cove);
(2)
27 59.232N; 097 4.434W (Intersection of Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway (GIWW) and Mouth of Cove Harbor);
(3)
27 55.986N; 097 6.804W (GIWW at Rocky Ridge);
(4)
27 53.880N; 097 8.088W (intersection of GIWW and Aransas
Pass Shrimp Boat Channel);
(5)
27 53.058N; 097 8.502W (Intersection of GIWW and Brown
and Root Channel);
(6)
27 52.32N; 097 9.486W (Intersection of GIWW and mouth of
Redfish Bay Terminal);
(7)
27 49.483N; 097 11.255W (A point near the southern extremity
of Dagger Island where the Corpus Christi Ship Channel and the GIWW intersect);
(8)
27 50.489N; 097 6.619W (A point north of the southwest
arm of Harbor Island);
(9)
27 50.613N; 097 6.614W (A point northwest of the previous
point , north of the southwest arm of Harbor Island);
(10)
27 50.860N; 097 5.315W (A point north of the southeast
portion of Harbor Island);
(11)
27 50.439N; 097 4.841W (A point in the Corpus Christi
Channel southeast of Harbor Island);
(12)
27 50.745 N; 097 3.66 W (A point on Harbor Island at the
intersection of Aransas Shrimp Boat Channel and Corpus Christi Ship Channel);
(13)
27 52.420 N; 097 2.470 W (A point in Lydia Ann Channel);
(14)
27 55.020 N; 097 03.460 W (East of the mouth of Corpus
Christi Bayou).
(d)
No person may move, remove, deface, alter, or destroy any
sign, depth marker or other informational signage placed by the department
to delineate boundaries of the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area or to designate
specific zones within the area.
(e)
This subsection is effective May 1, 2006.
(1)
In this section, "seagrass plant" means individuals from
the following marine flowering plant species: Clover Grass (Halophila engelmanni),
Manatee Grass (Syringodium filiformis), Shoalgrass (Halodule beaudettei),
Turtle Grass (Thalassia testudinum), and Widgeon Grass (Ruppia maritima).
(2)
Within the Redfish Bay State Scientific Area, no person
shall cause or allow any rooted seagrass plant to be uprooted or dug out from
the bay bottom by a submerged propeller, except as may be permitted by a coastal
lease issued by the Texas General Land Office or otherwise permitted under
state law.
(3)
Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, it is
not a violation to:
(A)
anchor a vessel within the Redfish Bay State Scientific
Area; or.
(B)
use electric trolling motors within the Redfish Bay State
Scientific Area.
(f)
The penalty for violation of this section is prescribed
by Parks and Wildlife Code, §13.112.
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 March 17, 2006.
TRD-200601687
Ann Bright
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: April 6, 2006
Proposal publication date: September 30, 2005
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
Subchapter E. OPERATION AND LEASING OF PARK CONCESSIONS
3.
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FEES
Chapter 57.
FISHERIES
Chapter 59.
PARKS