Part 1.
GENERAL LAND OFFICE
Chapter 10.
EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STATE MINERALS OTHER THAN OIL AND GAS
31 TAC §§10.1, 10.2, 10.5, 10.8, 10.9
The Texas General Land Office adopts the amendments to §10.1(a), §10.2(b)(1), §10.5(b)(1)(F), §10.5(e)(1)(C), §10.8(a)(1), §10.8(b)(4)(D)(ii), §10.8(c)(3)
and §10.9(f)(3) of Title 31, Part 1, Chapter 10, of the Texas Administrative
Code. Section 10.1(a) is a definitions section, with amendments relating to
the definition of the terms "board" and "surface mining". Section 10.2(b)(1)
relates to application requirements and procedures. Section 10.5(b)(1)(F)
relates to the duties of an owner of the soil. Section 10.5(e)(1)(C) relates
to the division of hard mineral lease benefits. Section 10.8(a)(1) relates
to the assignment of state hard mineral leases. Section 10.8(b)(4)(D)(ii)
relates to assignments, releases, reports, royalty payments, inspections,
forfeitures and reinstatements of state hard mineral leases and any applicable
penalties and interest. Sections 10.8(c)(3) and 10.9(f)(3) relate to the inspection
of records and contracts related to hard mineral leases. The amended sections
are readopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the February
6, 2004 issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg
6). The text will not be republished.
The amendments conform the rules to legislative amendments to the Texas
Natural Resources Code. The amendment to TAC §10.1(a) conforms the rule
to amendments to TNRC §53.001 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 897, §45,
eff. Sept. 1, 1993 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1483, §3, eff. Aug.
30, 1999. The amendment to TAC §10.2(b)(1) conforms the rule to an amendment
to TNRC §53.012(c) by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 897, §46, eff. Sept.
1, 1993. The amendment to TAC §10.5(b)(1)(F) conforms the rule to an
amendment to TNRC §53.074(a)(2) by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 937, §4,
eff. Sept. 1, 1995. The amendment to TAC §10.5(e)(1)(C) conforms the
rule to an amendment to TNRC §53.065(c) by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch.
1483, §4, eff. Aug. 30, 1999. The amendment to TAC §10.8(a)(1) conforms
the rule to an amendment to TNRC §53.020 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch.
897, §50, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. The amendment to TAC §10.8(b)(4)(D)(ii)
conforms the rule to an amendment to TNRC §53.024 by Acts 1993, 73rd
Leg., ch. 897, §51, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. The amendment to TAC §10.8(c)(3)
conforms the rule to an amendment to TNRC §53.027 by Acts 1993, 73rd
Leg., ch 897, §52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. The amendment to TAC §10.9(f)(3)
conforms the rule to an amendment to TNRC §53.027 by Acts 1993, 73rd
Leg., ch. 897, §52, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. The changes are made pursuant
to §2001.039 (Agency Review of Existing Rules) of the Government Code.
No comments were received on the proposed changes.
The amendments to this section are adopted under Texas Natural
Resources Code §31.051, which authorizes the Commissioner of the Texas
General Land Office to make and enforce suitable rules consistent with the
law and Texas Natural Resources Code §32.062 which grants rulemaking
authority to the School Land Board.
The following code is affected by these rules: Texas Natural Resources
Code, Title 2, Subtitle D, Chapter 53.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404062
Larry L. Laine
Chief Clerk/Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: February 6, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 305-8598
Chapter 53.
FINANCE
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the repeal of §§53.1-53.18,
53.22, 53.25, 53.35, 53.41, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.90, 53.100, and 53.200-53.206,
and new §§53.1-53.16, 53.30, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.80, 53.90,
53.100, 53.110, and 53.120, concerning the department's rules governing fees.
Section 53.5, concerning Recreational Hunting Licenses, Stamps, and Tags, §53.6,
concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps and Tags, and §53.80,
concerning Composition and Issuance are adopted with changes to the proposed
text as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 2209). The repeal of §§53.1-53.18,
53.22, 53.25, 53.35, 53.41, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.90, 53.100, and 53.200-53.206,
and new §§53.1-53.4, 53.7-53.16, 53.30, 53.50, 53.60, 53.70, 53.90,
53.100, 53.110, and 53.120, are adopted without changes and will not be republished.
The change to §53.5 eliminates subsection (b)(5), which establishes the
fee for white-tailed deer bonus tags. Paragraph (5) is no longer necessary
because a separate commission action eliminated the bonus tag by repealing
31 TAC §65.29, concerning Bonus Tags. The change to §53.6 establishes
fixed fees for day and "day plus" licenses and packages, which were originally
proposed as ranges. In all cases, the adopted fees represent the low end of
the published range, except for the fees for additional days for the "day
plus" packages, which represent the high end of the proposed ranges. The fee
amounts represent the amounts believed to be necessary to ensure that the
cumulative effect of the fees to the department is revenue-neutral (i.e.,
approximately similar to the revenue amounts currently generated by the existing
license structure, based on estimated demand for the new license types and
packages).
The repeals and new sections are necessary to reorganize the chapter, as
legislative, regulatory, and policy actions over the last 10 years have created
the need to regroup various licenses and permits according to similarities
of use and type, so as to make reference and utilization easier. The repeals
of §§53.1-53.8, 53.10-53.17, 53.25, 53.41, 53.50, 53.60, 53.90,
53.100, and 53.200-53.206 are necessary to allow the designation of new sections
addressing the same subject material. The repeals of §§53.9, concerning
Investment of Lifetime License Endowment Fund, 53.35, concerning Selling Price
of Department Information, and 53.70, concerning Protest Procedures for Vendors,
are necessary to remove those sections from Chapter 53 (Finance) and place
them in Chapter 51 (Executive), where they more properly belong. The repeal
of §53.18, concerning Vessel Registration Agents and Surety Bonds, and §53.22,
concerning License Deputy Appointment and Cancellation Procedures, are necessary
because the subject material of the sections can be addressed by department
policy and procedure and are therefore unnecessary in rule.
New §53.1, concerning Applicability, establishes Chapter 53 as the
sole repository for the department's regulations prescribing fees, except
for those fees contained in Chapter 59, concerning Parks, and Chapter 69,
Subchapter H, concerning Issuance of Marl, Sand, and Gravel Permits. References
in other chapters to fee amounts will be removed in other rulemakings in the
future. The new section is necessary to prevent conflicts with provisions
in other chapters.
New §53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession,
and Exemption Rules, is identical to the current §53.1, except for nonsubstantive
changes. Current subsection (a)(1), which prohibits the hunting of deer and
turkey without a license, has been removed because that provision is established
by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 42, and is therefore unnecessary
in regulation. The grammatical structure of current subsections (a)(2) and
(b)(1) has been modified to create an affirmative sense (i.e., "a person may,
if...," replacing "no person may, unless") to effect a clearer expression
of the conditions under which a person may hunt or fish without being in physical
possession of a license. Current subsection (b)(2) (regarding retention of
red drum) has been modified to clarify that it applies to red drum caught
in coastal waters and that a person must have a saltwater sportfishing stamp,
and current subsection (d)(5) is removed because that provision is established
by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 46, and is therefore unnecessary
in regulation. The new section is necessary to consolidate all regulations
generally applicable to licenses and permits in a single section.
New section §53.3, concerning Combination Hunting and Fishing Licenses
and Packages, is substantively identical to the current §53.2, except
for changes as noted. Language has been added establishing that the items
included in combination packages shall be priced at a discounted rate. The
provisions of current §53.2 (a) (establishing fees for combination hunting
and fishing licenses) has been restructured in the proposed new section to
establish combination hunting and fishing licenses packages for freshwater
fishing, saltwater fishing, and all water fishing. The changes are intended
to minimize customer confusion regarding addition of the new freshwater fishing
stamp requirements and to maximize customer convenience. The proposed new
section establishes a new resident combination hunting and freshwater fishing
package ($47), resident combination hunting and saltwater fishing package
($52), resident combination hunting and "all water" fishing package ($57),
resident senior combination hunting and freshwater fishing package ($15),
resident senior combination hunting and saltwater fishing package ($20) and
resident senior combination hunting and all water fishing package ($25). The
fees for these packages consist of the current license cost plus (1) the cost
of the new freshwater fishing stamp ($5), mandated under provisions of House
Bill 1989, 78th Legislative Session, for the freshwater packages; (2) the
cost of the current saltwater fishing stamp and surcharge ($10) for saltwater
fishing packages; and (3) the cost of both the new freshwater fishing stamp
and the current saltwater fishing stamp for all water fishing packages. Current
subsection §53.2 (a) (3) (establishing the fee for the lifetime resident
combination hunting and fishing license) has been removed and relocated to
proposed new §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses. The provisions of current §53.2
(b) (establishing fees for combination license packages) also have been restructured
to establish resident and resident senior super combination hunting and fishing
license packages that incorporate the freshwater fishing stamp. The new section
establishes resident super combination hunting and all water fishing package
($64) and a new resident senior super combination hunting and all water fishing
package ($30). The super combination packages do not include references to
the muzzleloader and freshwater trout stamps, but include the new freshwater
fishing stamp, all of which is mandated under provisions of H.B. 1989, enacted
by the 78th Texas Legislature, and contains a reference to the red drum tag
for clarification purposes. The new section also incorporates a resident disabled
veteran super combination hunting and all water package ($0), relocated from
current §53.90 (which is repealed in this rulemaking), eliminates references
to the muzzleloader and freshwater trout stamps, includes provisions to implement
the freshwater fishing stamp mandated by H.B. 1989; and includes a reference
to the red drum tag for the purpose of clarification. The new section retains
the fee for replacement of combination packages at $10, with modifications
to clarify that the cost of replacement of super combination packages is also
$10, and provides that there is no charge for replacement of a disabled veteran
super combination hunting and all water fishing package. The new section is
necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning combination hunting and
fishing licenses in a single section.
New §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses, is necessary to consolidate
provisions concerning the lifetime hunting license (from current §53.3),
the lifetime fishing license (from current §53.3), and the lifetime resident
combination hunting and fishing license (from current §53.2) into a single
section dealing with lifetime licenses. The new section also includes the
fee for the upgrade of a lifetime fishing or hunting license to a lifetime
combination license, and the fee for replacing a lifetime license of any type.
The remaining contents of current §53.3 are being relocated to other
proposed new sections as noted.
New §53.5, concerning Recreational Hunting Licenses, Stamps, and Tags,
is substantively identical to the provisions of current §53.3(a) and
(b), except that: current subsection (a)(2) (establishing the fee for the
lifetime hunting license) is eliminated because that provision is relocated
to proposed new §53.4, concerning Lifetime Licenses; current subsection
(a)(3) is reworded for the sake of clarity; and current subsection (b)(5)
(establishing a fee for the muzzleloader stamp) is removed because the muzzleloader
stamp was eliminated by legislative action. The new section is necessary to
consolidate all provisions concerning recreational hunting licenses, stamps,
and tags in a single section.
New §53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps and Tags,
establishes new freshwater, saltwater and all water fishing packages and is
necessary to minimize customer confusion regarding addition of the new freshwater
fishing stamp requirements (as mandated by H.B. 1989) and to maximize customer
convenience by adding various licensing options. The freshwater trout stamp
found in current §53.3(d) is repealed because legislative action (H.B.
1989) eliminated that stamp, and the fee for the freshwater fishing stamp
is incorporated, also as authorized by H.B. 1989. New §53.6(a) establishes
the prices of individual licenses that will be available only as part of a
package, and establishes the period of validity for the "year-from-purchase"
resident fishing license, the July and August resident fishing license, and
the day resident and day non-resident fishing licenses. The fees for a resident
fishing license ($23), special resident fishing license ($6), and non-resident
fishing license ($50) are identical to current fees for these licenses as
established in current §53.3(c). The "year-from-purchase" resident fishing
license ($30), the July and August resident fishing license ($20), the day
resident fishing license ($6), and day non-resident fishing license ($12)
replace the temporary (14-day) resident sport fishing license, the temporary
(three-day) resident sport fishing license, and the temporary (five-day) non
resident fishing license in current §53.3(c). Proposed new §53.6(b)
establishes the price for stamps that are sold either individually or as part
of a package, and establishes the period of validity of the stamps. The fee
for the freshwater fishing stamp ($5) is mandated in H.B. 1989, and the fees
for the saltwater sportfishing stamp ($7) and surcharge ($3) are identical
to the fees established in current §53.3(d). Proposed new §53.6(b)
also clarifies that a red drum tag will be issued at no charge with each saltwater
sportfishing stamp. Proposed new §53.6(c) establishes the price for fishing
packages and licenses, as follows: resident freshwater fishing package ($28);
resident saltwater fishing package ($33); resident "all water" fishing package
($38); special resident freshwater fishing package ($11); special resident
saltwater fishing package ($16); special resident "all water" fishing package
($21); "year-from-purchase" resident "all water" fishing package ($45); July
and August resident freshwater fishing package ($25); July and August resident
saltwater fishing package ($30); July and August resident "all water" fishing
package ($35); resident freshwater fishing "day plus" package ($11 for the
first day, plus $4 for each additional consecutive day); resident saltwater
fishing "day plus" package ($16 for the first day, plus $4 for each additional
consecutive day); resident all water fishing "day plus" package ($21 for the
first day, plus $4 for each additional consecutive day); nonresident freshwater
fishing package ($55); nonresident saltwater fishing package ($60); nonresident
"all water" fishing package ($65); nonresident freshwater fishing "day plus"
package ($17 for the first day, plus $8 for each additional consecutive day);
nonresident saltwater fishing "day plus" package ($22 for the first day, plus
$8 for each additional consecutive day); nonresident all water fishing "day
plus" package ($27 for the first day, plus $8 for each additional consecutive
day); Lake Texoma fishing license ($12); and a replacement fee for fishing
packages and licenses ($10). All packages established in the new section are
priced at an amount equal to the cost of the license plus the costs of the
stamps included in that package. The resident and nonresident freshwater,
saltwater, and "all water" fishing "day plus" packages, consisting of the
day resident fishing license or day nonresident fishing license and the applicable
stamp (and the option to purchase additional consecutive days), establishes
that a previous purchaser of these packages within the license year may repurchase
the package for the price of the day resident fishing license or the day nonresident
fishing license plus the cost for additional consecutive days, as the stamp
privileges from the first purchase will be extended to the holder for the
term of the subsequent purchase. The Lake Texoma fishing license is established
at a fee identical to the fee in current §53.3 (c) for this item, and
clarifies that holders of this license are exempt from freshwater fishing
stamp requirements when fishing on Lake Texoma. Proposed new §53.6(d)
establishes fees for fishing tags as follows: exempt angler red drum tag ($3);
bonus red drum tag ($0); tarpon tag ($120); replacement tarpon tag ($30);
individual bait-shrimp trawl tag ($35); and salt water trotline tag ($4).
The exempt angler red drum tag is established to provide a mechanism to provide
a red drum tag to individuals exempt from purchase of a resident or nonresident
fishing license. The fees for the bonus red drum tag, tarpon tag, replacement
tarpon tag, and individual bait-shrimp trawl tag are identical to current
fee amounts established in current §53.3(e). The fee for the saltwater
trotline tag increases from $3 to $4. The fee increase is necessary because
it was inadvertently omitted from the comprehensive fee adjustments adopted
in 2003. The department determined at that time that additional funds were
needed to maintain current levels of service to the public. Fees for the majority
of the licenses and permits had not been increased since 1996. Since that
time, inflation significantly increased the cost of doing business (such as
the cost of office space, utilities, vehicles, and gasoline), and the department
added a variety of new programs and services. The existing fees were compared
with various cost of living indices and the accumulated rates of inflation
since 1996, which was approximately 20%. The fee increase for the saltwater
trotline tag is based on that calculation. Otherwise the new section is necessary
to consolidate all provisions related to recreational fishing licenses, stamps,
and tags in a single section.
New §53.7, concerning Furbearing Animal Licenses and Permits, contains
the provisions of current §53.4(b), which are relocated into a new section
exclusively addressing licenses and permits pertaining to furbearing animals.
The contents of the proposed new section do not include current §53.4(b)(3)
and (6) (establishing the fees for the resident and nonresident retail fur
buyer's permits, respectively) because rulemaking action in 2003 amended the
provisions of Chapter 65, Subchapter Q, to eliminate the sale of those permit
types. The new section is necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning
fur-bearing animal licenses and permits in a single section. New §53.8,
concerning Alligator Licenses, Permits, Stamps, and Tags, contains the provisions
of current §53.4(c), which are relocated into a new section exclusively
addressing licenses, permits, stamps, and tags pertaining to alligators. In
addition, the proposed new section incorporates the provisions of §65.362(e)
and §65.365 (which establish fees for the alligator export permit and
the alligator management tag, respectively) so that all fees concerning alligators
are located in a single section. The new section is necessary to consolidate
all provisions concerning alligator licenses, permits, and tags in a single
section.
New §53.9, concerning Falconry Permits, contains the provisions of
current §53.8(c), which are being retained in order to create a single
section exclusively addressing falconry permits. The remaining provisions
of current §53.8 are being relocated in other sections as noted. The
new section is necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning falconry
permits in a single section.
New §53.10, concerning Public Hunting and Fishing Permits and Fees,
contains the provisions of current §53.5. Several nonsubstantive changes
are made to the current rules. The caption of subsection (a) changes from
"Hunting permits" to "Hunting and access permits," to more accurately reflect
the scope of the provisions, and the wording of current §53.5(b)(1)(B)
and (C) and (c)(2) have been nonsubstantively altered to eliminate awkward
sentence construction. The new section is necessary to consolidate all provisions
concerning public hunting and fishing permits in a single section.
New §53.11, concerning Commercial Hunting Licenses and Permits, contains
the provisions of current §53.4(a), which are being relocated to a single
section pertaining exclusively to commercial hunting activities regulated
by the department. The new section differs from the current §53.4(a)
only in that 1) fees for hunting cooperatives are removed, since those fees
are established by statute in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter
G, and need not be repeated in regulations, and in any case cannot be altered
by the commission; and 2) the fee for an antlerless and spike-buck control
permit application has been relocated to new §53.14, concerning Deer
Management and Removal Permits so that all fees related to deer management
and removal are in the same section. The new section is necessary to consolidate
all provisions concerning commercial hunting licenses and permits in a single
section.
New §53.12, concerning Commercial Fishing Licenses and Tags, contains
the provisions of current §53.6, with the following nonsubstantive alterations:
references to "license plates" are replaced with the term "display licenses,"
because metal plates will no longer be used; and a reference to "commercial
oyster captain's" is changed to "commercial oyster boat captain's" for accuracy
and consistency. The new section is necessary to consolidate all provisions
concerning commercial fishing licenses and tags in a single section.
New §53.13, concerning Business Licenses and Permits-Fishing, contains
the provisions of current §53.7, with the exception that current §53.7(4)
(establishing the saltwater trotline tag fee) is removed because it has been
relocated to proposed new §53.6, concerning Recreational Fishing Licenses,
Stamps, and Tags. In addition, the new section increases the fees for license
transfers because those fee increases were inadvertently omitted from the
comprehensive fee adjustments adopted in 2003. The fee increases are necessary
for the department to recoup the increased administrative costs associated
with processing transfers since the last fee increase in 1996. The new section
is necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning business licenses and
permits related to fishing in a single section.
New §53.14, concerning Deer Management and Removal Permits, contains
the provisions of current §53.8(a) and (d)-(f) that apply to fees for
permits pertaining to deer management and removal. The provisions have been
nonsubstantively altered to: clarify that the renewal fee for the scientific
breeder's permit is the same as the initial fee (to be consistent with the
terminology of §65.603(d)(4), which addresses renewals, rather than re-application,
which is consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.355); clarify that
the fee for the trap, transport, and transplant permits is an administrative
fee for application review, rather than for the permit itself (to be consistent
with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.061(f), which authorizes the commission
to implement a fee for review of permit applications); clarify that the fee
for the deer management permit is for the permit itself, rather than for processing
the application (to be consistent with Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.603(c),
which authorizes a fee for permit issuance, rather than for processing); incorporate
current §53.4(a)(12); and modify the current reference to "antlerless
deer control permit" to "antlerless and spike-buck deer control permit," which
is necessary to accurately reflect the purpose of the permit. The new section
is necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning deer management permits
in a single section.
New §53.15, concerning Miscellaneous Fisheries and Wildlife Licenses
and Permits, contains the provisions of current §53.8(b) and (g), concerning
game bird and game animal breeding licenses and commercial nongame permits,
respectively; §69.310, concerning fees for educational, scientific, and
zoological permits; §§57.117, 57.125, and 57.131, which establish
fees for permits pertaining to exotic fish, shellfish, and exotic plants; §69.6,
which establishes the fee for the commercial plant permit; §55.150, which
establishes the fee for the permit for aerial management of wildlife and exotic
species; §57.395, which establishes the fee for the permit to collect
broodfish from Texas waters; §58.30, which establishes the fees for an
application for an oyster lease, oyster lease rental, and oyster lease renewal
or transfer. The fees are being relocated from other chapters in order to
consolidate all fees in Chapter 53. The new section is necessary to create
a section containing fee provisions for permits and licenses that cannot be
grouped or associated with other types of licenses or permits.
New §53.16, concerning Vessel, Motor, and Marine Licensing Fees, contains
the provisions of current §53.10, which have been nonsubstantively altered
to clarify that "quick" title fees consist of an administrative surcharge
for expedited title to a vessel or motor, and are in addition to applicable
fees, and to remove obsolete references to effective dates. The new section
is necessary to consolidate all provisions concerning vessel, motor, and marine
licensing fees in a single section.
New §53.30, concerning Facility Admission and Use Fees, contains the
provisions of current §53.50, which establishes the entry fees for the
Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center. In addition to the current fee, the new
section also establishes a new fee for facility use and for the annual pass
to the Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center; admission fees for Sea Center Texas;
fees for the use of facilities at the Parrie Haynes Youth Ranch; entry fees
for Old Tunnel Wildlife Management Area; and facility use fees for Mason Mountain
Wildlife Management Area. The creation of the annual pass (and fee) at the
Athens Freshwater Fisheries Center is intended to address requests for a discounted
entry fee from persons who visit the center multiple times. The entrance fees
for Sea Center Texas are necessary to recoup operational costs. The fees for
the use of Parrie Haynes Youth Camp are necessary to ensure the ability of
the facility to serve the youth of Texas under terms of the department's agreement
with the Texas Youth Commission, and the costs of providing the facility for
public use. The entry fees at Old Tunnel WMA, as well as the facilities use
fees on Mason Mountain WMA, are necessary to fund public outreach, research,
operations, and management on those areas, which, unlike the other wildlife
management areas in the state system, are not eligible for reimbursement for
those expenses under the federal Wildlife Restoration program; thus; it is
imperative that the agency generate some type of revenue in order to continue
to operate the areas for public use. The new section is necessary to consolidate
the fees for the admission and use of department facilities other than state
parks in a single section.
New §53.50, concerning Training and Certification Fees, contains the
provisions of current §53.60, which establish fees for marine safety
enforcement officer training and eliminates the current fee of $3 per student
per hour for that training to make the course more affordable for peace officers
from smaller jurisdictions and to ensure uniform quality of training instruction.
The proposed new section also includes the provisions of §55.609, concerning
registration fees for hunter education training, to consolidate all fees in
Chapter 53; and incorporates a new fee for deferred hunter education. The
new section is necessary to consolidate provisions related to fees for certification
and training programs in a single section.
New §53.60, concerning Stamps, consolidates the provisions of current §§53.11-53.16
and those of current 53.3(f) (concerning the collector's edition stamp package)
in a single section. References to the muzzleloader and freshwater trout have
been eliminated because of legislative action that eliminated those stamps
(H.B. 1989, 78th Legislature, Regular Session, 2003); the freshwater stamp
has been added (also because of H.B. 1989); references to obsolete effective
dates have been removed; reference to a collectible freshwater fishing stamp
(authorized by H.B. 1989) has been added; and other, minor nonsubstantive
grammatical changes have been made to enhance clarity. The new section is
necessary to consolidate provisions related to stamps in a single section.
New §53.70, concerning License Deputies and Vessel Registration Agents,
contains the provisions of current §53.17 and §53.25. The new section
is substantively identical to the current provisions, except that current §53.17(b),
concerning public inspection of application forms for appointment as an authorized
vessel registration agent, is eliminated because there is no reason to state
in regulation something that is self-evident, and because the forms can be
mailed or transmitted electronically to anyone; and current §53.25 has
been modified to eliminate a reference to fee amounts retained by license
deputies for sale of Lake Texoma Fishing licenses in order to make amounts
retained by license deputies uniform for all license types. The new section
is necessary to consolidate the provisions related to license deputies and
vessel registration agents in a single section.
New §53.80, concerning Commercial Fishing Boat Numbers, contains the
provisions of current §53.41. The only change to the current text is
the replacement of the term "metal plate" with the term "display license,"
which is necessary because the department will replace the metal license-plate
type identification with a display license. The new section is necessary to
consolidate the provisions related to commercial fishing boat numbers in a
single section.
New §53.90, concerning Display of Registration Validation Sticker,
contains the unchanged provisions of current §53.205, which prescribe
the manner in which registration decals must be displayed and make a special
provision for antique boats. The new section is necessary to relocate existing
provisions to a different section designation as part of the process of restructuring
the chapter.
New §53.100, concerning Bonded Title-Acceptable Situations, contains
the unchanged provisions of current §53.206, which are necessary to set
forth the circumstances under which the department will issue a bonded title
in the event that complete documentation cannot be provided or obtained by
an applicant for title, registration, or transfer. The new section is necessary
to relocate existing provisions to a different section designation as part
of the process of restructuring the chapter.
New §53.110, concerning Marine, Dealers, Distributors, and Manufacturers,
contains the unchanged provisions of current §§53.200-53.204, which
are being consolidated into a single section. New subsection (a) is current §53.200,
concerning Definitions, which establishes a specific meaning for the word
"consignment" for use in the context of the subchapter. New subsection (b),
which is current §53.201, concerning Application, Renewal, Transfer,
and Replacement, sets forth the required information and documentation that
an applicant must submit in order to be licensed by the department as a dealer,
distributor, or manufacturer. New subsection (c), which is current §53.202,
concerning Notification-Change of Dealer, Manufacturer, Distributor Status,
establishes a notification requirement for dealers, manufacturers, and distributors
in the event that a change in address, ownership, business name, location,
franchise agreement, contact information, or phone number has occurred. New
subsection (d), which is current §53.203, concerning Display of License,
requires licenses to be publicly displayed at all times. New subsection (e),
which is current §53.204, concerning Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements,
sets forth the types of records that must be maintained as a condition of
licensure. The new section is necessary to consolidate all provisions related
to marine, dealers, distributors, and manufacturers in a single section.
New §53.120, concerning License Format and Legibility, consists of
current §53.100, which has been modified to clarify that the provisions
of the section apply only to licenses sold through the department's point-of-sale
system. The new section is necessary to comply with a statutory requirement
to promulgate rules establishing legibility standards for licenses issued
by the department and relocate existing provisions to a different section
designation as part of the process of restructuring the chapter.
In general, the rules will function by establishing the fee amounts for
the various licenses and permits sold by the department.
The department received a total of 427 comments on the proposed regulations.
as follows: The terms "revenue neutral" and "revenue neutrality," as used
in the department's responses to public comments, refer to the relationship
between revenues from current fishing licenses and estimated revenue from
the new fishing licenses and packages. The department has priced the new licenses
and packages so as to generate a revenue stream that is approximately equivalent
to that resulting from the current license structure (i.e., "revenue neutral").
The fee for the freshwater fishing stamp was not considered in calculating
revenue neutrality, as the fee for the freshwater fishing stamp is established
by the legislature.
COMMENT: 122 commenters opposed adoption of the rules, stating that the
costs of the new freshwater fishing stamp and license packages are too high
and will price individuals out of hunting and fishing.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fee increases
are necessary but not burdensome. With the exception of the "year-from-purchase"
fishing license and the various temporary fishing license options, all increases
in license packages are attributable solely to the addition of the mandated
freshwater fishing stamp, the revenues of which are statutorily dedicated
to repair, maintenance, renovation or replacement of freshwater fish hatcheries,
or the purchase of game fish for stocking purposes. The fees for the "year-from-purchase"
and temporary fishing license options were set at levels necessary to allow
the department to maintain a stable revenue stream and were intended to be
revenue neutral. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 22 commenters were opposed to adoption of the freshwater fishing
stamp and license packages, expressing concern regarding the complexity of
the license proposals (too many stamps and license options).
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees and responds that while a new
freshwater fishing stamp is being added, as mandated by House Bill 1989; two
stamps (muzzleloader and freshwater trout) are also being eliminated. In addition,
the various license packages were created in order minimize customer confusion
regarding license and stamp possession requirements, and to ensure that customers
do not inadvertently fish without necessary stamp endorsements. No changes
were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 25 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
packages and associated fee increases, stating that there is no evidence that
the increases will provide tangible benefits.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds
that the increases will be used to make much needed repairs and renovations
to freshwater fish hatcheries, which will directly impact the quality and
quantity of freshwater fishing opportunities. No changes were made as a result
of the comments.
COMMENT: 14 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
stating that the agency should just raise the cost of the fishing license
and eliminate stamps altogether.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds
that various dedicated stamps help to ensure that revenues are directed towards
specific resources in proportion to the use of those particular resources,
and that those who use the resource contribute to the upkeep of the resource.
In addition, freshwater fishing and other stamps are mandated by statute and
must be issued and purchased in order to fish legally within the state. Elimination
of stamps requires an act of the legislature and is not within the discretion
of the agency or commission. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 11 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
stating that it makes the fishing license worthless.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that a fishing license
is still required to lawfully fish in the public waters of the state, and
that the fishing packages that will be sold will confer all the necessary
privileges of fishing: freshwater, saltwater, or both, as desired by the purchaser.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: The agency received one comment recommending adoption of a family
license package.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the various license
options proposed are intended to satisfy the majority of constituents and
that development of a standard family license package would be complicated
and potentially unfair because factors such as size and definition of "family"
can vary widely. However, the department also notes that it has introduced
a program to allow people to fish in sate parks without a license, within
certain parameters, which addresses some concerns about family fishing opportunities.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters were opposed to adoption of the proposal, stating
that use of funds to stock non-native fish is wasteful.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that non-native fish
stocking programs, such as trout, are popular programs that provide angling
over the winter, especially in urban areas. The department feels these programs
are important in reaching new anglers and making fishing opportunities available
to all Texans. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
stating the associated fee increase places an unfair burden on anglers who
do not fish non-native species.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that there is no disproportionate
burden on anglers interested in native species because the freshwater fishing
stamp proceeds would be used to produce both native and non-native species.
The new hatcheries would produce non-native fish such as rainbow trout, as
well as native species such as largemouth bass and channel catfish. No changes
were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 12 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that the department should look at other
alternatives to generate additional revenues.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that since revenues
will be used to benefit freshwater angling, it would be unfair to have other
users (non-anglers) bear the costs. No changes were made as a result of the
comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of freshwater fishing stamp and
associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional funding
it should impose a tournament stamp instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that there is currently
no mechanism for imposing such a fee, and, further, that the fees as adopted
affect all anglers, irrespective of tournament participation, and thus are
equitably distributed amongst all users of the resource. No changes were made
as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Three commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should increase fishing guide fees instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that fishing guide fees
were increased from $75 to $200 in April 2003, and that nonresident saltwater
fishing guide fees were subsequently increased to $1,000 in August 2003. The
department feels that the current fees for fishing guide licenses are appropriate
with respect to the impact of fishing guides on fisheries resources, and that
the non-residentnonresident fee of $1,000 is comparable to amounts charged
in other states; therefore no additional increases are necessary at this time.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Five commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should consider imposing usage fees on water-skiers and jet-skiers
instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that since revenues
will be used to benefit freshwater angling, it would be unfair to have other
users (non-anglers) bear the costs. In addition, owners of jet skis and boats
are already required to pay a fee for registration and titling of their vessels.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 16 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should increase non-residentnonresident license fees instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that non-residentnonresident
fees are set at rates comparable to those charged by other states and that
any further increases would serve as a disincentive to non-residentnonresidents
to fish in this state. In addition, non-residentnonresident fees were also
increased as part of the proposal, and were increased in 2003 as part of an
overall license fee adjustment.. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
revenues it should make licenses available on-line instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while an effort
is underway to make licenses available on-line, the change is unlikely to
generate additional license sales for the department and is intended primarily
as an additional convenience for customers. No changes were made as a result
of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should impose a license and registration fee on bikers who use
TPWD funded and maintained trails instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that since revenues
will be used to benefit freshwater angling, it would be unfair to have other
users (non-anglers) bear the costs. Furthermore, the department lacks statutory
authority to impose such fees. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding the sporting goods sales tax should be applied to all sporting goods
instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that changes to the
application of the sporting goods sales tax require legislative action and
are not within TPWD authority. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should increase fines and step up law enforcement instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that since revenues
will be used to benefit freshwater angling, it would be unfair to have other
users (non-anglers) bear the costs. No changes were made as a result of the
comments.
COMMENT: Three commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should create a stamp for use of recreational watercraft.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that since revenues
will be used to benefit freshwater angling, it would be unfair to have other
users (non-anglers) bear the costs. In addition, owners of recreational watercraft
are already required to pay a fee for registration and titling of their vessels.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that the freshwater trout stamp should be
retained and only trout fishermen should pay the costs of the trout program.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees with the comments and responds that
the freshwater stamp requirement is statutory, meaning that there is no option
not to implement it. Further, the agency notes that trout stocking is just
one part of the department's hatchery program; the stamp fees will be used
to benefit all users of freshwater fisheries resources, and, therefore, all
users should share the burden.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should increase fees for seniors instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while the fees
for some senior licenses have been increased as part of this proposal, other
increases have not been pursued because many seniors are on a fixed income
and fees must be set at rates sensitive to their fixed income status. In addition,
seniors born before September 1, 1930 are statutorily exempt from fishing
license requirements and therefore the department may not impose a fee on
them. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that if the department requires additional
funding it should charge river access fees instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that it lacks the statutory
authority to impose such fees. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases and recommended that anglers be allowed the option
to donate $5 for freshwater fisheries improvements instead.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that donations would
not generate a cash flow stable enough to repay the costs of building and
improving freshwater hatcheries over the long term. No changes were made as
a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 11 commenters expressed concern about the temporary nature of
the freshwater fishing stamp, stating they were not convinced the stamp would
be temporary.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the legislation
requiring the freshwater fishing stamp clearly specifies that the stamp and
associated legislation will expire September 1, 2014. No changes were made
as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters recommended that TPWD re-examine/eliminate the
user-pay approach.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the user-pay/user-benefit
model to funding fish and wildlife conservation through the sale of licenses
is used in many other states and has proven to be successful throughout the
United States. In addition, the user-pay approach is inherently fair, in that
only those constituents using the resources are required to contribute to
their upkeep. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Ten commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater stamp, stating
that the agency should just sell one license that includes all stamp privileges.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while the proposal
does include the super-combination hunting and all-water fishing license package,
which includes all stamp privileges, the department must provide a variety
of license package options to best meet all customer needs. No changes were
made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 21 commenters opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases, stating that the department should reduce expenses
and cut waste.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in the last several
years the department has reviewed its operations, has undergone a hiring freeze,
eliminated non-essential travel, reduced capital expenditures, and instituted
a number of measures to identify and correct inefficiencies and duplicative
efforts. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: 21 commenters were opposed to adoption of a fee increase for the
super-combination license. Thirteen of the commenters noted that the fee increase
is uncalled for, given that only one stamp is added while two are eliminated.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the $5 increase
in the price of the super-combination license is solely due to the addition
of the freshwater fishing stamp. Freshwater stamp revenues are statutorily
dedicated to repair, maintenance, renovation or replacement of freshwater
fish hatcheries, or the purchase of game fish for stocking purposes. To ensure
revenue neutrality with regard to Game, Fish, and Water Safety Account amounts,
it was necessary to add the full $5 freshwater fishing stamp fee to the existing
price of the super-combination license. No changes were made as a result of
the comments.
COMMENT: Nine commenters opposed adoption of fee increases on the basis
that the increases will lead to illegal fishing activity.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fishing license
fee increases are not prohibitive and are not believed to be an incentive
for anyone to violate the law by failing to acquire a license. No changes
were made as a result of the comments
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed the fee increases, stating that they would
hurt families and low-income groups.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fee increases
are necessary but not burdensome. In addition, the department has instituted
a program that allows people to fish without a license in state parks, within
certain parameters. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed the freshwater fishing stamp, stating that
a fishing license should be valid in freshwater without the stamp.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the additional
revenues generated from the freshwater stamp are necessary for much-needed
hatchery improvements and repairs that will benefit all anglers. No changes
were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp
and associated increases and recommended that the department set a different
fee for the catch and release program and eliminate the need to stock fish.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds
that under the current model, the cost of department activities that are subsidized
by the angling communities is shared equitably by all anglers. The department
believes that this is the fairest and most efficient method of distributing
the cost of managing and maintaining this public resource. No changes were
made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed elimination of the muzzleloader and freshwater
trout stamps.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that elimination of
the stamps does not equate to elimination of muzzleloader hunting or freshwater
trout fishing. So long as individuals hold the appropriate license or license
package, they will still be able to enjoy these activities. Further, elimination
of these two stamps is mandated under the provisions of HB 1989. No changes
were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed fee increases due to disabled veteran/fixed
income status.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fee increases
are not believed to be burdensome. Furthermore, qualified disabled veterans
may obtain a resident disabled veteran super-combination hunting and all-water
fishing package at no cost. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater stamp, stating
that the revenue would be better spent on other projects such as golden algae.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the legislature
has allocated funding for projects such as golden algae from other revenue
sources, and that the freshwater fishing stamp revenues are needed for renovations
and repairs to freshwater fish hatcheries. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed the fee increases, stating that the increased
costs would discourage first-timers and others from trying the sport.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the increases are
not prohibitive and should not serve as a disincentive to those wishing to
participate in the sport. Furthermore, the department offers affordable options
for first-timers interested in trying the sport, including the annual no-license
fishing day (1st Saturday in June of each year) and free fishing in state
parks. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
expressing doubt that the revenue would actually be spent as intended.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that freshwater fish
hatcheries are in dire need of repairs and renovations, and that the only
allowable expense of stamp revenue, by law, is for the repair, maintenance,
renovation or replacement of freshwater fish hatcheries or the purchase of
game fish for stocking purposes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the freshwater fishing stamp,
stating that cities should pay to have trout stocked.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees with the comment and responds that
trout are stocked in a variety of locations and not just within municipal
jurisdictions, although cities already pay approximately half of the cost
of the stocking program. In any case, the department manages all public freshwaters
of the state regardless of political subdivision, and because the trout stocking
program is extremely popular, the department believes it is a justifiable
and beneficial use of appropriated funds. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended reduced license prices for seniors at
age 62 instead of 65.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while it realizes
that individual circumstances may vary, the standard retirement age is 65.
In addition, offering reduced license prices at age 62 would negatively impact
the department's ability to maintain current revenue and service levels. Finally,
the department is not authorized to offer reduced prices for seniors at age
62, as the department's statutory authority permits the lowering or waiving
of fees for individuals 65 and older. No changes were made as a result of
the comment.
COMMENT: 10 commenters opposed the license packages, stating that the non-residentnonresident
fees are too high.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that similar to the
other proposed packages, the non-residentnonresident fishing license package
fees consist only of the current cost for a non-residentnonresident fishing
license ($50) and the cost of stamp endorsements required to fish legally
in this state ($5 for freshwater, $10 for saltwater, and $15 for all water).
Additionally, the department notes that nonresident fees are consistent with
nonresident fees of surrounding states and states offering similar opportunity.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed charging a fee for the exempt angler red
drum tag.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that a minimal fee must
be charged in order to recoup the administrative costs associated with issuing
the new tag. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended extending validity of license packages
to two years rather than one.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that extending the period
of validity to two years would require the price of licenses to be doubled
in order to ensure revenue neutrality and that such an increase would be cost-prohibitive
for some constituents. This type of change would also destabilize cash flow
to the department. Finally, statute clearly provides for a yearly period of
validity for licenses and the department currently lacks authority to implement
such a change. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended that license discounts be based on documented
need, not age.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in order to implement
need-based discounts, the department would be required to implement methods
to accurately determine and verify the needs of constituents, which would
likely be cost-prohibitive. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended special rates for veterans.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while certain qualified
disabled veterans may currently obtain a resident disabled veteran super-combination
hunting and all-water fishing package at no cost, extending special rates
to all veterans would require an increase in costs for other segments of the
population in order to maintain revenue streams sufficient to continue providing
current services. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: 30 commenters specifically were opposed to the prices for the
temporary licenses, stating that the costs were too high.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the prices for
the temporary licenses are not believed to be burdensome, and were set at
levels necessary to maintain revenue neutrality in replacing existing temporary
licenses. For example, the July and August fishing license, which is valid
from the first day of July through the last day of August, is priced at $20.
This represents just a $5 increase from the existing temporary license that
is only valid for 14 days. Further, the July and August freshwater, saltwater,
and all water fishing packages, which are $25, $30 and $35, respectively,
include the stamps necessary to legally fish in various state waters. As another
example, the temporary three-day resident fishing license is currently $12.
This cost does not include the cost for necessary stamps, which would be an
additional $5 or $10, depending on where the license would be used. The resident
day-plus package, if purchased for a three-day period, would total $19 for
freshwater and $24 for saltwater, but would include needed stamp endorsements.
This amount represents only a $2 increase from the existing three-day temporary
license with required stamps. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Ten commenters opposed the period of validity of the temporary
licenses, stating that there should only be a year-round license.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that in order to best
meet the diverse needs of its constituents, including those who may not want
to fish year round, the department must offer a variety of license options.
No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Nine commenters opposed the prices for the non-residentnonresident
temporary licenses, stating that the fees would deter tourists.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comments and responds
that the new fees are not believed to be a disincentive to tourists, and further
responds that when the quality and diversity of angling opportunity in Texas
is considered, the cost of nonresident licenses is a bargain for tourists.
No changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended that the costs for temporary licenses
should be the same for each day.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that based on the department's
analysis of user behavior, it was necessary to establish varying fee amounts
for use on subsequent days in order to ensure revenue neutrality of the proposed
license changes. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter was opposed to the price for the one-day licenses,
stating that the fee should be higher.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees and responds that the price for
the one-day license was established at a level necessary to ensure revenue
neutrality of the proposed license changes. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
COMMENT: Six commenters were opposed to the temporary fishing license options,
stating that they were too complex.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the license options
were designed to help minimize confusion regarding new stamp requirements,
and points out that anglers must select among only three criteria in determining
which package to purchase: (1) duration of the package; (2) type of license
(fresh, salt or both) in order to ensure that they possess the endorsements
necessary to fish legally; and (3) resident or non-residentnonresident. No
changes were made as a result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed the non-residentnonresident temporary fishing
packages, stating that the fees should be higher.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees and responds that the prices
for the non-residentnonresident temporary packages were established at a level
necessary to ensure revenue neutrality of the proposed license changes. No
changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed temporary licenses, stating that purchasers
of the day-plus fishing packages should be granted the flexibility to specify
any subsequent days rather than subsequent consecutive days only.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while purchasers
do not have the flexibility to specify non-consecutive days as part of the
initial purchase, the day-plus packages are structured to allow customers
to repurchase the day-plus fishing package at any time during the same license
year at a lower price than the original purchase. The department feels that
this structure adequately accommodates the concern expressed. No changes were
made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: 32 commenters opposed adoption of the July and August license,
stating the cost is too high and that the license is not a good value to the
consumer.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the price for the
July and August license is not believed to be burdensome, and was set at levels
necessary to maintain revenue neutrality in replacing existing temporary licenses.
The license, which is valid for over 60 days (from the first day of July through
the last day of August), is priced at $20. This represents just a $5 increase
from the existing temporary license that is only valid for 14 days. Further,
the July and August freshwater, saltwater, and all water fishing packages,
which are $25, $30 and $35, respectively, include the stamps necessary to
legally fish in various state waters. No changes were made as a result of
the comments.
COMMENT: Three commenters opposed the July and August license, stating
that the cost of the July and August license should be determined on a prorated
basis.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the price for July
and August license was established at a level necessary to ensure revenue
neutrality of the proposed license changes, and that prorating the price would
lead to a revenue loss to the department that would negatively impact provision
of services. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the July and August license,
stating that the license should be valid for the summer months of June, July,
and August.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that analysis of fishing
license purchase patterns has indicated that customers are generally unwilling
to purchase a full year license after mid-June. The July and August license
was configured for that segment of constituents who would be unwilling to
purchase a yearly license, but for whom the day-plus license would not be
an attractive option. Based on this analysis, the department believes that
a subset of constituents would find that this license option (and duration)
best meets their needs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption of the July and August license,
stating that July and August are not peak fishing months.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency, while aware that July and August are not peak
fishing months, responds that the license was configured to accommodate certain
customers unwilling to purchase a year-long license. The department believes
that a subset of constituents would find that this license option (and duration)
best meets their needs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: 26 commenters opposed adoption of the "year-from-purchase" license,
stating that multiple license expiration dates (for hunting and fishing licenses)
would cause confusion and could possibly lead to increased violations.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency, while concerned about the possible increase
in violations, responds that a subset of department constituents have requested
that this option be made available, and the agency is attempting to address
this demand and provide our customers with a range of fishing license and
package options. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: 42 commenters opposed adoption of the "year-from-purchase" license,
stating that the cost is too high and should not be higher than the amounts
charged for fishing licenses that are valid for the license year (September
through August).
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that implementation
of the "year-from-purchase" license will result in increased administrative
costs and, based on past experience, will require an increase in enforcement
efforts. Given these various cost considerations, the higher price for the
license is necessary. No changes were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended that the "year-from-purchase" license
option should be extended to all licenses.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the practical difficulties
of providing a year-to-date option for all licenses (recordkeeping, programming
costs for point-of-sale machines, regulatory conflicts) would necessitate
additional revenue capture to maintain current levels of service. No changes
were made as a result of these comments.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed the "year-from-purchase" license, stating
that the department should prorate license costs.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that prorating costs
would lead to a revenue loss to the department and would negatively impact
provision of services. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter was opposed to increasing the price of the special
resident license.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that cost of the special
resident fishing license ($6) itself has not increased, and that the special
resident fishing packages for freshwater ($11); saltwater ($16) and all-water
($21) merely incorporate the cost of the stamp endorsements required to legally
fish in various public waters ($5 for freshwater fishing; $10 for saltwater;
and $15 for all-water). No changes were made as a result of this comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended increasing the cost of the saltwater
trotline tag to $10.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the cost of the
saltwater trotline tag fee was recently increased to $4 based on review of
CPI trends, and the department feels that the price is currently set at a
reasonable and appropriate level. No changes were made as a result of this
comment.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended creation of a special non-residentnonresident
fishing license.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fee changes
made as part of this proposal were necessary to either implement the new freshwater
fishing stamp or to ensure revenue neutrality of the license restructuring
effort. Changing the requirements for non-residentnonresidents fishing licenses
would result in a revenue loss to the department and would not be a revenue
neutral approach. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters recommended a $5/day license for party/head boat
fishers.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The department disagrees and responds that the intent
of the rulemaking was not to implement new licenses and fees, but to implement
legislative mandates and restructure various licenses in order to accommodate
the legislative mandates without losing revenue. No changes were made as a
result of the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter recommended that non-residentnonresidents should
be able to fish under a Captain's License when on a for-hire trip.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the fee changes
made as part of this proposal were necessary to either implement the new freshwater
fishing stamp or to ensure revenue neutrality of the license restructuring
effort. Changing the requirements for non-residentnonresidents fishing with
a fishing guide would result in a revenue loss to the department and would
not be a revenue neutral approach unless corresponding increases were made
to fishing guide licenses. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: The agency received one comment recommending that seniors over
age 65 be exempt from fishing license fees and requirements.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that while it does currently
offer seniors over the age of 65 a lower cost license (special resident license),
allowing these seniors an exemption from fees and license requirements would
result in a revenue loss to the department and would not be a revenue neutral
approach. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: The agency received one comment stating that increasing nonresident
fees will serve as a disincentive to out-of-state tourism related to angling.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees and responds that the nonresident
fees are consistent with nonresident fees of surrounding states and states
offering similar opportunity, and therefore shouldn't lead to a reduction
in angler-related tourism. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: The agency received one comment stating that the "year-to-date"
license will lead to inadvertent violations by persons who will not remember
when their license expires.
AGENCY RESPONSE: The agency disagrees with the comment and responds that
persons will have the option of purchasing the "year-to-date" license or the
traditional September-to-August license. People choosing to avoid the inconvenience
of keeping track of license validity therefore are able to purchase the traditional
license when it becomes available each August as they have in the past. No
changes were made as a result of the comment.
The Texas Deer Association and the Grimes County Wildlife Committee opposed
adoption of the fee for the creation of the freshwater fishing stamp, stating
that if the new stamp replaces the trout stamp, but not everyone fishes for
trout, the new stamp is therefore a burden on everyone who doesn't fish for
trout. The agency disagrees with the comment and has previously responded
to it elsewhere in this preamble.
The Texas Association of Bass Clubs opposed adoption of the proposed license
structure changes (specifically, the numerous options involved), stating that
the new structure would cause confusion, and expressed skepticism that the
revenue would actually be used as intended. The agency disagrees with the
comment and has previously responded to it elsewhere in this preamble.
The Texas Saltwater Guides Association opposed adoption of the fees for
non-residentnonresident licenses, stating that the new fees would push non-residentnonresidents
to fish in other states. The agency disagrees with the comment and has previously
responded to it elsewhere in this preamble.
The Sportsmen Conservationists of Texas (SCOT) opposed adoption of the
July-August fishing licenses stating that the licenses were not necessary
or useful, and further opposed adoption of the "year-to-date" licenses, stating
that more people will inadvertently break the law because they will not remember
when their license expires. The agency disagrees with the comment and has
responded to it elsewhere in this preamble. SCOT supported the adoption of
the remainder of the new rules as proposed.
Subchapter A. LICENSE FEES AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES
31 TAC §§53.1 - 53.10
The repeals and new rules are adopted under the authority
of Government Code, §2155.076, which requires a state agency to adopt
rules for resolving vendor protests relating to purchasing issues and Parks
and Wildlife Code:
Chapter 11: §11.027, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee to cover costs associated with the review of an application for a permit
required by the code; to sell any item in the possession of the department
in which the state has title, or acquire and resell items if a profit can
be made, to charge a fee for the use of a credit card to pay a fee assessed
by the department in an amount reasonable and necessary to reimburse the department
for the costs involved in the use of the card, and a fee for entering, reserving,
or using a facility or property owned or managed by the department; §11.0271,
which authorizes the department to establish participation fees, not to exceed
$25 per species for each participant on an application, in drawings for special
hunting programs, packages, or events that exceed the costs of operating the
drawing only if the fees charged are designated for use in the management
and restoration efforts of the specific wildlife program implementing each
special hunting program, package, or event; §11.0272, which authorizes
the commission to approve participation fees, not to exceed $25 per species
or event for each participant on an application, in drawings for special fishing
or other special programs, packages, or events the costs of which exceed the
costs of operating the drawing only if the receipts from fees charged are
designated for use in the management and restoration efforts of the specific
fishery or resource program implementing each special fishing or other special
program, package, or event; §11.030, which authorizes the commission
to adopt rules relating to the release, use, and sale of customer information;
and §11.056, which authorizes the commission to establish the price of
a wildlife art decal or stamp or editions of stamps and decals; §11.065,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules for the investment of the lifetime
license endowment account;
Chapter 12: §12.702, which authorizes the commission to establish
collection and issuance fees for license deputies to sell licenses, stamps,
tags, permits, or other similar item issued under any chapter the code; §12.703,
which requires the commission to specify standards for licenses issued by
an electronic point-of-sale system, including the legibility of the licenses;
Chapter 31: §31.006, which authorizes the commission to allow a dealer
who holds a dealer's or manufacturer's number to act as the agent of the department
and to require an agent to execute a surety bond in an amount set by the department,
and to adopt rules for the creation of a program for the continuing identification
and classification of participants in the vessel and outboard motor industries
doing business in this state, including fees; §31.032, which authorizes
the department to prescribe the manner in which identification numbers and
validation decals are placed on a vessel and authorizes the commission to
adopt rules for the placement of validation decals for antique boats; §31.0412,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules regarding dealer's, distributor's,
and manufacturer's licenses, including transfer procedures, application forms,
application and renewal procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
and §31.0465, which authorizes the commission to define by rule what
constitutes an acceptable situation in which certificates of title may be
issued after the filing of a bond, and §31.039 which authorizes the commission
to charge a fee for access to ownership and other records; §31.121, which
requires the commission to establish and collect a fee to recover the administrative
costs associated with the certification of marine safety enforcement officers;
Chapter 42: §42.012, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident hunting license; §42.0121, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a lifetime resident hunting license; §42.014,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a nonresident special
hunting license; §42.0141, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a general nonresident hunting license; §42.0142, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for banded bird hunting licenses; §42.0143,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a nonresident five-day
special hunting license; §42.0144, which authorizes the commission to
establish a fee for a nonresident spring turkey hunting license; and §42.017,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a duplicate license
or tags;
Chapter 43: §43.012, which authorizes the commission to issue a white-winged
dove stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide for
identification, possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish a
fee; §43.022, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
permits for scientific, educational, and zoological permits; §43.044,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for hunting lease licenses; §43.061,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for permits to trap, transport,
or transplant game animals or game birds; §43.0611, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for an urban white-tailed deer removal permit; §43.0721,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a private bird hunting
area license; §43.0722, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a private bird hunting area license; §43.0764, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a field trial permit; §43.110,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a permit that authorizes
the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft; §43.201,
which authorizes the commission to issue an archery stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, to provide for identification, possession, and
exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.202, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for an archery stamp; §43.252, which
authorizes the commission to issue a turkey stamp in a form and manner prescribed
by the department, and to provide for identification, possession, and exemption
requirements; §43.303, which authorizes the commission to issue a waterfowl
stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide for identification,
possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.355,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a scientific breeder's
permit; §43.403, which authorizes the commission to issue a saltwater
sportfishing stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide
for identification, possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish
a fee; §43.554, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a permit to allow a licensed fish farmer to take a specified quantity of fish
brood stock from specified public water; §43.603, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for the issuance or renewal of a deer management
permit; §44.003, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a game breeder's license;
Chapter 45: §45.003, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for commercial game bird breeder's licenses;
Chapter 46: §46.004, which authorizes the commission to establish
fees for a resident fishing license, a nonresident fishing license, a lifetime
resident fishing license, duplicate tags, and issuance and collection fees
for licenses and tags; §46.005, which authorizes the commission to establish
the period of validity and a fee for resident and nonresident temporary sportfishing
licenses; §46.006, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for duplicate fishing licenses and tags; §46.007, which authorizes the
commission to establish a period of validity for fishing licenses and tags; §46.0085,
which authorizes the commission to issue tags for finfish; §46.104, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for the Lake Texoma fishing license; §46.105,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for the Lake Texoma 10-day
fishing license;
Chapter 47: §47.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident general commercial fisherman's license; §47.003,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a resident or nonresident
commercial finfish fisherman's license; §47.004, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a fishing guide license; §47.007, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a commercial fishing boat
license and number and rules governing the issuance, use, and display of commercial
fishing boat numbers; §47.008, which authorizes the commission to establish
fees for menhaden boat licenses ; §47.009, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a wholesale fish dealer's license; §47.010, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a wholesale truck dealer's
fish license; §47.011, which authorizes the commission to establish a
fee for a retail fish dealer's license; §47.013, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a retail dealer's truck license; §47.014,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for bait dealer's licenses; §47.016,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a menhaden fish plant
license; §47.017, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for renewal of a menhaden fish plant license; §47.031, which authorizes
the commission to establish the period of validity for any license issued
under the authority of Chapter 47 and provides for the transfer of licenses
and permits; §47.075, which authorizes the commission to establish a
fee for a commercial finfish fisherman unless the person has obtained a commercial
finfish fisherman's license; §47.079, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for the transfer of a commercial finfish fisherman's license.
Chapter 49: §49.014, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for any falconry, raptor propagation, or nonresident trapping permit;
Chapter 50: §50.001, which authorizes the commission to establish
combination licenses and packages and the fees for each; §50.0021, which
authorizes the commission to establish the period of validity for combination
licenses and packages; §50.004, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for duplicate combination licenses and packages;
Chapter 62: §62.014, which authorizes the commission to impose a fee
not to exceed $15 to defray administrative costs of implementing hunter education
courses;
Chapter 65: §65.003, §65.004, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for permits that govern the taking, possession, propagation,
transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of alligators,
alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; §65.004, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a resident or nonresident alligator
hunter's license, a nonresident alligator hunter's license.
Chapter 66: §66.007, which authorizes the commission to establish
rules governing permits to import, possess, sell, or place into water of this
state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants; §66.017,
which authorizes the commission to establish the period of validity for licenses,
permits, and tags issued under the authority of Chapter 66, and the fee for
transfers of licenses, permits, and tags issued under authority of Chapter
66; §66.018, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a
crab trap tag; §66.020, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for permits authorizing the sale and purchase of protected fish; §66.206,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for tags for trotlines
used in public salt water;
Chapter 67: §67.0041, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for permits for the taking, possession, propagation, transportation,
sale, importation, or exportation of a nongame species of fish or wildlife;
Chapter 71: §71.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident trapper's license, a resident or nonresident
wholesale fur dealer's license, and a fur-bearing animal propagation permit.
Chapter 76: §76.006, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a certificate authorizing the applicant to plant oysters and make
a private oyster bed in the public water of the state; §76.017, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a certificate of location
for a private oyster bed; §76.018, which authorizes the commission to
establish the period of validity for licenses issued under authority of Chapter
76, and fees for the transfer of licenses; §76.104, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a commercial oyster boat license, a
sport oyster boat license, a commercial oyster fisherman's license, a commercial
oyster boat captain's license, a commercial oyster boat license for a boat
that is not numbered under Chapter 31 or does not have a certificate of documentation
issued by the United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for
the boat owner, a sport oyster boat license for a boat that is not numbered
under Chapter 31 or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by
the United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat
owner, a fee for a nonresident commercial oyster fisherman's license, and
a nonresident commercial oyster boat captain's license; §76.1041, which
authorizes the commission to establish requirements for the design and display
of a commercial oyster boat license;
Chapter 77: §77.031, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a commercial bay shrimp boat license and a commercial bay shrimp
boat license for a boat that is not numbered under Chapter 31 of this code
or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by the United States
Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat owner; §77.033,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a commercial bait-shrimp
boat license and a commercial bait-shrimp boat license for a boat that is
not numbered under Chapter 31 of this code or does not have a certificate
of documentation issued by the United States Coast Guard that lists an address
in Texas for the boat owner; §77.035, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a commercial gulf shrimp boat license and a commercial
gulf shrimp boat license for a boat that is not numbered under Chapter 31
of this code or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by the
United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat owner; §77.0351,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a residents or nonresident
commercial shrimp boat captain's license issued by the department; §77.0361,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for transfers of licenses
issued under Chapter 77, duplicate license plates, and duplicate or replacement
licenses; §77.037, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for a transfer of a commercial gulf shrimp boat license; §77.043, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a bait-shrimp dealer's license; §77.048,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for an individual bait-shrimp
trawl; §77.115, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a transfer of a commercial bay or bait shrimp boat license;
Chapter 78: §78.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident commercial mussel and clam fisherman's
license; §78.003, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for a resident or nonresident shell buyer's license; §78.004, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for the export of mussels or clams or mussel
or clam shells; §78.105, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a crab boat license; §78.109, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a transfer of a license issued under Chapter 78;
Chapter 81: §81.403, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a permit for the hunting of wildlife or for any other use in wildlife
management areas;
Chapter 86: §86.007, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for processing notifications of proposed activities governed by Chapter
86 and for payment for substrate materials;
Chapter 88: §88.006, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a permit to collect endangered, threatened, or protected native
plants for commercial purposes.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403979
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §§53.11 - 53.16
The repeals are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.056,
which authorizes the commission to establish the price of a wildlife art decal
or stamp or editions of stamps and decals; §11.065, which authorizes
the commission to adopt rules for the investment of the lifetime license endowment
account; §43.012, which authorizes the department to issue a white-winged
dove stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, and providing
for identification, possession, and exemption requirements; §43.201,
which authorizes the department to issue an archery stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, and providing for identification, possession,
and exemption requirements; §43.252, which authorizes the department
to issue a turkey stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department,
and providing for identification, possession, and exemption requirements; §43.303,
which authorizes the department to issue a waterfowl stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, and providing for identification, possession,
and exemption requirements; and §43.403, which authorizes the department
to issue a saltwater sportfishing stamp in a form and manner prescribed by
the department, and providing for identification, possession, and exemption
requirements.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403980
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.17, §53.18
The repeals are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.006,
which authorizes the commission to allow a dealer who holds a dealer's or
manufacturer's number to act as the agent of the department and to require
an agent to execute a surety bond in an amount set by the department, and
to adopt rules for the creation of a program for the continuing identification
and classification of participants in the vessel and outboard motor industries
doing business in this state, including fees.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403981
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.22, §53.25
The repeals are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.701,
which authorizes the commission to designate persons to act as license deputies,
and §12.702, which authorizes the commission to establish collection
and issuance fees for license deputies to sell licenses, stamps, tags, permits,
or other similar item issued under any chapter of the code.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed
with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403982
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.35
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.030,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules relating to the release, use,
and sale of customer information.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403983
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.41
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §47.007,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a commercial fishing
boat license and number and rules governing the issuance, use, and display
of commercial fishing boat numbers.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403984
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.50
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.027,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for entering, reserving,
or using a facility or property owned or managed by the department.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403985
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.60
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.121,
which requires the commission to establish and collect a fee to recover the
administrative costs associated with the certification of marine safety enforcement
officers.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403986
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.70
The repeal is adopted under Government Code, §2155.076,
which requires the department as a state agency to adopt rules for resolving
vendor protests relating to purchasing issues
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403987
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.90
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.012,
which authorizes the commission to exempt persons from requirements relating
to a white-winged dove stamp; §43.202, which authorizes the commission
to exempt persons from requirements relating to an archery stamp; §43.252,
which authorizes the commission to exempt persons from requirements relating
to a turkey stamp; §43.403, which authorizes the commission to exempt
persons from requirements relating to a saltwater sportfishing stamp; and
the provisions of H.B. 1989, which created the freshwater fishing stamp and
authorizes the commission exempt persons from requirements relating to possession
of the stamp, and eliminated the muzzleloader stamp and the freshwater trout
stamp.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403988
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.100
The repeal is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.703,
which requires the commission to specify standards for licenses issued by
an electronic point-of-sale system, including the legibility of the licenses.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403989
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §§53.200 - 53.206
The repeals are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.032,
which authorizes the department to prescribe the manner in which identification
numbers and validation decals are placed on a vessel and authorizes the commission
to adopt rules for the placement of validation decals for antique boats; §31.0412,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules regarding dealer's, distributor's,
and manufacturer's licenses, including transfer procedures, application forms,
application and renewal procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
and §31.0465, which authorizes the commission to define by rule what
constitutes an acceptable situation in which certificates of title may be
issued after the filing of a bond, and §31.039 which authorizes the commission
to charge a fee for access to ownership and other records.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403990
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
1.
LICENSE, PERMIT, AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES
31 TAC §§53.1 - 53.16
The new rules are adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter
11: §11.027, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee to cover
costs associated with the review of an application for a permit required by
the code; to sell any item in the possession of the department in which the
state has title, or acquire and resell items if a profit can be made, to charge
a fee for the use of a credit card to pay a fee assessed by the department
in an amount reasonable and necessary to reimburse the department for the
costs involved in the use of the card, and a fee for entering, reserving,
or using a facility or property owned or managed by the department; §11.0271,
which authorizes the department to establish participation fees, not to exceed
$25 per species for each participant on an application, in drawings for special
hunting programs, packages, or events that exceed the costs of operating the
drawing only if the fees charged are designated for use in the management
and restoration efforts of the specific wildlife program implementing each
special hunting program, package, or event; §11.0272, which authorizes
the commission to approve participation fees, not to exceed $25 per species
or event for each participant on an application, in drawings for special fishing
or other special programs, packages, or events the costs of which exceed the
costs of operating the drawing only if the receipts from fees charged are
designated for use in the management and restoration efforts of the specific
fishery or resource program implementing each special fishing or other special
program, package, or event; §11.030, which authorizes the commission
to adopt rules relating to the release, use, and sale of customer information;
and §11.056, which authorizes the commission to establish the price of
a wildlife art decal or stamp or editions of stamps and decals; §11.065,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules for the investment of the lifetime
license endowment account;
Chapter 12: §12.702, which authorizes the commission to establish
collection and issuance fees for license deputies to sell licenses, stamps,
tags, permits, or other similar item issued under any chapter the code; §12.703,
which requires the commission to specify standards for licenses issued by
an electronic point-of-sale system, including the legibility of the licenses;
Chapter 31: §31.006, which authorizes the commission to allow a dealer
who holds a dealer's or manufacturer's number to act as the agent of the department
and to require an agent to execute a surety bond in an amount set by the department,
and to adopt rules for the creation of a program for the continuing identification
and classification of participants in the vessel and outboard motor industries
doing business in this state, including fees; §31.032, which authorizes
the department to prescribe the manner in which identification numbers and
validation decals are placed on a vessel and authorizes the commission to
adopt rules for the placement of validation decals for antique boats; §31.0412,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules regarding dealer's, distributor's,
and manufacturer's licenses, including transfer procedures, application forms,
application and renewal procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements;
and §31.0465, which authorizes the commission to define by rule what
constitutes an acceptable situation in which certificates of title may be
issued after the filing of a bond, and §31.039 which authorizes the commission
to charge a fee for access to ownership and other records; §31.121, which
requires the commission to establish and collect a fee to recover the administrative
costs associated with the certification of marine safety enforcement officers;
Chapter 42: §42.012, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident hunting license; §42.0121, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a lifetime resident hunting license; §42.014,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a nonresident special
hunting license; §42.0141, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a general nonresident hunting license; §42.0142, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for banded bird hunting licenses; §42.0143,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a nonresident five-day
special hunting license; §42.0144, which authorizes the commission to
establish a fee for a nonresident spring turkey hunting license; and §42.017,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a duplicate license
or tags;
Chapter 43: §43.012, which authorizes the commission to issue a white-winged
dove stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide for
identification, possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish a
fee; §43.022, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
permits for scientific, educational, and zoological permits; §43.044,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for hunting lease licenses; §43.061,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for permits to trap, transport,
or transplant game animals or game birds; §43.0611, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for an urban white-tailed deer removal permit; §43.0721,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a private bird hunting
area license; §43.0722, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a private bird hunting area license; §43.0764, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a field trial permit; §43.110,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a permit that authorizes
the management of wildlife or exotic animals by the use of aircraft; §43.201,
which authorizes the commission to issue an archery stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, to provide for identification, possession, and
exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.202, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for an archery stamp; §43.252, which
authorizes the commission to issue a turkey stamp in a form and manner prescribed
by the department, and to provide for identification, possession, and exemption
requirements; §43.303, which authorizes the commission to issue a waterfowl
stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide for identification,
possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.355,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a scientific breeder's
permit; §43.403, which authorizes the commission to issue a saltwater
sportfishing stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department, to provide
for identification, possession, and exemption requirements, and to establish
a fee; §43.554, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a permit to allow a licensed fish farmer to take a specified quantity of fish
brood stock from specified public water; §43.603, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for the issuance or renewal of a deer management
permit; §44.003, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a game breeder's license;
Chapter 45: §45.003, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for commercial game bird breeder's licenses;
Chapter 46: §46.004, which authorizes the commission to establish
fees for a resident fishing license, a nonresident fishing license, a lifetime
resident fishing license, duplicate tags, and issuance and collection fees
for licenses and tags; §46.005, which authorizes the commission to establish
the period of validity and a fee for resident and nonresident temporary sportfishing
licenses; §46.006, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for duplicate fishing licenses and tags; §46.007, which authorizes the
commission to establish a period of validity for fishing licenses and tags; §46.0085,
which authorizes the commission to issue tags for finfish; §46.104, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for the Lake Texoma fishing license; §46.105,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for the Lake Texoma 10-day
fishing license;
Chapter 47: §47.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident general commercial fisherman's license; §47.003,
which authorizes the commission to establish fee for a resident or nonresident
commercial finfish fisherman's license; §47.004, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a fishing guide license; §47.007, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a commercial fishing boat
license and number and rules governing the issuance, use, and display of commercial
fishing boat numbers; §47.008, which authorizes the commission to establish
fees for menhaden boat licenses ; §47.009, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a wholesale fish dealer's license; §47.010, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a wholesale truck dealer's
fish license; §47.011, which authorizes the commission to establish a
fee for a retail fish dealer's license; §47.013, which authorizes the
commission to establish a fee for a retail dealer's truck license; §47.014,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for bait dealer's licenses; §47.016,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a menhaden fish plant
license; §47.017, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for renewal of a menhaden fish plant license; §47.031, which authorizes
the commission to establish the period of validity for any license issued
under the authority of Chapter 47 and provides for the transfer of licenses
and permits; §47.075, which authorizes the commission to establish a
fee for a commercial finfish fisherman unless the person has obtained a commercial
finfish fisherman's license; §47.079, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for the transfer of a commercial finfish fisherman's license.
Chapter 49: §49.014, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for any falconry, raptor propagation, or nonresident trapping permit;
Chapter 50: §50.001, which authorizes the commission to establish
combination licenses and packages and the fees for each; §50.0021, which
authorizes the commission to establish the period of validity for combination
licenses and packages; §50.004, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for duplicate combination licenses and packages;
Chapter 62: §62.014, which authorizes the commission to impose a fee
not to exceed $15 to defray administrative costs of implementing hunter education
courses;
Chapter 65: §65.003, §65.004, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for permits that govern the taking, possession, propagation,
transportation, exportation, importation, sale, and offering for sale of alligators,
alligator eggs, or any part of an alligator; §65.004, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a resident or nonresident alligator
hunter's license, a nonresident alligator hunter's license.
Chapter 66: §66.007, which authorizes the commission to establish
rules governing permits to import, possess, sell, or place into water of this
state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants; §66.017,
which authorizes the commission to establish the period of validity for licenses,
permits, and tags issued under the authority of Chapter 66, and the fee for
transfers of licenses, permits, and tags issued under authority of Chapter
66; §66.018, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a
crab trap tag; §66.020, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for permits authorizing the sale and purchase of protected fish; §66.206,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for tags for trotlines
used in public salt water;
Chapter 67: §67.0041, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for permits for the taking, possession, propagation, transportation,
sale, importation, or exportation of a nongame species of fish or wildlife;
Chapter 71: §71.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident trapper's license, a resident or nonresident
wholesale fur dealer's license, and a fur-bearing animal propagation permit.
Chapter 76: §76.006, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a certificate authorizing the applicant to plant oysters and make
a private oyster bed in the public water of the state; §76.017, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a certificate of location
for a private oyster bed; §76.018, which authorizes the commission to
establish the period of validity for licenses issued under authority of Chapter
76, and fees for the transfer of licenses; §76.104, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for a commercial oyster boat license, a
sport oyster boat license, a commercial oyster fisherman's license, a commercial
oyster boat captain's license, a commercial oyster boat license for a boat
that is not numbered under Chapter 31 or does not have a certificate of documentation
issued by the United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for
the boat owner, a sport oyster boat license for a boat that is not numbered
under Chapter 31 or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by
the United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat
owner, a fee for a nonresident commercial oyster fisherman's license, and
a nonresident commercial oyster boat captain's license; §76.1041, which
authorizes the commission to establish requirements for the design and display
of a commercial oyster boat license;
Chapter 77: §77.031, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a commercial bay shrimp boat license and a commercial bay shrimp
boat license for a boat that is not numbered under Chapter 31 of this code
or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by the United States
Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat owner; §77.033,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a commercial bait-shrimp
boat license and a commercial bait-shrimp boat license for a boat that is
not numbered under Chapter 31 of this code or does not have a certificate
of documentation issued by the United States Coast Guard that lists an address
in Texas for the boat owner; §77.035, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a commercial gulf shrimp boat license and a commercial
gulf shrimp boat license for a boat that is not numbered under Chapter 31
of this code or does not have a certificate of documentation issued by the
United States Coast Guard that lists an address in Texas for the boat owner; §77.0351,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a residents or nonresident
commercial shrimp boat captain's license issued by the department; §77.0361,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for transfers of licenses
issued under Chapter 77, duplicate license plates, and duplicate or replacement
licenses; §77.037, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for a transfer of a commercial gulf shrimp boat license; §77.043, which
authorizes the commission to establish a fee for a bait-shrimp dealer's license; §77.048,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for an individual bait-shrimp
trawl; §77.115, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a transfer of a commercial bay or bait shrimp boat license;
Chapter 78: §78.002, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a resident or nonresident commercial mussel and clam fisherman's
license; §78.003, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee
for a resident or nonresident shell buyer's license; §78.004, which authorizes
the commission to establish a fee for the export of mussels or clams or mussel
or clam shells; §78.105, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a crab boat license; §78.109, which authorizes the commission
to establish a fee for a transfer of a license issued under Chapter 78;
Chapter 81: §81.403, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a permit for the hunting of wildlife or for any other use in wildlife
management areas;
Chapter 86: §86.007, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for processing notifications of adopted activities governed by Chapter
86 and for payment for substrate materials;
Chapter 88: §88.006, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for a permit to collect endangered, threatened, or protected native
plants for commercial purposes
§53.5.Recreational Hunting Licenses, Stamps, and Tags.
(a)
Hunting licenses:
(1)
resident hunting--$23;
(2)
special resident hunting--$6. Valid for residents under
17 years of age, residents who are 65 years of age or older, and nonresident
hunters who are under 17 years of age on the date of license purchase;
(3)
replacement hunting--$10;
(4)
general nonresident hunting--$300;
(5)
nonresident special hunting--$125;
(6)
nonresident five-day special hunting--$45;
(7)
nonresident spring turkey hunting--$120; and
(8)
nonresident banded bird hunting--$25.
(b)
Hunting stamps and tags:
(1)
turkey--$5;
(2)
white-winged dove--$7;
(3)
archery hunting--$7;
(4)
state waterfowl--$7.; and
(5)
bonus deer tag---$10.
§53.6.Recreational Fishing Licenses, Stamps, and Tags.
(a)
The items listed in this subsection are sold only as part
of a package. The price and terms of these items are as follows:
(1)
resident fishing license--$23
(2)
special resident fishing license--$6
(3)
"year-from-purchase" resident fishing license--$30. The
"Year-from-purchase" resident fishing license is valid from the date of purchase
through the end of the purchase month of the subsequent year.
(4)
July and August resident fishing license--$20. The July
and August resident fishing license is valid from the first day of July through
the last day of August for the license year of purchase.
(5)
day resident fishing license--$6. The day resident license
is valid within a license year for the specified days of the resident "day
plus" package within which it is sold.
(6)
non-resident fishing license--$50
(7)
day non-resident fishing license--$12. The day non-resident
license is valid within a license year for the specified days of the non-resident
"day plus" package within which it is sold.
(b)
The items listed in this subsection may be sold individually
or as part of a package. Stamps sold individually shall be valid from the
date of purchase or the start date of the license year, whichever is later,
through the last day of the license year. Stamps sold as part of a fishing
package shall be valid for the same time period as the license included in
the package as specified in this rule. The price of these stamps are as follows:
(1)
freshwater fishing stamp--$5; and
(2)
saltwater sportfishing stamp--$7 plus a saltwater sport
fishing stamp surcharge of $3 (surcharge to be effective until September 1,
2005). A red drum tag shall be issued at no additional charge with each saltwater
sportfishing stamp.
(c)
Fishing packages and licenses. The price of any fishing
package shall be the sum of the price of the individual items included in
the package.
(1)
resident freshwater fishing package--$28. Package consists
of a resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp;
(2)
resident saltwater fishing package--$33. Package consists
of a resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red
drum tag;
(3)
resident "all water" fishing package--$38. Package consists
of a resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater
sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag;
(4)
special resident freshwater fishing package--$11. Package
consists of a special resident fishing license and a freshwater fishing stamp;
(5)
special resident saltwater fishing package--$16. Package
consists of a special resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing
stamp with a red drum tag;
(6)
special resident "all water" fishing package--$21. Package
consists of a special resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp,
and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag;
(7)
"year-from-purchase" resident "all water" fishing package--$45.
Package consists of a "year-from-purchase" resident fishing license, a freshwater
stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag;
(8)
July and August resident freshwater fishing package--$25.
Package consists of a July and August resident fishing license and a freshwater
fishing stamp.
(9)
July and August resident saltwater fishing package--$30.
Package consists of a July and August resident fishing license and a saltwater
sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag.
(10)
July and August resident "all water" fishing package--$35.
Package consists of a July and August resident fishing license, a freshwater
fishing stamp, and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag.
(11)
resident freshwater fishing "day plus" package--$11 for
the first day plus $4 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day resident fishing license and a freshwater fishing stamp, valid for
the number of days purchased. Any purchaser who has previously purchased this
package within the license year may repurchase this package at $6 for the
first day plus $4 for each additional consecutive day. The privileges of the
stamp shall be extended to the holder for the term of the subsequent purchase
of this package.
(12)
resident saltwater fishing "day plus" package--$16 for
the first day plus $4 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with
a red drum tag, valid for the number of days purchased. Any purchaser who
has previously purchased this package within the license year may repurchase
this package at $6 for the first day plus $4 for each additional consecutive
day. The privileges of the stamp shall be extended to the holder for the term
of the subsequent purchase of this package.
(13)
resident all water fishing "day plus" package--$21 for
the first day plus $4 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater
sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag, valid for the number of days purchased.
Any purchaser who has previously purchased this package within the license
year may repurchase this package at $6 for the first day plus $4 for each
additional consecutive day. The privileges of the stamps shall be extended
to the holder for the term of the subsequent purchase of this package.
(14)
non-resident freshwater fishing package--$55. Package
consists of a non-resident fishing license and a freshwater fish stamp.
(15)
non-resident saltwater fishing package--$60. Package consists
of a non-resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with
a red drum tag.
(16)
non-resident "all water" fishing package--$65. Package
consists of a non-resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and
a saltwater sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag.
(17)
non-resident freshwater fishing "day plus" package--$17
for the first day plus $8 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day non-resident fishing license and a freshwater fishing stamp, valid
for the number of days purchased. Any purchaser who has previously purchased
this package within the license year may repurchase this package at $12 for
the first day plus $8 for each additional consecutive day. The privileges
of the stamp shall be extended to the holder for the term of the subsequent
purchase of this package.
(18)
non-resident saltwater fishing "day plus" package--$22
for the first day plus $8 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day non-resident fishing license and a saltwater sportfishing stamp with
a red drum tag, valid for the number of days purchased. Any purchaser who
has previously purchased this package within the license year may repurchase
this package at $12 for the first day plus $8 for each additional consecutive
day. The privileges of the stamp shall be extended to the holder for the term
of the subsequent purchase of this package.
(19)
non-resident all water fishing "day plus" package--$27
for the first day plus $8 for each additional consecutive day. Package consists
of a day non-resident fishing license, a freshwater fishing stamp, and a saltwater
sportfishing stamp with a red drum tag, valid for the number of days purchased.
Any purchaser who has previously purchased this package within the license
year may repurchase this package at $12 for the first day plus $8 for each
additional consecutive day. The privileges of the stamp shall be extended
to the holder for the term of the subsequent purchase of this package.
(20)
Lake Texoma fishing license--$12. Holders of a valid Lake
Texoma License are exempt from freshwater fishing stamp requirements solely
for the purpose of fishing on Lake Texoma; and
(21)
Replacement fishing package or license--$10.
(d)
Fishing tags:
(1)
exempt angler red drum tag--$3. Provides a red drum tag
for persons that are exempt from the purchase of a resident or non-resident
fishing license of any type or duration;
(2)
bonus red drum tag--$0. Available only to anglers presenting
a fully executed original or duplicate red drum tag, a valid fishing package
or license and the required information;
(3)
tarpon tag--$120;
(4)
replacement tarpon tag--$30;
(5)
individual bait-shrimp trawl tag--$35; and
(6)
saltwater trotline tag--$4.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403991
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.30
The new rule is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §11.027,
which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for entering, reserving,
or using a facility or property owned or managed by the department.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403993
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.50
The new rule is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §31.121, which requires the commission to establish and collect
a fee to recover the administrative costs associated with the certification
of marine safety enforcement officers, and §62.014, which authorizes
the commission to impose a fee not to exceed $15 to defray administrative
costs of implementing hunter education courses.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403994
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.60
The new rule is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §11.056, which authorizes the commission to establish the price
of a wildlife art decal or stamp or editions of stamps and decals; §43.012,
which authorizes the commission to issue a white-winged dove stamp in a form
and manner prescribed by the department, to provide for identification, possession,
and exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.201, which authorizes
the commission to issue an archery stamp in a form and manner prescribed by
the department, to provide for identification, possession, and exemption requirements,
and to establish a fee; §43.202, which authorizes the commission to establish
a fee for an archery stamp; §43.252, which authorizes the commission
to issue a turkey stamp in a form and manner prescribed by the department,
and to provide for identification, possession, and exemption requirements; §43.303,
which authorizes the commission to issue a waterfowl stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, to provide for identification, possession, and
exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; §43.403, which authorizes
the commission to issue a saltwater sportfishing stamp in a form and manner
prescribed by the department, to provide for identification, possession, and
exemption requirements, and to establish a fee; and §43.804, which authorizes
the commission to issue a freshwater fishing stamp in a form and manner prescribed
by the department, to provide for identification, possession, and exemption
requirements, and to establish a fee.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403995
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.70
The new rule is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §12.702, which authorizes the commission to establish collection
and issuance fees for license deputies to sell licenses, stamps, tags, permits,
or other similar item issued under any chapter the code, and §31.006,
which authorizes the department to authorize a dealer who holds a dealer's
or manufacturer's number to act as the agent of the department under Subchapter
B of this chapter and under Chapter 160, Tax Code, for the issuance of certificates
of number and the collection of fees and taxes for boats sold by that dealer
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403996
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.80
The new rule is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §47.007, which authorizes the commission to establish a fee for
a commercial fishing boat license and number and rules governing the issuance,
use, and display of commercial fishing boat numbers
§53.80.Composition and Issuance.
The commercial fishing boat number will be on a display license to
be issued with the commercial fishing boat license bearing the same number
in a manner determined by the executive director. The display license will
be of a design and contain such additional information as the executive director
may determine to be necessary to identify the boat as a commercial fishing
boat. In the event of the loss or defacement of a display license, the licensee
may obtain a duplicate at the fees prescribed in §53.12 of this title
(relating to Commercial Fishing Licenses and Tags).
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403997
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.90
The new rule is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.032,
which authorizes the department to prescribe the manner in which identification
numbers and validation decals are placed on a vessel and authorizes the commission
to adopt rules for the placement of validation decals for antique boats
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403998
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.100
The new rule is adopted under §31.0465, which authorizes
the commission to define by rule what constitutes an acceptable situation
in which certificates of title may be issued after the filing of a bond.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200403999
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.110
The new rule is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §31.006,
which authorizes the commission to adopt rules for the creation of a program
for the continuing identification and classification of participants in the
vessel and outboard motor industries doing business in this state, including
fees; §31.0412, which authorizes the commission to adopt rules regarding
dealer's, distributor's, and manufacturer's licenses, including transfer procedures,
application forms, application and renewal procedures, and reporting and recordkeeping
requirements; and §31.039 which authorizes the commission to charge a
fee for access to ownership and other records.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200404000
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §53.120
The new rule is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §12.703,
which requires the commission to specify standards for licenses issued by
an electronic point-of-sale system, including the legibility of the licenses.
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 June 17, 2004.
TRD-200404001
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 7, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts amendments to §§65.3,
65.30, 65.42, 65.60, 65.64, 65.71, 65.72, 65.78, and 65.82, concerning the
Statewide Hunting and Fishing Proclamation. Section 65.42 is adopted with
changes to the proposed text as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
The change to §65.42 removes a reference to bonus tags from subsection
(a) and adds language to clarify that the annual bag limit can be exceeded
by use of Managed Lands Deer Permits, Landowner Assisted Management Plan permits,
special public hunting permits, and antlerless permits issued by the U.S.
Forest Service. The change comports the contents of the subsection with rule
changes effected in a separate rulemaking, which allow persons under certain
circumstances to exceed the annual bag limit.
The amendment to §65.3, concerning Definitions, adds a definition
for 'folding panel trap.' Current gear restrictions do not address the use
of folding panel traps for taking crabs. Another portion of this rulemaking,
the amendment to §65.78, allows the use of folding panel traps and a
definition is needed to describe that type of gear so that it may be legally
differentiated from other devices.
The amendment to §65.30, concerning Pronghorn Antelope, clarifies
the meaning of the term 'tract of land.' The current method used by the department
to allocate antelope permits is based on the concept of the herd unit, which
can be thought of as the antelope within that set of natural or man-made physical
boundaries (such as highways, rivers, net-wire fences, etc.) functioning to
segregate those animals from other groups of antelope. Biological determinations
of sustainable harvest numbers within a herd unit are derived from analysis
of population data and habitat quality for that herd unit. The current regulation
uses the term 'tract of land' in a way that suggests permits are issued for
a specific tract of land, which indeed is the case in some instances. However,
there are situations in which a landowner owns several tracts of land within
a single herd unit. Since the harvest recommendations and subsequent permit
issuance are based on the herd unit, it makes no difference, from a biological
standpoint, exactly where the harvest of animals occurs, provided it occurs
within the herd unit for which the permits were issued. The amendment accordingly
stipulates that, for the purposes of the section, 'tract of land' means any
tract of land (including multiple tracts of land) under the same ownership
within a single herd unit.
The amendment to §65.42, concerning Deer, consists of several actions.
The first affects the Late Youth-Only Season. The late youth-only season was
implemented in 2002 to complement the popular October youth-only season instituted
in 1999 under the provisions of House Bill 2542, enacted by the 75th Texas
Legislature, which authorized the commission to provide special hunting seasons
restricted to persons less than 17 years of age. The purpose of youth-only
seasons is to foster and encourage youth participation in hunting activities
by offering special time periods when mentors can take the opportunity to
introduce to or instruct youths in the enjoyment of wildlife resources without
the distractions of competing seasons or adult hunters. The exclusivity of
the youth seasons also serves to promote hunting activities generally to those
who might be interested in becoming involved. The current late youth-only
season takes place the weekend following the general open season in counties
that do not have a late special season or a late muzzleloader-only season,
and does not apply to properties for which Level 3 Managed Lands Deer permits
have been issued. The bag limit is restricted to antlerless deer in the number
specified for the county where the take occurs, and if there are permit restrictions
in the county during the general season, the harvest of antlerless deer during
the late youth-only season must be by permit. The amendment as adopted would
alter the late youth-only season to allow the harvest of buck deer in all
counties that have an open general season, and eliminate permit requirements
for the take of antlerless deer in all counties except those where the antlerless
harvest during the general season is by permit only for the entire general
season. The action is intended to make the late youth-only season more consistent
with the early youth-only season so as to reduce confusion and encourage greater
participation. Department data indicate that the cumulative harvest during
the current youth-only seasons is a negligible part of the overall deer harvest
and therefore the amendment will not result in depletion or waste as defined
by Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.005.
The amendment to §65.42 also would implement a four-day period (from
Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday following Thanksgiving Day) during which
antlerless deer could be taken without a permit in Brazos, Cherokee, Gregg,
Grimes, Houston, Madison, Rusk, and Robertson counties. Under current regulations,
the take of antlerless deer in those counties is by permit only for the entire
general season. The current system of allowing general-season doe harvest
with only LAMPS or MLD permits is not suitable for the current deer herd conditions.
Analysis of deer herd characteristics indicates some deteriorating herd-health
indicators throughout the counties in question. The sex ratio is greatly skewed
towards the doe segment of the deer herd and has remained above 4.9 does per
buck for the past eight years (stabilized at around 5.6 does per buck for
the last three years). Breeding chronology records for the Post Oak and Pineywoods
ecoregions show an extremely long breeding season, which is most likely due
to a skewed sex ratio. Fawn production has declined over the past eight years,
and the values remain very low. The overall trend during the past eight years
indicates a slightly increasing density, with a dramatic increase over the
past three years. According to hunter harvest surveys for the 2002-2003 hunting
season, hunters killed only 1.5 does per 1,000 acres of deer range in the
eight counties. Dressed body weight for 2.5 year-old does has consistently
declined over the past eight years to well below the 80 pounds typical for
this age/sex class; however, yearling buck weights have been on a slight increase.
Increased doe harvest during the general season would help reduce the impact
of the deer herd upon the habitat, improve the sex ratio, improve fawning
success, and shorten the breeding season. The improved habitat resulting from
this change should improve herd health by improving the quantity, quality,
and diversity of food resources. Additionally, harvest pressure on yearling
and 2.5 year old bucks could potentially decrease by redirecting some of the
harvest towards does. In addition to improving biological parameters, additional
doe days in these counties would increase hunter opportunity with absolutely
no detriment to the resource for an area that has seen a 25% and 23% decrease
in the number of hunters and hunter days, respectively, over the past 10 years.
Based on the supporting data, the amendment will not result in depletion or
waste as defined by Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.005.
The amendment to §65.60, concerning Pheasant; Open Seasons, Bag, and
Possession Limits, reinstates an opening date of the first Saturday in December
in Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, Cochran, Collingsworth,
Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Donley, Floyd, Gray, Hale, Hall, Hansford,
Hartley, Hemphill, Hockley, Hutchinson, Lamb, Lipscomb, Lubbock, Moore, Motley,
Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler,
and Wilbarger counties. In April of 2003, the commission established an opening
day of the first Saturday in December for those counties; however, the Outdoor
Annual (a publication that is the principal source of hunter and angler information
in the state) erroneously listed the opening day as the second Saturday in
December. Rather than cause confusion among hunters and landowners, the commission
in August of 2003 established the opening date as the second Saturday in order
to maintain consistency with published material. The opening date is now being
moved back to the date originally adopted in April of 2003 to reflect the
original rulemaking.
The amendment to §65.64, concerning Turkey, opens a fall season for
Rio Grande turkey in Denton and Johnson counties, a spring season for Eastern
turkey in Hardin and Liberty counties, makes the open spring season for Eastern
turkey effective for the entire county in Montgomery and Tyler counties (each
of which under current regulations enjoys a spring season for Eastern turkey
in only a portion of the county), and extends the spring season for Eastern
turkey to run from April 1 through April 30 of each year in all counties with
a spring season for Eastern turkey.
Rio Grande turkey habitat in Denton and Johnson counties is confined to
riparian areas, which is also where turkey habitat occurs in adjoining counties.
Fall turkey harvest data for surrounding counties indicate harvest ranges
from 0 to 375 turkeys harvested per county. Since portions of Denton and Johnson
counties contain amounts of suitable turkey habitat similar to that in the
surrounding counties, the harvest numbers in Denton and Johnson counties should
be less than or equivalent to the harvest in surrounding counties.
Hardin County was stocked with Eastern turkey at three sites along the
Big Thicket Corridor. One site was stocked in 1994 and two sites were stocked
in 2001. The original stocking was in a remote area and Hardin County has
few cooperators for the annual statewide brood survey, so little data exists
regarding the success of this site. However, the remaining two sites, approximately
30 miles from the original release site, reported observing scattered individuals
prior to release. Post-release, groups of turkeys (5-10 birds, including juveniles)
have been observed on a regular basis during the fall of 2001 and 2002. It
is therefore evident that an established population exists along the Big Thicket
Corridor. The Big Thicket Corridor population will have been protected from
harvest from 4-12 breeding seasons prior to the opening of the proposed season
and further protection from harvest is no longer necessary. Liberty County
was stocked at two sites along the Trinity River Corridor in 1999. The Liberty
County turkey population, therefore, will have had six breeding seasons of
protection prior to the proposed season and further closed-season protection
is unnecessary. The season in Montgomery County (north of State Hwy. 105)
was opened in 2000, when the season was opened for the entire Sam Houston
National Forest. The Sam Houston National Forest includes lands in Montgomery,
San Jacinto, and Walker counties. The only two sites stocked in Montgomery
County exist entirely on private land south of State Hwy. 105, which were
stocked in 1993. Opening the remainder of Montgomery County would simplify
regulations, and after 12 protected breeding seasons, further closed-season
protection is unnecessary. Two areas in Newton County were stocked in 2000
under license agreements that prohibited turkey hunting within posted areas.
Observers have reported seeing production every year since the release, and
gobble call-counts on one release site indicated the presence of a minimum
of 30 different gobblers during the spring of 2002. These Newton County sub-populations
will have experienced five protected breeding seasons prior to the 2005 spring
season. Further closed-season protection on these properties is unnecessary.
The spring season in Tyler County (north of U.S. Hwy. 190) was opened during
the 2000 season. Tyler County was last stocked in 1997. Therefore, continued
closed-season protection is unnecessary and opening the southern half of Tyler
County would expand recreational opportunity and simplify regulations. Harvest
regulations currently governing Eastern turkey hunting in East Texas are the
most conservative in the nation. These regulations allow limited hunting opportunity
as soon as populations are established and are designed not to interfere with
expansion. The opening date of the initial Eastern turkey season in 1995 in
Red River County (the Monday closest to 21 April) was timed to coincide with
the peak median date of incubation initiation identified from two previous
Eastern turkey studies in Jasper and Trinity counties (Hopkins 1981 and Campo
1983). This season structure has been selected because all of the breeding
has occurred prior to the season opener and gobblers are entering a second
peak in gobbling activity, coinciding with a decrease in hen availability.
Significant comments received from the public concerning the late starting
date and data from additional Eastern turkey studies (Lopez 1996 and George
1997) justified moving the starting date to the Monday closest to April 14,
where it has remained to date. The trend in harvest occurrence from the check
station data from 1997-2003 indicates that 21% of the harvest occurs opening
day and 67% occurs within the first week. Since the chronology of spring green-up
in East Texas varies greatly from north to south and the season is only 14
days long, it is probable that hunter satisfaction and success is impacted
by the timing of the season. When peak incubation occurs later than April
14, the season starts during the period of peak breeding, when gobblers are
not as vocal or vulnerable to hunters. Hunting pressure further decreases
gobbling activity and vulnerability as the season progresses. Based on these
data, the season length expansion is not expected to exert a negative effect
on the population, but will significantly increase hunter opportunity. Age
structure is also not expected to change significantly and jake harvest may
actually show a decline over time as hunters become more experienced. With
a one-bird bag limit and a 30-day season, experienced hunters are likely to
be more selective. The expected benefits of the season expansion are an increase
in hunter satisfaction and participation. Spring turkey hunting has never
been shown to negatively impact breeding activity or associated reproductive
success. Therefore, a season opening April 1 and continuing through April
30 will provide hunting access to turkey populations throughout the peak periods
of gobbling activity, which should increase hunter satisfaction and success.
On public lands, the season expansion should also increase hunter satisfaction
by distributing hunting pressure more evenly throughout the season and decreasing
hunter interference rates. A longer season may also be more attractive to
potential turkey hunters who have not participated thus far.
The change to §65.71, concerning Reservoir Boundaries, alters the
current definitions for Lake O'the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur
counties) and Pat Mayse Reservoir (Lamar County) to exclude tailrace waters.
The new boundary for Lake O'the Pines comprises the impounded waters of Big
Cypress Creek from Ferrell's Bridge Dam upstream to U.S. Hwy 259 bridge The
new boundary for Pat Mayse Reservoir comprises all impounded waters of Sanders
Creek from Pat Mayse Reservoir Dam upstream to County Road 35610. The changes
to §65.72 make the bag and possession limits on each of these two reservoirs
identical to the limits in downstream waters. The original purpose of the
reservoir definition (i.e., the inclusion of downstream waters for the applicability
of limits) was to prevent problematic enforcement situations relating to differential
harvest regulations. Unscrupulous persons in possession of fish in excess
of limits were claiming to have caught the fish in nearby waters where the
limits were different. The equalization of limits therefore makes the current
boundary definitions unnecessary. However, on Lake Murvaul (Panola County),
the problem has occurred frequently enough that a boundary definition is considered
necessary. The amendment defines Lake Murvaul as all impounded waters of Murvaul
Bayou Creek upstream from the Lake Murvaul dam and Murvaul Bayou Creek downstream
from the dam to Farm to Market Road 1970 bridge.
The change to §65.72, concerning Fish, consists of several actions
that affect both fresh and salt-water regulations, as follow.
Current harvest regulations for largemouth bass on San Augustine City Lake
consist of an 18-inch minimum length limit and a five fish daily bag limit
(in place since 1990). The amendment implements a 14-18 inch slot length limit,
and the five-fish daily bag is retained. Changing the length limit to a 14-18
inch slot should enhance harvest opportunities that, for the most part, currently
do not exist. The bass population structure is dominated by fish that are
smaller than 14 inches in length. Local anglers have expressed a desire to
harvest these small bass. This should be beneficial to the population as intraspecific
competition is decreased, which might lead to an increase in the bass growth
rates.
A new reservoir in Travis County, Lake Pflugerville, is scheduled to open
to angling in 2005. The amendment implements an 18-inch minimum length limit
and five- fish daily bag for largemouth bass, and angling methods are restricted
to pole and line angling only. Protecting largemouth bass to 18 inches on
this small impoundment should protect 14-18 inch bass from over harvest and
prevent a decrease in the quality of the fishery when the park is opened to
the public. Restricting gear to pole and line only will increase angler opportunity
for channel catfish by preventing possible over harvest with other fishing
methods such as trotlines or juglines.
Current harvest regulations for community fishing lakes (CFLs-impoundments
of less than 75 acres and all impoundments regardless of size totally within
a state park) consist of a 12-inch minimum length limit on channel and blue
catfish with a five-fish daily bag limit (the statewide standard regulation
is 25 fish). The amendment eliminates the length limit for catfish and retains
the five-fish daily bag limit. The management goal for small-lake fisheries
such as CFLs is to provide quality angling opportunities for anglers who cannot
or choose not to go to the many large reservoirs located around Texas. Removing
the length limit for catfish will help promote angling to novice or infrequent
anglers who are unfamiliar with harvest regulations.
The current harvest regulations for white bass and white/striped bass hybrids
on Lake O'the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties) and Pat Mayse
Reservoir (Lamar County) consist of a 10-inch minimum length and 25 daily
bag limit (both species combined), of which only five may be 18 inches or
longer. The amendment implements the statewide standard regulations for both
species (10-inch minimum length limit and 25-fish daily bag limit for white
bass and an 18-inch minimum length limit and five-fish daily bag for white/striped
bass hybrids). The amendment will have no effect on the population or fisheries
of either species. Angling pressure for hybrids in both reservoirs was not
sufficient to impact the population structure of hybrid striped bass. Abundance
of hybrid striped bass has declined in these populations due to the absence
of stocking, and hybrids no longer constitute a viable fishery in either reservoir.
The change will also make the fishing regulations for Pat Mayse and Lake O'the
Pines reservoirs consistent with those of other reservoirs in the area.
The amendment to §65.72 also allows the use of minnow traps in salt
water. The department has determined that the use of minnow traps in salt
water, under the same restrictions governing the use of minnow traps in freshwater,
will not adversely affect any populations of marine organisms, primarily due
to the small size and relative inefficiency of such devices, especially when
restricted to nongame species only. The amendment also requires perch traps
to be equipped with degradable panels. Research has shown that abandoned or
lost traps can continue to function for years, leading to unnecessary lost
and waste of marine organisms. By requiring that each perch trap be equipped
with a degradable panel, the department hopes to reduce the potential of the
trap to continue to function in the event it is lost or abandoned.
The amendment to §65.78, concerning Crabs and Ghost Shrimp, allows
the use of certain folding panel-type traps to take crabs. Current gear restrictions
do not address the use of folding panel traps, which are similar in effect
and efficiency to hoop-type traps that have been designated as lawful devices.
To prevent angler confusion, the department proposes to allow the use of folding
panel traps, provided the maximum volume of the trap does not exceed that
prescribed for the hoop-type traps.
The amendment to §65.82, concerning Other Aquatic Life, allows the
take by hand of aquatic life the take of which is not specifically addressed
by the other provisions of the subchapter, except for threatened or endangered
species. The action is taken in order to allow persons to take by hand such
organisms as they may encounter, and the department has determined that such
take will not result in depletion or waste because of the limited success
of hand take and the overall impact that hand take would have on marine life.
The amendment to §65.3 will function by defining 'folding panel trap'
for purposes of legal differentiation from other devices.
The amendment to §65.30 will function by allowing antelope permits
to be used anywhere within the herd unit for which it was issued.
The amendment to §65.42 will function by standardizing the Youth-Only
seasons to reduce confusion and increase participation and by implementing
four 'doe days' in Brazos, Cherokee, Gregg, Grimes, Houston, Madison, Rusk,
and Robertson counties to reduce the impact of the deer herd upon the habitat,
improve the sex ratio, and increase hunter opportunity.
The amendment to §65.60 will function by establishing an opening date
and season length for the take of pheasant in Armstrong, Bailey, Briscoe,
Carson, Castro, Childress, Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam,
Deaf Smith, Donley, Floyd, Gray, Hale, Hall, Hansford, Hartley, Hemphill,
Hockley, Hutchinson, Lamb, Lipscomb, Lubbock, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham,
Parmer, Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, Swisher, Wheeler, and Wilbarger
counties.
The amendment to §65.64 will function by creating additional hunter
opportunity through the implementation of a fall season for Rio Grande turkey
in Denton and Johnson counties and a spring season for Eastern turkey in Hardin
and Liberty counties, by making the spring season for Eastern turkey effective
for the entire county in Montgomery and Tyler counties, and by extending the
spring season for Eastern turkey to run from April 1 through April 30 of each
year.
The amendment to §65.71 will function by adjusting reservoir boundaries
for Lake O'the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties) and Pat Mayse
Reservoir (Lamar County) to eliminate enforcement anomalies caused by differential
bag limits.
The amendment to §65.72 will function by altering harvest regulations
for largemouth bass on San Augustine City Lake to enhance harvest opportunities
that; by implementing gear restrictions and length and bag limits on Lake
Pflugerville (Travis County) to increase angler opportunity for channel catfish
and protect largemouth bass; by eliminating the length limit for catfish on
community fishing lakes to provide additional angling opportunity; by implementing
the statewide standard regulations for white bass and white/striped bass hybrids)
on Lake O'the Pines (Camp, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties) and Pat Mayse
Reservoir (Lamar County) to be consistent with those of other reservoirs in
the area; by requiring degradeable panels to be installed on perch traps to
minimize mortalities from abandoned or lost traps; and by allowing minnow
traps to be used in salt water to standardize regulations governing similar
types of gear.
The amendment to §65.78 will function by allowing the use of certain
folding panel-type traps to take crabs in order to standardize regulations
governing similar types of gear.
The amendment to §65.82 will function by allowing the hand-take of
certain aquatic life in order to eliminate a regulatory anomaly.
The department received two comments opposing the change to antelope regulations
to clarify that a permit may be used anywhere within the herd unit for which
it was issued. Specific comments and the department's response are noted as
follows.
COMMENT: Antelope permits should be public domain (the commenter did not
elaborate).
RESPONSE: The department is unable to infer the exact intent of the comment,
but responds that issuing permits to the landowner or landowner's agent is
the most efficient and reliable method of distributing permits. The alternative
is to issue permits to individual hunters (which would necessitate some form
of lottery, since demand for permits is greater than supply) and let that
person locate a landowner willing to allow the hunt. The department feels
that such a system would be more complicated and less effective than the current
method. No changes were made as a result of the comments. The department received
81 comments in support of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 137 comments opposing the implementation of four
'doe days' in Brazos, Cherokee, Gregg, Grimes, Houston, Madison, Rusk, and
Robertson counties. Of the 137 comments received, 128 specifically opposed
the inclusion of Grimes County in the proposal. Specific comments and the
department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption of the proposal with respect to
Grimes County on the basis that a previous rule action allowing the take of
does without a permit had resulted in population reduction where it was not
needed and no population reduction where it was needed.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment. The only hunting seasons
in Grimes County during which does could be taken without a permit occurred
in 1988 and 1989. Those seasons allowed either-sex hunting for the entire
general season and the population in fact declined. With respect to the assertion
that deer were harvested where no harvest was necessary and vice versa, the
department responds that harvest data was collected by means of hunter surveys
that record only the county of take, so it is impossible to ascertain the
specific area of the county where deer were harvested. Thus, it is impossible
to state categorically that the assertion is true or false. The department
further responds that the rule as adopted is based on biological survey data
and harvest survey data collected in Grimes County, as well as data from other
counties in the ecoregion that recently have been transitioned from no 'doe
days' to four 'doe days.' In analyzing the data, the department concluded
that implementation of four 'doe days' in Grimes County (as well as in the
other seven counties affected by the rule 1) will offer landowners and land
managers a tool to increase habitat quality on specific tracts of land; 2)
will provide a method to landowners and land managers to manage sex ratios
more effectively, and 3) will likely not result in a harvest increase detrimental
to the overall health of the deer herd. No changes were made as a result of
the comments.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the deer population
in Houston County did not need additional harvest.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
sex ratio in the eight-county area is greatly skewed towards the doe segment
of the deer herd and has remained above 4.9 does per buck for the past eight
years (stabilized at around 5.6 does per buck for the last three years). Fawn
production has declined over the past eight years, and the values remain very
low. The overall trend during the past eight years indicates a slightly increasing
density, with a dramatic increase over the past three years. According to
hunter harvest surveys for the 2002-2003 hunting season, hunters killed only
1.5 does per 1,000 acres of deer range in the eight counties. Increased doe
harvest during the general season would help reduce the impact of the deer
herd upon the habitat, improve the sex ratio, improve fawning success, and
shorten the breeding season. The improved habitat resulting from this change
should improve herd health by improving the quantity, quality, and diversity
of food resources. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The department
received 136 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 13 comments opposing the adoption of the proposal
to simplify the Youth-Only deer seasons. Specific comments and the department's
response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption on the basis the rules are too
confusing.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with the commenter, but responds that the
intent of the rulemaking is to simplify the provisions governing youth-only
seasons. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption by stating that buck harvest by
youth should not be allowed in counties with late antlerless and spike-buck
seasons, because quality bucks should be left in the population and properties
benefit from the harvest of antlerless and spike-buck deer.
RESPONSE: While not disagreeing that additional harvest of antlerless and
spike-buck deer can be beneficial in many cases, the department responds that
the overall impact of harvest during the late youth-only season is expected
to be minimal, and notes that the decision of which deer to harvest is up
to the landowner. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption by stating that the inclusion of
buck deer in the late youth-only season would allow unscrupulous adults to
take bucks after the general season was closed to everyone else.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees that the adopted rule will encourage
or lead to violations. Many regulations can be and are violated on purpose
by unscrupulous people, and the rule as adopted is not believed to offer an
advantage to such people. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that there should be
no youth seasons at all.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
youth season is intended to offer youth the opportunity to participate in
a special opportunity that fosters the hunting tradition and encourages adults
to mentor youth in hunting. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption on the basis of opposition to the
late youth-only season, stating that the does are already bred.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
decision to allow additional harvest during the late youth-only season is
up to the individual landowner/land manager, and that the overall impact of
harvest during the youth seasons is negligible. No changes were made as a
result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption on the basis that youth seasons
should be restricted to antlerless deer.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
overall impact of harvest during the youth seasons is negligible. No changes
were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption by stating bucks are already stressed
and difficult to locate in the late season and that it would be better to
allow youth to take antlerless without a permit.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
intent of the rulemaking is to simplify the current rules. Since the overall
impact of harvest during the youth seasons is negligible, the addition of
bucks to the bag composition simply offers more opportunity. The department
also notes that the rule as adopted allows youth to take antlerless deer without
a permit in all counties except those where antlerless deer may not be hunted
at any time during the general season except by permit.
COMMENT: One commenter opposed adoption by stating that youth should be
allowed to take antlerless deer without a permit in counties where antlerless
deer may not be hunted at any time during the general season except by permit.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
counties in question are characterized by high hunting pressure and fragmented
habitat, which necessitates a conservative doe harvest in order to maximize
reproductive potential. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The
department received 112 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received eight comments opposing adoption of the proposal
to open a fall season for Rio Grande turkey in Denton and Johnson counties.
Specific comments and the department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the fall season should
be eliminated, the spring season should be lengthened by two weeks placed
at the beginning of the current season, and a 6-inch minimum beard length
should be established, with an exemption for a youth's first bird of the year.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds, respectively,
that: there is currently no fall season in either county; starting the season
earlier in the spring would interfere with reproductive potential, since breeding
chronologies indicate that the majority of hens will not have been bred by
that time; and that minimum beard-length restrictions are unnecessary within
the current season structure and make it difficult for hunters to determine
whether or not birds are legal. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Four commenters opposing the adoption stated that the bag limits
were too high.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest
and population data from surrounding counties with similar habitat and hunting
pressure indicate that the population can withstand the bag limit as adopted.
No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the turkeys should
be allowed to continue to grow.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that harvest
and population data from surrounding counties with similar habitat and hunting
pressure indicate that the population can sustain an open season.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the counties in question
have large urban areas and that the decision should be based on turkey populations
instead of the fact that the habitat is similar to surrounding counties.
RESPONSE: The department responds that constraints on manpower and budget
make it impossible to do population surveys in every area of the state, and
that in executing the commission policy to provide maximum hunting opportunity
possible, it is necessary in some cases to rely on data extrapolation from
areas with similar habitat types and hunting pressure. The department also
notes that the only suitable habitat in the counties in question are not near
major population centers and are located in areas characterized by relatively
large tracts of land. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The
department received 92 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received six comments opposing adoption of some or all of
the components of the proposed amendment to open a spring season for Eastern
turkey in Hardin and Liberty counties, make the open spring season for Eastern
turkey effective for the entire county in Montgomery and Tyler counties (each
of which under current regulations enjoys a spring season for Eastern turkey
in only a portion of the county), and extends the spring season for Eastern
turkey to run from April 1 through April 30 of each year in all counties with
a spring season for Eastern turkey. Specific comments and the department's
response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the season was long
enough and did not need to be lengthened.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
season structure adopted was selected because data indicate that all of the
breeding has occurred prior to the season opener and gobblers are entering
a second peak in gobbling activity, coinciding with a decrease in hen availability.
The trend in harvest occurrence from the check station data from 1997-2003
indicates that 21% of the harvest occurs opening day and 67% occurs within
the first week. Since the chronology of spring green-up in East Texas varies
greatly from north to south and the season is only 14 days long, it is probable
that hunter satisfaction and success is impacted by the timing of the season.
Based on these data, the season length expansion is not expected to exert
a negative effect on the population, but will significantly increase hunter
opportunity. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that turkey populations
in Tyler County are not large enough to withstand hunting pressure and three
commenters opposing adoption stated that the same was true for Hardin County.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comments and responds that
the spring season in Tyler County (north of U.S. Hwy. 190) was opened during
the 2000 season. Tyler County was last stocked in 1997. Therefore, continued
closed-season protection is unnecessary and opening the southern half of Tyler
County would expand recreational opportunity and simplify regulations. Hardin
County was stocked with Eastern turkey at three sites along the Big Thicket
Corridor. One site was stocked in 1994 and two sites were stocked in 2001.
The original stocking was in a remote area and Hardin County has few cooperators
for the annual statewide brood survey, so little data exists regarding the
success of this site. However, the remaining two sites, approximately 30 miles
from the original release site, reported observing scattered individuals prior
to release. Post-release, groups of turkeys (5-10 birds, including juveniles)
have been observed on a regular basis during the fall of 2001 and 2002. It
is therefore evident that an established population exists along the Big Thicket
Corridor. The Big Thicket Corridor population will have been protected from
harvest from 4-12 breeding seasons prior to the opening of the proposed season
and further protection from harvest is no longer necessary. Harvest regulations
currently governing Eastern turkey hunting in East Texas are the most conservative
in the nation. These regulations allow limited hunting opportunity as soon
as populations are established and are designed not to interfere with expansion.
No changes were made as a result of the comment. The department received 99
comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received four comments opposing adoption of the proposal
to implement a 14-18 inch slot length limit for largemouth bass on San Augustine
City Lake. Specific comments and the department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the department's motivation
was to create larger fish for tournament anglers.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that implementation
of the slot limit is intended to enhance harvest opportunities and is in response
to requests from local anglers to harvest small bass. No changes were made
as a result of the comment. The department received 37 comments supporting
adoption of the proposed rule.
The department received one comment opposing adoption of the proposal to
implement an 18-inch minimum length limit and five-fish daily bag for largemouth
bass and restrict angling methods to pole-and-line only on Lake Pflugerville.
Specific comments and the department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: The commenter stated that the department's motivation was to create
larger fish for tournament anglers.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
intent of the regulation is to protect 14-18 inch bass from over harvest and
prevent a decrease in the quality of the fishery when the park is opened to
the public. The pole-and-line only restriction will increase angler opportunity
for channel catfish by preventing possible over harvest with other fishing
methods such as trotlines or juglines, and is not intended to have any other
effect. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The department received
40 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 13 comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment
to eliminate the length limit for catfish on community fishing lakes (CFLs-impoundments
of less than 75 acres and all impoundments regardless of size totally within
a state park). Specific comments and the department's response are noted as
follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that regulations shouldn't
be changed just to make it easier for novices and people unfamiliar with regulations.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with the comment but responds that CFLs
represent a special case. Typically, such lakes do not attract highly experienced
and adventurous anglers and are more often than not located quite near or
within urban areas, places where incidental fishing activity is highest. Since
the department wishes to encourage people to experience and enjoy angling,
CFLs are a unique resource for introducing novices and the curious to the
angling experience. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposing adoption stated that the statewide standard
bag limit (25 fish) should be implemented; one of the commenters stated that
the proposed bag limit would lead to waste because at five fish, people would
discard fish instead of eating them.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comments and responds that
the 25-fish bag limit is biologically inappropriate on such small impoundments
that experience high angling pressure. The department also responds that fish
can be refrigerated or frozen, so if the number caught in a given day is not
sufficient, additional angling can lead to a sufficient number of fish. No
changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the proposed bag limit
was too high and that catfish should be protected until they were large enough
to provide a family meal.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment in the context of bag
limits on CFLs and responds that CFLs are a good resource for introducing
urban dwellers and the curious to recreational angling and are relatively
unproductive with respect to sustainable food production in comparison to
larger reservoirs. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that catfish populations
maintain their numbers with any size limit and that small lake fisheries offer
better fishing for youngsters.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with the comment that small lake fisheries
are great places for kids, but disagrees that catfish populations remain stable
under any size restrictions, primarily because populations are impacted by
many other variables, such as angling pressure, species composition, interspecies
competition, and water levels, to name a few. No changes were made as a result
of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the proposal would
confuse people.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that experienced
anglers should have no trouble understanding the regulation, which is intended
and designed to prevent confusion among newcomers to the angling experience.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that infrequent and novice
anglers are the most susceptible to breaking fishing laws, and that the regulation
would probably cause them to retain small fish from non-CFL waters, too.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that it
is reasonable to assume that as novice and infrequent anglers become more
proficient and knowledgeable about angling, they likely also will come to
understand that bag and length limits can vary from lake to lake. No changes
were made as a result of the comment. The department received 36 comments
supporting adoption of the proposed rule.
The department received one comment opposing adoption of the proposed amendment
to implement the statewide standard regulations for white bass and white/striped
bass hybrids (10-inch minimum length limit and 25-fish daily bag limit for
white bass and an 18-inch minimum length limit and five-fish daily bag for
white/striped bass hybrids) on Lake Pat Mayse and Lake O'the Pines. Specific
comments and the department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: The commenter stated that it has become increasingly difficult
to distinguish between white bass and white/striped hybrids, and that the
aggregate bag limit should be retained.
RESPONSE: The department is sympathetic to the comment and responds that
since hybrids no longer constitute a viable fishery in either reservoir, the
identification problem will soon be moot. No changes were made as a result
of the comment. The department received 35 comments supporting adoption of
the proposed amendment.
The department received no comments opposing adoption of the amendment
to redefine the reservoir boundaries of Lake Murvaul (Panola County). The
department received 32 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received three comments opposing adoption of the proposal
to require perch traps to be equipped with degradable panels. Specific comments
and the department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that he didn't know of
many anglers who lose or abandon their perch traps and that bait inside perch
traps is likely to degrade/be eaten before the panels actually degrade, thus
making the need for a degradable panel a moot point.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that lost
and abandoned traps of all kinds are a resource problem, and that research
has shown that abandoned or lost traps can continue to function for years,
leading to unnecessary lost and waste of marine organisms. By requiring that
each perch trap be equipped with a degradable panel, the department hopes
to reduce the potential of the trap to continue to function in the event it
is lost or abandoned. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption asked if there was research to
support the proposal and if a biohazard is created by the occasional loss
of a recreational trap.
RESPONSE: The department responds that research conducted in Louisiana
conclusively proves that abandoned and lost crab traps have an impact by creating
needless mortality. Thus, any trap that is abandoned or lost will continue
to function, and all resulting mortalities are needless. Additionally, the
number of traps and the organisms found in traps during the department's crab
trap cleanup efforts are evidence that traps continue to function after being
lost or abandoned. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The department
received 42 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received five comments opposing adoption of the amendment
to allow the use of minnow traps in salt water. Specific comments and the
department's response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that minnow traps should
not be lawful for use by commercial fishermen.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that at
least initially, the department is comfortable with allowing anyone to use
minnow traps in salt water; however, if the department determines that commercial
use is leading to increased numbers of lost and abandoned traps, the department
will certainly consider measures to reduce loss and abandonment. The department
also notes that commercial finfish fishermen are regulated by the agency under
a different set of regulations, and that access to nongame fish for the purpose
of sale is limited. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that the regulation as
currently written did not provide for the seizure of lost or abandoned traps,
and recommended the regulation require that a gear tag be attached to each
trap.
RESPONSE: The department agrees with the comment and responds that a gear
tag requirement has been proposed in a separate rulemaking that appears in
the April 23, 2004, issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 3939). The department
received 38 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received six comments opposing adoption of the proposed
amendment to legalize folding panel traps. Specific comments and the department's
response are noted as follows.
COMMENT: One commenter opposing adoption stated that are too few crabs
as it is, and allowing additional means of take would reduce populations even
further.
RESPONSE: The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the
intent of the rule is to standardize regulations for similar types of taking
devices. Since the rule allows the use of folding panel traps only if the
trap conforms to existing size requirements for hoop traps, and since these
types of traps are similarly efficient, the department sees no reason for
folding panel traps to be prohibited. No changes were made as a result of
the comment.
COMMENT: Two commenters opposing adoption stated that there are too many
abandoned crab traps as it is, and additional means of take should not be
allowed.
RESPONSE: The department agrees that there are too many abandoned crab
traps, but disagrees that inclusion of the folding panel trap as legal gear
will lead to additional marine mortality, primarily because the design of
folding traps is such that they require the angler to be physically present
and manipulating the device in order to be fished. No changes were made as
a result of the comment. The department received 31 comments supporting adoption
of the proposed amendment.
The Texas Wildlife Association and Sportsmen Conservationists of Texas
supported adoption of the proposed amendments.
The Grimes County Wildlife Committee opposed adoption of the proposed amendment
to add four 'doe days' in Grimes County.
1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
31 TAC §65.3, §65.30
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and
Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act (Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1983), which provides the commission with authority to regulate the
periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals,
game birds, or aquatic animal life and the means, methods, and places in which
it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic
animal life.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404048
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §§65.42, 65.60, 65.64
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and
Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act (Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1983), which provides the commission with authority to regulate the
periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals,
game birds, or aquatic animal life and the means, methods, and places in which
it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic
animal life.
§65.42.Deer.
(a)
No person may exceed the annual bag limit of five white-tailed
deer (no more than three bucks) and two mule deer (no more than one buck),
except as provided by:
(1)
§65.26 of this title (relating to Managed Lands Deer
(MLD) Permits);
(2)
§65.27 of this title (relating to Antlerless and Spike-Buck
Deer Control Permits);
(3)
§65.28 of this title (relating to Landowner Assisted
Management Permits (LAMPS));
(4)
special permits under the provisions of Subchapter H of
this chapter (relating to Public Lands Proclamation); or
(5)
special antlerless permit issued by the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) for use on USFS lands that are part of the department's public hunting
program.
(b)
White-tailed deer. The open seasons and annual bag limits
for white-tailed deer shall be as follows. No person may take more than two
bucks, in the aggregate, from the counties listed in paragraphs (1), (2),
and (6) of this subsection.
(1)
In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves,
Terrell, and Upton (that southeastern portion located both south of U.S. Highway
67 and east of State Highway 349) counties, there is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(B)
Bag limit: four deer, no more than two bucks.
(C)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLD
permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(2)
In Bandera, Bexar, Blanco, Brown, Burnet, Coke, Coleman,
Comal (west of Interstate 35), Concho, Crockett, Edwards, Gillespie, Glasscock,
Hays (west of Interstate 35), Howard, Irion, Kendall, Kerr, Kimble, Kinney
(north of U.S. Highway 90), Llano, Mason, McCulloch, Medina (north of U.S.
Highway 90), Menard, Mills, Mitchell, Nolan, Real, Reagan, Runnels, San Saba,
Schleicher, Sterling, Sutton, Tom Green, Travis (west of Interstate 35), Uvalde
(north of U.S. Highway 90) and Val Verde (north of U.S. Highway 90; and that
portion located both south of U.S. 90 and west of Spur 239) counties, there
is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(B)
Bag limit: five deer, no more than two bucks.
(C)
Special Late General Season. In the counties listed in
this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless
and spike-buck deer only.
(i)
Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday
following the first Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: five antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate,
no more than two of which may be spike bucks.
(D)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLD
antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(3)
In Aransas, Atascosa, Bee, Brooks, Calhoun, Cameron, Dimmit,
Duval, Frio, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Kenedy, Kinney (south of U.S. Highway
90), Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina (south of U.S.
Highway 90), Nueces, Refugio, San Patricio, Starr, Uvalde (south of U.S. Highway
90), Val Verde (that southeastern portion located both south of U.S. Highway
90 and east of Spur 239), Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala counties, there
is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: the first Saturday in November through the
third Sunday in January.
(B)
Bag limit: five deer, no more than three bucks.
(C)
Special Late General Season. In the counties listed in
this paragraph there is a special late general season for the take of antlerless
and spike-buck deer only.
(i)
Open season: 14 consecutive days starting the first Monday
following the third Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: five antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate,
no more than three of which may be spike bucks.
(D)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLD
antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(4)
No person may take or attempt to take more than one buck
deer per license year from the counties (or portions of counties), in the
aggregate, listed within this paragraph, except as provided in subsection
(a) of this section or authorized under the provisions of §65.26 of this
title (relating to Managed Land Deer Permits). For counties appearing both
in this paragraph and paragraph (5) of this subsection, the bag limit is one
buck deer, irrespective of the portion of the county in which take or attempted
take occurs.
(A)
The following counties are in the West 1-buck Zone. In
Archer, Baylor, Bosque, Callahan, Clay, Comanche, Coryell, Eastland, Erath,
Hamilton, Hood, Jack, Lampasas, Montague, Palo Pinto, Parker, Shackelford,
Somervell, Stephens, Taylor, Throckmorton, Wise, and Young counties, there
is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless
MLD antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(B)
The following counties are in the West 1-Buck Zone. In
Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Crosby, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Hall, Hansford,
Hardeman, Hutchinson, Jones, Knox, Ochiltree, Randall, Stonewall, Swisher,
Wichita, and Wilbarger counties, there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
During the first 16 days of the general season, antlerless
deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLD permits have
been issued for the tract of land. After the first 16 days, antlerless deer
may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(C)
The following counties are in the West 1-Buck Zone. In
Childress, Collingsworth, Cottle, Dickens, Donley, Garza, Gray, Haskell, Hemphill,
Kent, King, Lipscomb, Motley, Roberts, Scurry, and Wheeler counties, there
is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
From opening day through the Sunday immediately following
Thanksgiving Day, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits
unless MLD antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land. If MLD
antlerless permits have been issued, they must be attached to all antlerless
deer harvested on the tract of land. From the Monday following Thanksgiving,
antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permit.
(D)
The following counties are in the West 1-Buck Zone. In
Dallam, Hartley, Moore, Oldham, Potter, and Sherman Counties, there is a general
open season.
(i)
Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for 16 consecutive
days.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(E)
The following counties are in the West 1-Buck Zone. In
Crane, Ector, Loving, Midland, Upton (that portion located north of U.S. Highway
67; and that area located both south of U.S. Highway 67 and west of state
highway 349), and Ward counties, there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(5)
No person may take or attempt to take more than one buck
deer per license year from the counties (or portions of counties), in the
aggregate, listed within this paragraph, except as provided in subsection
(a) of this section or authorized under the provisions of §65.26 of this
title (relating to Managed Land Deer Permits). For counties appearing both
in this paragraph and paragraph (4) of this subsection, the bag limit is one
buck deer, irrespective of the portion of the county in which take or attempted
take occurs.
(A)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Bell (west of IH 35), Grayson, McLennan, and Williamson (west of IH 35) counties,
there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless
MLD antlerless permits have been issued for the tract of land.
(iv)
Special regulation. In Grayson County:
(I)
lawful means are restricted to lawful archery equipment
and crossbows only, including MLD properties; and
(II)
antlerless deer shall be taken by MLD permit only, except
on the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge.
(B)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Brazoria, Fort Bend, Goliad (south of U.S. Highway 59), Jackson (south of
U.S. Highway 59), Matagorda, Victoria (south of U.S. Highway 59), and Wharton
(south of U.S. Highway 59) counties, there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
During the first 23 days of the general season, antlerless
deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLD permits have
been issued for the tract of land. If MLD permits have been issued, they must
be attached to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. After the
first 23 days, antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(C)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Cooke, Denton, Hill, Johnson, and Tarrant counties, there is a general open
season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
During the first nine days of the general season, antlerless
deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits unless MLD permits have
been issued for the tract of land. After the first nine days, antlerless deer
may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(D)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Anderson, Bowie, Burleson, Camp, Delta, Fannin, Franklin, Freestone, Henderson,
Hopkins, Hunt, Lamar, Leon, Limestone, Morris, Navarro, Rains, Red River,
Smith, Titus, Upshur, Van Zandt, and Wood counties, there is a general open
season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits
or LAMPS permits. On National Forest lands, the take of antlerless deer shall
be by permit only.
(E)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Brazos, Cass, Cherokee, Gregg, Grimes, Harrison, Houston, Madison, Marion,
Nacogdoches, Panola, Robertson, Rusk, Sabine, San Augustine and Shelby counties,
there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
From Thanksgiving Day through the Sunday immediately
following Thanksgiving Day, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless
deer permits unless MLD, LAMPS, or Wildlife Management Area permits have been
issued for the tract of land. On National Forest, Corps of Engineers, and
Sabine River Authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by permit
only. If MLD or LAMPS permits have been issued, they must be attached to all
antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the first Saturday in
November through the day before Thanksgiving Day, and from the Monday immediately
following Thanksgiving Day through the first Sunday in January, antlerless
deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless deer permits or LAMPS permits.
(F)
The following counties are in the East 1-Buck Zone. In
Austin, Bastrop, Bell (east of Interstate 35), Caldwell, Colorado, Comal (east
of Interstate 35), DeWitt, Ellis, Falls, Fayette, Goliad (north of U.S. Highway
59), Gonzales, Guadalupe, Hays (east of Interstate 35), Jackson (north of
U.S. Highway 59), Karnes, Kaufman, Lavaca, Lee, Milam, Travis (east of Interstate
35), Victoria (north of U.S. Highway 59), Waller, Washington, Wharton (north
of U.S. Highway 59), Williamson (east of Interstate 35), and Wilson counties,
there is a general open season.
(i)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(ii)
Bag limit: three deer, no more than one buck and no more
than two antlerless.
(iii)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits.
(iv)
Special regulation. Except on properties for which MLD
level II or III permits have been issued, no person may take a buck deer in
Austin, Colorado, Lavaca, Fayette, Lee, and Washington counties unless the
deer meets one of the following criteria:
(I)
one unbranched antler;
(II)
one antler with at least six antler points; or
(III)
a distance between the main antler beams of 13 inches
or greater.
(6)
In Angelina, Chambers, Hardin, Harris, Jasper, Jefferson,
Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, and
Walker counties, there is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: first Saturday in November through the first
Sunday in January.
(B)
Bag limit: four deer, no more than two bucks and no more
than two antlerless.
(C)
From opening day through the Sunday immediately following
Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken without antlerless deer permits
unless MLD, LAMPS, or Wildlife Management Area permits have been issued for
the tract of land. On National Forest, Corps of Engineers, Sabine River Authority,
and Trinity River Authority lands, the take of antlerless deer shall be by
permit only. If MLD or LAMPS permits have been issued, they must be attached
to all antlerless deer harvested on the tract of land. From the Monday following
Thanksgiving, antlerless deer may be taken only by MLD antlerless permits
or LAMPS permits. On tracts of land for which LAMPS permits have been issued,
no LAMPS permit is required for the harvest of antlerless deer during the
archery-only or muzzleloader-only open season.
(7)
In Andrews, Bailey, Castro, Cochran, Collin, Dallas, Dawson,
Deaf Smith, El Paso, Gaines, Galveston, Hale, Hockley, Hudspeth, Lamb, Lubbock,
Lynn, Martin, Parmer, Rockwall, Terry, Winkler, and Yoakum counties, there
is no general open season.
(8)
Archery-only open seasons. In all counties where there
is a general open season for white-tailed deer, there is an archery-only open
season during which either sex of white-tailed deer may be taken as provided
for in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to Means and Methods).
(A)
Open season: the Saturday closest to September 30 for 30
consecutive days.
(B)
Bag limit: the bag limit in any given county is as provided
for that county during the general open season.
(C)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLD
permits have been issued for the property.
(9)
Muzzleloader-only open seasons, and bag and possession
limits shall be as follows.
(A)
In Brewster, Culberson, Jeff Davis, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves,
Terrell, and Upton (that portion located both south of U.S. Highway 67 and
east of state highway 349) counties, there is an open season during which
only antlerless and spike-buck deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.
(i)
Open Season: from the first Saturday following the closing
of the general open season for nine consecutive days.
(ii)
Bag limit: four antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate,
no more than two spike bucks.
(B)
In Angelina, Chambers, Hardin, Harris, Jasper, Jefferson,
Liberty, Montgomery, Newton, Orange, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, Tyler, and
Walker counties, there is an open season during which only antlerless and
spike-buck deer may be taken only with a muzzleloader.
(i)
Open Season: from the first Saturday following the closing
of the general open season for nine consecutive days.
(ii)
Bag limit: four antlerless or spike-buck deer in the aggregate,
no more than two spike bucks and no more than two antlerless.
(C)
No permit is required to hunt antlerless deer unless MLD
permits or Wildlife Management Area permits have been issued for the property.
(10)
Special Youth-Only Seasons. There shall be special youth-only
general hunting seasons in all counties where there is a general open season
for white-tailed deer.
(A)
early open season: the Saturday and Sunday immediately
before the first Saturday in November.
(B)
late open season: the third weekend (Saturday and Sunday)
in January.
(C)
Bag limits, provisions for the take of antlerless deer,
and special requirements in the individual counties listed in paragraphs (1)-(6)
of this subsection shall be as specified for the first two days of the general
open season in those counties, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of this
paragraph.
(D)
Provisions for the take of antlerless deer in the individual
counties listed in paragraph (5)(E) of this subsection shall be as specified
in those counties for the period of time from Thanksgiving Day through the
Sunday immediately following Thanksgiving Day.
(E)
Licensed hunters 16 years of age or younger may hunt deer
by any lawful means during the seasons established by subparagraphs (A) and
(B) of this paragraph, except in Grayson County, where legal means are restricted
to crossbow and lawful archery equipment.
(F)
A licensed hunter 16 years of age or younger may hunt any
deer on any property (including MLD properties) during the seasons established
by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this paragraph.
(G)
The stamp requirement of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter
43, Subchapter I, does not apply during the seasons established by this paragraph.
(c)
Mule deer. The open seasons and annual bag limits for mule
deer shall be as follows.
(1)
In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke,
Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, Fisher,
Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall, Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hutchinson,
Kent, King, Lipscomb, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Randall, Roberts,
Scurry, Stonewall, and Swisher counties, there is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for 16 consecutive
days.
(B)
Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer
or MLD Permits.
(2)
In Brewster, Crane, Crockett, Culberson, Ector, El Paso,
Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Loving, Midland, Pecos, Presidio, Reagan, Reeves, Terrell,
Upton, Val Verde, Ward, and Winkler counties, there is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: last Saturday in November for 16 consecutive
days.
(B)
Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer
or MLD Permits.
(3)
In Andrews (west of U.S. Highway 385), Bailey, Cochran,
Hockley, Lamb, Terry, and Yoakum counties, there is a general open season.
(A)
Open season: Saturday before Thanksgiving for nine consecutive
days.
(B)
Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C)
Antlerless deer may be taken only by Antlerless Mule Deer
or MLD Permits.
(4)
In all other counties, there is no general open season
for mule deer.
(5)
Archery-only open seasons and bag and possession limits
shall be as follows. During an archery-only open season, deer may be taken
only as provided for in §65.11(2) and (3) of this title (relating to
Means and Methods). No antlerless permit is required unless MLD antlerless
permits have been issued for the property.
(A)
In Armstrong, Borden, Briscoe, Carson, Childress, Coke,
Collingsworth, Cottle, Crane, Crockett, Crosby, Culberson, Dallam, Deaf Smith,
Dickens, Donley, Ector, El Paso, Fisher, Floyd, Foard, Garza, Gray, Hall,
Hardeman, Hartley, Hemphill, Hudspeth, Hutchinson, Jeff Davis, Kent, King,
Lipscomb, Loving, Midland, Moore, Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Potter, Presidio,
Randall, Reagan, Reeves, Roberts, Scurry, Stonewall, Swisher, Upton, Val Verde,
Ward, and Winkler counties, there is an open season.
(i)
Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30
for 30 consecutive days.
(ii)
Bag limit: one buck deer.
(B)
In Brewster, Pecos, and Terrell counties, there is an open
season.
(i)
Open season: from the Saturday closest to September 30
for 30 consecutive days.
(ii)
Bag limit: two deer, no more than one buck.
(C)
In all other counties, there is no archery-only open season
for mule deer.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404049
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §§65.71, 65.72, 65.78, 65.82
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and
Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, Uniform Wildlife Regulatory Act (Wildlife Conservation
Act of 1983), which provides the commission with authority to regulate the
periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals,
game birds, or aquatic animal life and the means, methods, and places in which
it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic
animal life.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404051
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
Subchapter A. STATEWIDE HUNTING AND FISHING PROCLAMATION
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts the repeal of §65.29,
concerning Bonus Tags, and amendments to §§65.7, concerning Harvest
Log; 65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources; 65.26, concerning
Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permits; 65.28, concerning Landowner Assisted Management
Permit System (LAMPS) Permits, and 65.38, concerning Game Animals - Open Seasons
and Bag Limits. Section 65.26 is adopted with changes to the proposed text
as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 2252). The repeal of §65.29 and the
amendments to §§65.7, 65.10, 65.28, and 65.38 are adopted without
changes and will not be republished.
The change to §65.26 makes nonsubstantive grammatical alterations,
changing the term 'MLD permit' to 'MLD Permit' throughout the rule; replacing
the word 'applies' in subsection (b)(1) with the word 'apply,' so that subject
and verb agree in number; and replacing the word 'does' with the word 'do'
in subsection (b)(2)(B) and (b)(3)(A) for the same reason.
Under current regulations, a hunter upon killing a deer is required to
fill out the harvest log on the back of the hunting license and attach a properly
executed tag from his or her hunting license to the deer. The information
on the harvest log and the license tag attest to the identity of the person
who killed the deer, the date the deer was killed, and the location where
the deer was killed. This information is sampled by department biologists
to develop and maintain harvest data to be used in determining appropriate
regulatory and management strategies, and by law enforcement personnel in
enforcing harvest regulations. Also under current rules, and for the same
uses as previously noted, if the a deer is taken under a LAMPS permit, MLD
Permit, department special permit, or Wildlife Management Area (WMA) special
antlerless permit, the hunter is also required to attach a completed permit
to the carcass. The department's current rules thus require deer in certain
situations to be tagged twice with identical information. The proposed rule
changes are in part undertaken to eliminate this so-called 'double tagging'
requirement. In addition, the proposed rules would eliminate personal bag
limits for deer taken by LAMPS and MLD Permits, and would extend the period
of validity for MLD Permits to make the ending date of validity concurrent
with that of Antlerless and Spike-buck Deer Control Permits.
The repeal of §65.29, concerning Bonus Tags, is necessary because
the proposed amendment to §65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer (MLD)
permits, eliminates personal bag limits for deer taken by MLD Permit, which
makes the bonus tag superfluous. The bonus tag was created primarily as a
mechanism for land managers participating in department permit programs to
achieve harvest goals by allowing individual hunters to exceed the statewide
bag limit through the use of bonus tags in conjunction with LAMPS and MLD
Permits. The rationale for creating this mechanism was that since permits
were issued on the basis of a specific harvest quota established for each
property (i.e., a controlled harvest), the number of deer taken by individual
hunters was immaterial. A secondary purpose for the creation of bonus tags
was to allow hunters selected for participation in special hunts on department
lands to avoid having to use license tags, particularly in counties with a
one-buck bag limit, where the use of a license tag on a department hunt would
preclude that hunter from taking a buck in any other one-buck county.
The amendment to §65.7, concerning Harvest Log, removes the requirement
that the harvest log be filled out for deer killed under a LAMPS permit, MLD
Permit, department special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit. The proposed
amendment also removes a reference to bonus tags, which are being eliminated.
The amendment is necessary because the information entered on a harvest log
is identical to the information contained on a department-issued permit, and
the department sees no reason to require a hunter to complete and attach two
separate documents containing the same information.
The amendment to §65.10, concerning Possession of Wildlife Resources,
exempts a person who takes a deer by LAMPS permit, MLD Permit, department
special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit from the tagging requirements
of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018, which requires a person to attach
a tag from their hunting license to all deer taken by that person. Under Parks
and Wildlife Code, §42.0177, the commission is authorized to modify or
eliminate the tagging requirements of §42.018. The intent of this rulemaking
is to eliminate requirements that cause hunters to attach identical information
in multiple forms to a single deer. The proposed amendment also clarifies
that a bird or animal taken under circumstances that require the bird or animal
to be tagged must be tagged immediately upon take. The amendment is necessary
to establish with certainty when a person's legal obligations begin with respect
to tagging requirements.
The amendment to §65.26, concerning Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permits,
eliminates personal bag limits for antlerless deer on Level I MLDP properties
and personal bag limits for both antlerless and buck deer on Level II and
Level III MLDP properties; makes Level II buck permits valid for the take
of fork-antlered bucks during the early youth-only season; eliminates references
to stamp requirements for deer taken during the muzzleloader-only open season;
removes references to bonus tags and the statutory requirement that a license
tag be attached to all deer taken by MLD Permit; and stipulates that deer
not immediately tagged by a MLD Permit upon take are to be taken by the most
direct route to a location where a MLD Permit can be attached to the deer.
The removal of personal bag limits is being implemented because MLD Permits
are issued on the basis of a specific harvest articulated in a wildlife management
plan, which is a controlled harvest agreed upon by the landowner. Proper management
of deer populations is essential to maintaining the habitat quality, upon
which many species of wildlife depend for sustenance. By its very nature,
hunter success is unpredictable, and the department desires to provide a mechanism
to land managers that will provide them a greater probability of achieving
the harvest quota specified in the wildlife management plan. Thus, if the
harvest on a given property is in danger of not fulfilling the goal stipulated
by the wildlife management plan, the landowner has the option of giving more
permits to the remaining hunters, or themselves using the permits to achieve
the harvest quota. The provision for the take of fork-antlered bucks by youth
during the youth-only open season on Level II MLDP properties is part of the
department's efforts to simplify and make consistent the regulations governing
youth-only hunts. Under current rule, Level II MLD Permits are valid only
for spike-antlered bucks prior to the general open season. Since the early
youth-only season takes places one week prior to the opening of the general
season, and since fork-antlered can be taken by youth during that season on
non-MLDP properties, Level I MLDP properties, and Level III MLDP properties,
the department sees no reason to exclude youth on Level II MLDP properties
from the same opportunity. The removal of references to the stamp requirement
for hunting during the muzzleloader-only season is necessary because the legislature
eliminated the muzzleloader stamp during the most recent legislative session.
The elimination of the provision requiring deer taken on MLDP properties to
be tagged with a license tag or bonus tag is necessary because the intent
of this rulemaking is to eliminate requirements that cause hunters to have
to attach the same information in multiple forms to a single deer. Since deer
on MLDP properties must be tagged with an MLD Permit, the license tag is superfluous.
The bonus tag is being eliminated for reasons set forth in elsewhere in this
rulemaking in the discussion of the proposed repeal of §65.29. The stipulation
that deer taken by MLD Permit (but not immediately tagged by MLD Permit) are
to be taken by the most direct route to a location where a MLD Permit can
be attached to the deer is necessary for clarification purposes. The current
rule acknowledges that landowners face logistical problems related to permit
allotment and use. Hunters are not always successful, and to require each
hunter to have a permit on their person in the field means that unused permits
would have to be returned to the landowner and reissued to subsequent hunters,
which is inefficient, particularly on larger properties that might entertain
dozens of hunters in a season. The department thus allows hunters to harvest
a deer and then take it to a location on the property where the MLD Permit
can then be attached to the carcass. The language requiring deer to be taken
by the most direct route to a tagging station is intended to reduce potential
enforcement problems that could arise when law enforcement personnel encounter
hunters with untagged deer, since another element of this rulemaking eliminates
the requirement that deer taken on MLDP properties be tagged with a license
tag. The amendment also makes the period of validity for MLD Permits end on
the same date as that for Antlerless and Spike-buck Deer Control permits.
The department finds that it is inconsistent to have one permit period ending
several days before another, and the potential for confusion among landowners,
hunters, and law enforcement is eliminated by making the two periods end at
the same time. Finally, the amendment would allow the department to deny permit
issuance for a period of one year to a person who exceeds the harvest quota
specified by the wildlife management plan. The amendment follows a recommendation
from the department's White-tailed Deer Advisory Committee (WTDAC), which
felt that one year was an appropriate period of time because it would be enough
of a punishment to demonstrate the importance of harvest quotas, but not so
severe as to discourage people from returning to the program.
The amendment to §65.28, concerning Landowner Assisted Management
Permit System (LAMPS), eliminates personal bag limits for antlerless deer
on LAMPS properties and removes references to both the bonus tag and the statutory
requirement that a license tag be attached to all deer immediately upon take.
LAMPS permits are valid only for antlerless deer. The removal of personal
bag limits is being implemented because when LAMPS permits are issued there
is no other lawful way for antlerless deer to be harvested on the receiving
property (except during the archery-only season). In light of a finite antlerless
harvest, the department wishes to provide land managers with a flexible and
efficient method of removing antlerless deer in order to facilitate maximum
permit utilization. The elimination of the provision requiring deer taken
on LAMPS properties to be tagged with a license tag or bonus tag is necessary
because the intent of this rulemaking is to eliminate requirements that cause
hunters to attach identical information in multiple forms to a single deer.
Since antlerless deer on LAMPS properties must be tagged with a LAMPS permit,
the license tag is superfluous. The bonus tag is being eliminated for reasons
set forth elsewhere in this rulemaking in the discussion of the repeal of §65.29.
The amendment to §65.38, concerning Game Animals-Open Seasons and
Bag Limits, adds language to allow bag limits to be exceeded. The amendment
is necessary because other elements of this rulemaking allow persons under
certain circumstances to exceed the statewide bag limit for white-tailed deer.
The repeal of §65.29 will function by eliminating Bonus Tags.
The amendment to §65.7 will function by eliminating a hunter's harvest
log requirement for deer killed under a LAMPS permit, MLD Permit, department
special permit, or WMA special antlerless permit.
The amendment to §65.10 will function by eliminating a hunter's tagging
requirements for deer taken by LAMPS permit, MLD Permit, department special
permit, or WMA special antlerless permit.
The amendment to §65.26 will function by eliminating personal bag
limits for antlerless deer on Level I MLDP properties and personal bag limits
for both antlerless and buck deer on Level II and Level III MLDP properties;
by making buck permits on Level II properties valid for take during the early
youth-only season; by eliminating stamp requirements for deer taken during
the muzzleloader-only open season; by removing references to bonus tags and
the statutory tagging requirements; and by stipulating that deer not immediately
tagged by MLD Permit upon take are to be taken by the most direct route to
a location where a MLD Permit can be attached to the deer.
The amendment to §65.28 will function by eliminating personal bag
limits for antlerless deer on LAMPS properties and by removing references
to both the bonus tag and statutory tagging requirements.
The amendment to §65.38 will function by explicitly stating that statewide
and personal bag limits for deer may be exceeded under certain circumstances.
The department received one comment opposing adoption of the proposed amendments
to eliminate 'double tagging' requirements; however, the commenter did not
elaborate the reasons for opposition. The department disagrees and responds
that there is no need for the department to require identical information
on two different pieces of paper to be attached to harvested deer and believes
that the amendments as adopted are beneficial to hunters. No changes were
made as a result of the comment. The department received seven comments supporting
adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received three comments opposing adoption of the proposed
amendment to extend the period of validity for Level II and Level III MLD
Permits. One commenter stated that deer seasons are too long and should be
shortened, preferably to open on the last Saturday in November and close on
the third Sunday in December. The department disagrees with the comment and
responds that the proposal altered the period of validity of tags used on
specified properties under conditions mutually agreed to by the landowner
and the department. If the commenter's intent was to recommend the suggested
season structure for MLDP properties (rather than as a general open season),
the department disagrees and responds that since an MLDP cooperator has agreed
to harvest a specific number of deer (as reflected in the wildlife management
plan) from a given property, there is no biological significance attached
to the point in time or span of time when those animals are removed, provided
the removal is consistent with the goals of the wildlife management plan.
No changes were made as a result of the comments. The department received
seven comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
One commenter stated that all properties should be under the same season
lengths and bag limits, and that department regulations unfairly favored landowners
of 'officially' managed lands. The department disagrees with the comment and
responds that although MLDP regulations offer extended harvest periods and
enhanced bag limits, a cooperating landowner is obligated, by acceptance of
MLD Permits, to a finite harvest quota and to the performance of specified
habitat enhancements. The department also responds that the notion of 'officially'
managed lands is inaccurate. The wildlife management plan required for MLD
Permit issuance may be prepared by anyone. Although the WMP must be approved
by the department, it is only logical that there be standards. The standards
set forth in department rules are a result of a widespread collaborative effort
involving advisory groups, landowners, and hunters, and were subject to public
comment from any interested person. Thus, the department believes that the
existing and amended rules governing Wildlife Management Plans and MLD Permits
reflect a broad consensus as to what is appropriate. No changes were made
as a result of the comment.
Texas Wildlife Association commented in favor of adoption of the proposed
rules.
1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
31 TAC §§65.7, 65.10, 65.26, 65.28
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and
Wildlife Code, §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or
eliminate the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018;
and Parks and Wildlife Code, §61.054, which authorizes the commission
to establish the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible,
the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized
to be hunted, taken, or possessed; the means or method that may be used to
hunt, take, or possess the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life;
and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where
the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken,
or possessed.
§65.26.Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permits.
(a)
MLD Permits may be issued only to a landowner who has a
current WMP in accordance with §65.25 of this title (relating to Wildlife
Management Plan). In the case that a landowner is otherwise in fulfillment
of the provisions of §65.25 of this title but does not have current population
data, the department may conditionally authorize partial issuance of MLD Permits,
not to exceed 30 per cent of the total MLD Permits to be issued for that property
during the affected license year, with the balance of MLD Permits to be issued
upon submission of the required population data.
(b)
An applicant may request the issuance of any type of MLD
Permit listed in this section.
(1)
Level 1. Level 1 MLD Permits authorize only the take of
antlerless white-tailed or antlerless mule deer. A Level 1 MLD Permit is valid
during any open deer season in the county for which it is issued and the provisions
of §65.42(b)(8) of this title (relating to Archery-Only Open Season), §65.42(b)(9)
of this title (relating to Muzzleloader-Only Open Season), and the stamp requirement
of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter I apply. There is no bag
limit for antlerless deer on properties for which Level I permits have been
issued; however, the county and statewide bag limits for buck deer apply.
(2)
Level 2.
(A)
Level 2 MLD Permits authorize the take of buck or antlerless
white-tailed deer as specified by the permit.
(i)
A Level 2 antlerless permit is valid from the Saturday
closest to September 30 through the last day in February on the property for
which it is issued;
(ii)
A Level 2 buck permit is valid:
(I)
for spike bucks taken by any lawful means, for all bucks
taken by means of lawful archery equipment, and for any buck taken by a hunter
16 years of age or younger during a youth-only open deer season: from the
Saturday closest to September 30 through the last day in February on the property
for which it is issued; and
(II)
for any buck, irrespective of means: from the opening
day of the general open deer season in the county for which it is issued through
the last day in February on the property for which it is issued.
(B)
On all tracts of land for which Level 2 MLD Permits have
been issued there is no bag limit for buck or antlerless deer and the provisions
of §65.42(b)(8) of this title (relating to Archery-Only Open Season), §65.42(b)(9)
of this title (relating to Muzzleloader-Only Open Season), and the stamp requirement
of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter I do not apply.
(C)
By acceptance of Level 2 MLD Permits a landowner agrees
to accomplish at least two habitat management recommendations contained in
the WMP within three years of permit issuance, and agrees to maintain the
habitat management practices for as long as Level 2 permits are accepted thereafter.
A landowner who fails to accomplish at least two habitat management recommendations
of the WMP within three years is not eligible for Level 2 permits the following
year, but is eligible for Level 1 MLD Permits or may choose to cease accepting
MLD Permits.
(3)
Level 3. Level 3 MLD Permits authorize the take of buck
and antlerless white-tailed deer as specified by the permit. A Level 3 MLD
Permit is valid from the Saturday nearest September 30 through the last day
in February on the property for which it is issued. On all tracts of land
for which Level 3 MLD Permits have been issued:
(A)
there is no bag limit for buck or antlerless deer and the
provisions of §65.42(b)(8) of this title, §65.42(b)(9) of this title,
and the stamp requirement of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter
I do not apply.
(B)
By acceptance of Level 3 MLD Permits a landowner agrees
to accomplish at least four habitat management recommendations contained in
the WMP within three years of permit issuance, and agrees to maintain the
habitat management practices for as long as Level 3 permits are accepted thereafter.
A landowner who fails to accomplish at least four habitat management recommendations
of the WMP within three years is not eligible for Level 3 permits the following
year, but may be eligible for other levels of MLD Permits or may choose to
cease accepting MLD Permits.
(c)
The number of MLD Permits distributed to a hunter shall
be at the discretion of the landowner.
(d)
A deer killed under the authority of a MLD Permit must
be tagged with a MLD Permit immediately by the person who killed the deer
or the person who killed the deer shall immediately take the carcass by the
most direct route to a tagging station (location where permits are maintained
on the permitted property) where an appropriate MLD Permit shall be attached.
(e)
If a landowner in possession of MLD Permits does not wish
to abide by the harvest quota or habitat management practices specified by
the WMP, the landowner must return all MLD Permits to the department by the
Saturday closest to September 30.
(f)
In the event that unforeseeable developments such as floods,
droughts, or other natural disasters make the attainment of recommended habitat
management practices impractical or impossible, the department may, on a case-by-case
basis, waive the requirements of this section.
(g)
The department reserves the right to deny issuance of MLD
Permits:
(1)
for one year for a property upon which the harvest quota
specified by the WMP has been exceeded; and
(2)
for three years for a property that otherwise is not in
compliance with the WMP.
(h)
Administratively complete applications received by the
department before August 15 of each year shall be approved or denied by October
1 of the same year.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404052
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §65.29
The repeal is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or eliminate
the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018; and parks
and Wildlife Code, §61.054, which authorizes the commission to establish
the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of
the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted,
taken, or possessed; the means or method that may be used to hunt, take, or
possess the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life; and the region,
county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where the game animals,
game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404053
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §65.38
The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and
Wildlife Code, §42.0177, which authorizes the commission to modify or
eliminate the tagging requirements of Parks and Wildlife Code, §42.018;
and parks and Wildlife Code, §61.054, which authorizes the commission
to establish the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible,
the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized
to be hunted, taken, or possessed; the means or method that may be used to
hunt, take, or possess the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life;
and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where
the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken,
or possessed.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404058
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
31 TAC §65.103
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission adopts an amendment
to §65.103, concerning Trap, Transport, and Transplant Permit, with changes
to the proposed text as published in the March 5, 2004, issue of the
In 1995, the Texas Legislature enacted the provisions of Parks and Wildlife
Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter E, which authorized the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Commission to issue permits for the trapping, transporting, and transplanting
of game animals and game birds from the wild to allow adjustments in game
populations for better wildlife management. Under rules adopted by the Texas
Parks and Wildlife Commission since that time, the department has issued permits
(popularly referred to as 'Triple T' permits) for that purpose. In general,
the overarching policy of the commission has been to recognize habitat conservation
and management as the cornerstones of good wildlife management. To that end,
the rules adopted with respect to Triple T permits have been predicated on
the exercise of sound habitat management while respecting both a landowner's
desire to improve game populations on their property and the right of other
landowners to expect that such activities result in no adverse impacts on
either the areas adjoining those where game animals and game birds are trapped
or the areas adjoining those where game animals or game birds are released.
Under the direction of the commission, the department convened the White-tailed
Deer Advisory Committee (WTDAC) to investigate and make recommendations concerning
all aspects of the department's regulatory activities concerning white-tailed
deer, including those relating to the Triple T permit. The WTDAC's recommendations
were the basis for the rulemaking.
The Managed Lands Deer (MLD) Permit system was created in 1996 as an incentive-driven
program to encourage landowners and land managers to practice sound habitat
management techniques. The program offers special harvest periods and enhanced
bag limits to landowners who voluntarily place their property under a wildlife
management plan, accept specific harvest quotas for deer, and agree to perform
certain habitat management practices. Under the current rules, only those
properties receiving Level III MLD Permits could qualify for releases without
a site inspection, provided the properties were 1) in compliance with the
requirements of the wildlife management plan, 2) the release(s) involved only
antlerless deer, 3) the number of deer to be trapped did not exceed the number
of unused MLD Permits for the trap site property (which would cause a population
density lower than that specified by the wildlife management plan), 4) the
harvest quota at the release site would not result in a population reduction
greater than half of the recruitment below the total population specified
by the wildlife management plan, and 5) the property in question had received
Level III MLD Permits within the previous three years. Permit issuance without
a site inspection under these criteria is based on the rationale that Level
III cooperators are required under current MLDP rules to provide three years
of population and two years of harvest data (in addition to the data required
for initial permit issuance), enabling department biologists to have a good
idea of the probable impact of both trapping and release on habitat. The WTDAC
noted that although Level II MLDP properties do not have to meet the higher
standard for population and harvest data required for Level III properties
(for initial permit issuance), a Level II property after two years would have
accumulated enough data to meet the Level III standard. Therefore, the WTDAC
recommended that Level II properties with at least three years of population
data and two years of harvest data be allowed to conduct releases without
site inspections, provided the properties in question also meet all other
criteria established for releases on Level III properties. The WTDAC also
recommended a clarification of the current provision requiring a property
to have received MLD Permits within the three years prior to a release without
a site inspection. The current rule was intended to complement another existing
provision that creates a three-year 'window' for cooperators to accomplish
required habitat management practices, which is an acknowledgement that circumstances
beyond the control of the cooperator (natural disasters, unusual climatic
conditions, etc.) sometimes make it impossible or impractical to accomplish
required management practices in a given year. Thus, a cooperator is not held
to a 'year-to-year' standard for accomplishing habitat management practices,
but must do so within a three-year period in order to remain in the program.
Confusion has arisen because the current wording can be construed to mean
that a property may qualify for a release-without-inspection if MLD Permits
have been issued at any time during the previous three years, even if the
property in question is not currently in the MLDP program. The amendment is
intended to make it clear that current participation in the MLDP program is
required for approval of a release without a site inspection.
The WTDAC also recommended eliminating the provision prohibiting a population
reduction of greater than 50% of recruitment below the total population specified
for the property in the wildlife management plan. The current rule was intended
to prevent wholesale removal and replacement of deer herds on properties,
but it has been pointed out that this is sometimes necessary for genetic enhancement,
and that in any event, it shouldn't matter because as long as the total population
doesn't exceed that specified in the management plan, there would be no negative
impacts on habitat quality.
Further, the WTDAC recommended that buck deer be allowed to be released
via 'inconsequential' release and release-without-inspection (on Level II
and Level III MLDP properties). The rationale for the recommendation is that
the gender of released animals is unimportant with respect to habitat impact.
Finally, the WTDAC recommended that the antlers be removed from all buck
deer released under a Triple T permit prior to transport from the trap site.
The rationale for the recommendation is to prevent injuries to deer during
transport and to prevent buck deer from being moved for purpose of being hunted
immediately.
The rule will function by allowing Level II MLDP cooperators to release
deer on their properties without a site inspection, provided they meet the
data requirements for Level III permit issuance; by requiring an MLDP property
to have received MLD Permits in the year of a prospective release-without-inspection;
by allowing landowners to remove and replace as many deer as they wish; by
allowing buck deer to be included in so-called 'inconsequential releases;'
and by requiring the antlers to be removed from all buck deer transported
under a Triple T permit.
The department received four comments opposing adoption of the provisions
that would allow 'inconsequential' releases on properties where such releases
have not occurred for at least four years, and on properties that have undergone
a change in ownership. One of the commenters stated opposition to 'inconsequential'
releases in any form, stating that such releases violate the department's
stocking policy. The Parks and Wildlife Commission after deliberation did
not adopt this aspect of the proposed amendment, and directed staff to continue
working with all concerned parties to arrive at consensus concerning 'inconsequential'
releases, including the question of consistency with the department's stocking
policy. The department received two comments in favor of adoption of the proposed
provision.
The department received three comments opposing adoption of the proposed
provision to allow Level II MLD properties to receive deer without a site
inspection. One commenter stated that the provision conflicted with the department's
stocking policy. The department disagrees with the commenter and responds
that authorization for this type of release is contingent on required harvest
and population data, and is possible only so long as the number of deer to
be released does not cause the total population of deer on the release site
to exceed the total population size specified in the department-approved wildlife
management plan for the property. Additionally, it must be remembered that
a site inspection is required when a property enters the MLD program. The
department's stocking policy requires, among other things, that the department
shall consider the impacts of any stocking on the existing biological ecosystem
and that releases be made only to areas of suitable natural habitat capable
of sustaining the animals. As a matter of policy, department biologists will
not write or approve a wildlife management plan or authorize issuance of permits
under a wildlife management plan that would allow populations to exceed the
carrying capacity of a property's habitat. This, in fact, is the underlying
assumption of the provision currently in effect, that a release ratio of one
deer to 200 acres will not result in overpopulation or habitat degradation
on a property that is under a department-approved management plan. No changes
were made as a result of the comment. The department received seven comments
in favor of adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received five comments opposed to adoption of the provision
that would eliminate the requirement for a site inspection on properties where
a proposed release would replace a population reduction of greater than 50%
of recruitment below the total population specified for a property in the
wildlife management plan. One commenter stated a concern that the provision
would allow for the evasion of site inspections. The department disagrees
and responds that in order to be enrolled and remain in the MLD program, a
property must undergo both an initial and periodic site inspection by department
personnel. From the time a property is enrolled, annual harvest and population
data must be supplied to the department in order to receive MLD Permits, and
further site visitations occur in order for the department to verify that
the permittee is accomplishing the habitat management practices specified
in the management plan. No changes were made as a result of the comment. The
department received nine comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
Another commenter stated that the rule as adopted would allow ranches to
be completely restocked with deer that might not be genetically adapted to
or suitable for the environment to which they are relocated. The department
disagrees with the comment. The department acknowledges genetic enhancement
as a legitimate use of the Triple T program, but also notes that there are
instances in which Triple T permit applications must be disapproved on the
basis of potential or actual negative impacts to biological systems. The department's
position is that any given Triple T activity is not detrimental, provided
it is consistent with the relevant provisions of the Parks and Wildlife Code,
department regulations, and the wildlife management plan for the property.
No changes were made as a result of the comment. The department received five
comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
One commenter opposed adoption of all provisions authorizing the relocation
of deer, stating that deer should not be trapped and moved because such activities
create the potential for the spread of disease. The department disagrees with
the comment and responds that it believes the current protocols developed
in conjunction with the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) are sufficient
to enable detection of the disease of greatest concern, chronic wasting disease,
if it exists in wild populations. The department also notes that TAHC regulations
generally govern disease detection and management in the state. No changes
were made as a result of the comment.
The department received seven comments in support of adoption of the provision
to require the removal of antlers from all buck deer prior to being transported
under a permit to trap, transport, and transplant permit.
The department received one comment opposed to the adoption of the provision
to allow buck deer to be included in releases conducted without a site inspection.
The commenter did not elaborate. The department disagrees with the comment
and responds that in striving to maintain habitat management as the focal
point of the rulemaking, it notes that although buck deer tend to have a larger
body mass than do does and therefore consume slightly more food, pregnant
does on the other hand have very high nutritional demands as well. Therefore,
the sex of released deer is probably not a major factor in habitat impacts.
The department also notes that in every case that a ranch receives deer, it
has been inspected at some point by the department and has submitted population
and harvest data to the department, which are the bases for department approval
of the release. The department received five comments supporting adoption
of the proposed amendment. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife
Code, §43.061, which requires the commission to adopt rules for the content
of wildlife stocking plans and the trapping, transporting, and transplanting
of game animals and game birds.
§65.103.Trap, Transplant, and Transport Permit.
(a)
For the purposes of this subchapter, the content of a wildlife
stocking plan for a release site shall be the same as that required for a
wildlife management plan under the provisions of §65.25 of this title
(relating to Wildlife Management Plan). Applications may be approved without
an inspection, provided:
(1)
the release will not exceed a ratio of one white-tailed
deer per 200 acres at the release site; however, when the accumulated releases
on a tract result in a ratio of one deer to 200 acres (counting released deer
only), no further releases shall take place unless a site inspection has been
performed by the department; or
(2)
the property has been issued Level II or Level III MLD
Permits during the year of the release, the landowner furnishes a minimum
of three years of population data and two years of harvest data, and is in
compliance with all requirements of the wildlife management plan for the property;
and
(A)
the number of deer to be trapped (in addition to the number
of deer harvested) does not exceed the population reduction specified in the
wildlife management plan for the trap site; and
(B)
the number of deer to be released does not cause the total
population of deer on the release site to exceed the total population size
specified in a management plan under the provisions of §65.25 of this
title.
(b)
Applications received by the department between September
1 and November 15 in a calendar year shall be approved or denied within 45
days of receipt.
(c)
The department may deny a permit application if the department
determines that:
(1)
the removal of game animals or game birds from the trap
site may be detrimental to existing populations or systems;
(2)
the removal of game animals or game birds may detrimentally
affect the population status on neighboring properties;
(3)
the release of game animals or game birds at the release
site may be detrimental to existing populations or systems;
(4)
the release site is outside of the suitable range of the
game animal or game bird;
(5)
the applicant has misrepresented information on the application
or associated wildlife stocking plan;
(6)
the activity identified in the permit application does
not comply with the provisions of the department's stocking policy; or
(7)
the trapping activity would involve deer held under a Deer
Management Permit.
(d)
A buck deer transported under the provisions of this subchapter
shall have its antlers removed prior to transport.
(e)
The department may establish trapping periods, based on
biological criteria, when the trapping, transporting, and transplanting of
game animals and game birds under this section by individuals will be permitted.
(f)
The department may, at its discretion, require the applicant
to supply additional information concerning the proposed trapping, transporting,
and transplanting activity when deemed necessary to carry out the purposes
of this subchapter.
(g)
Game animals and game birds killed in the process of conducting
permitted activities shall count as part of the total number of game animals
or game birds authorized by the permit to be trapped.
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 June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404059
Gene McCarty
Chief of Staff
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: March 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
Chapter 201.
OPERATIONS OF THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BOARD FOR LEASE
31 TAC §201.4
The Texas General Land Office adopts the amendment to §201.4
of Title 31, Part 5, Chapter 201 of the Texas Administrative Code, relating
to disposition of payments received by a Board for Lease, without changes
to the proposed text as published in the April 9, 2004 issue of the
The amendment conforms the rule to an amendment to Texas Natural Resources
Code §34.018 by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 679, §62, eff. Sept. 1,
1993. The change is made pursuant to §2001.039 (Agency Review of Existing
Rules) of the Government Code.
The General Land Office has received no comments on the proposed amendment.
The amendment to this section is adopted under Texas Natural
Resources Code §31.051, which authorizes the Commissioner of the Texas
General Land Office to make and enforce suitable rules consistent with the
law and Texas Natural Resources Code §32.062 which grants rulemaking
authority to the School Land Board.
The adopted amendment affects Section 34.018 of the Texas Natural Resources
Code.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on June 21, 2004.
TRD-200404063
Larry L. Laine
Chief Clerk, Deputy Commissioner
Boards for Lease of State-Owned Lands
Effective date: July 11, 2004
Proposal publication date: April 9, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 305-8598
Chapter 367.
AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM
31 TAC §§367.1 - 367.3, 367.12, 367.15 - 367.20
The Texas Water Development Board (the board) adopts amendments
to 31 TAC Chapter 367, Agricultural Water Conservation Program (AWCP). The
board adopts amendments to §§367.1 - 367.3, and §367.12 and
adopts new §§367.15 - 367.20 relating to the creation of the Agricultural
Water Conservation Linked Deposit Program without changes to the proposed
text as published in the May 7, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 4420) and will not be republished. The amendments
and new sections reflect changes to the Texas Water Code enacted by the 78th
Legislature that authorized the creation of the Agricultural Water Conservation
Linked Deposit Program (AWCLDP).
The board adopts amendment to §367.1, Policy Statement, to include
linked deposits as part of its financial assistance that it will be the policy
of the board to provide in order to conserve and protect the state's water
resources and provide resulting benefits to all of the state's citizens.
The board adopts amendment to §367.2, Definitions of Terms, to provide
definitions for eligible lending institution, linked deposit, and linked deposit
agreement in order to implement the AWCLDP. The board adopts a definition
of eligible lending institution that refers to a commercial lending institution
that is either designated a depository of state funds by the Texas comptroller
of public accounts or an institution of the Farm Credit System headquartered
in this state, that agrees to participate in a linked deposit program established
under Water Code §17.905, and that is willing to agree to provide collateral
equal to the amount of linked deposits placed with it. This definition follows
the language of the new legislation in order to maximize the number of institutions
that are eligible to participate. The board adopts a definition for linked
deposit to be a deposit governed by a linked deposit agreement which requires
that: 1) the lending institution pay interest to the board on the deposit
at a rate equal to the asking yield for a U.S. Treasury note with a twelve-month
maturity as of the date five days preceding the submission of all the documents
required of the eligible lending institution to the executive administrator
requesting a linked deposit agreement; 2) the state not withdraw any part
of the deposit except as according to the terms of the linked deposit agreement
and the terms of this chapter; and 3) the institution agree to lend the value
of the deposit to a person at a rate not to exceed the interest paid by the
eligible lending institution to the board plus four percent. This definition
follows the language of the new legislation in order to implement the program
to maximize extent possible under the legislation. The board adopts a definition
for linked deposit agreement as a written agreement between the board and
an eligible lending institution that provides for the deposit of money from
the agricultural water conservation fund (fund) with the lending institution
according to the conditions of this chapter. By defining linked deposit agreement
in this manner, the rules have a ready reference to the contract while leaving
the details of the terms of the contract to be more fully explained in this
chapter related to the AWCLDP.
The board amends §367.3, Eligible Uses of the Fund, to include a new
subsection (3) that specifically authorizes the fund to be used to provide
a linked deposit to an eligible lending institution that agrees to provide
a loan to a person for a conservation project.
The board amends §367.12, Construction Requirements, to include the
phrase "financed by the board through a grant or loan and" so that the requirements
of the section are explicitly limited to the grant and loan programs and not
the linked deposit program.
The board adopts new §367.15, Authorization to Execute Agreements,
to provide the specific authorization to the executive administrator to execute
linked deposit agreements with eligible lending institutions for the purpose
of providing money from the fund to be used for the purposes set forth in
these amendments. Pursuant to new Water Code §17.907, the board is authorized
to approve or disapprove an application for a linked deposit agreement submitted
by an eligible lending institution. Water Code §15.907 specifically authorizes
the board to delegate to the executive administrator the authority to approve
or disapprove such applications. Water Code §17.908 provides that upon
approval of the application by the board, the board and the eligible lending
institution shall enter into a linked deposit agreement. Execution of an agreement
of any sort only requires that one person actually sign, or execute, the agreement.
As a six-member board, only one individual need take the action necessary
to execute the agreement. The term "execute", in the broader sense of ensuring
performance, is a matter that requires more time and attention than the board
members can perform. Therefore, as a matter of necessity, the board delegates
the function of executing financial assistance agreements to the executive
administrator, both in the narrow and broad sense. As a matter of necessity,
the board delegates the function of executing financial assistance agreements
to the executive administrator. New §367.15, in conjunction with new §375.16(b),
is adopted to delegate to the executive administrator the function of reviewing
applications for linked deposit agreements and, if approved, executing such
agreements. In addition to the contract provisions required pursuant to the
other sections in this chapter, new §367.15 provides the executive administrator
with the discretion to include any additional provisions in such agreements,
as the executive administrator may deem necessary to fulfill the purposes
and intent of the program.
The board adopts new §367.16, Conditions Prior to Execution, to set
forth the minimum requirements that the board has determined must be met prior
to the eligible lending institution and the executive administrator executing
a linked deposit agreement. New §367.16(a) identifies the minimum requirements
that the board has determined must be met by an eligible lending institution
when submitting a request to the executive administrator for a linked deposit
agreement. These requirements are prescribed by the statute or are considered
prudent application requirements. New §367.16(a)(1) requires the submission
of the loan application from the person who will be constructing the conservation
project. This subsection requires the lending institution determine that the
submitted loan application to be creditworthy according to the criteria of
the lending institution prior to its submission to the executive administrator.
New §367.16(a)(2) requires submission of a draft loan agreement between
the lending institution and its borrower that identifies the amount of the
loan, identifies the interest rate applied to the loan, sets forth the repayment
schedule, limits the use of the loan proceeds to an eligible project, and
contains all such other terms as determined in the sole discretion of the
lending institution to be appropriate for its loan agreement. New §367.16(a)(1)(A)
limits the total amount of the loan to $250,000 as required by statute. New §367.16(a)(1)(B)
limits the interest rate under the agreement to no more than four percentage
points above the interest rate charged by the board to the lending institution
as required by statute. New §367.16(a)(3) requires two certifications.
New §367.16(a)(3)(A) requires a certification by the lending institution
setting the interest rate that will be charged to its borrower for the proposed
project. New §367.16(a)(3)(B) requires that the lending institution provide
a certification from a director of the soil and water conservation district
for the district in which the project is located as to two facts: 1) that
the loan recipient has a soil and water conservation approved by the district;
and 2) that the project furthers or implements such plan. This certification
is required by statute to insure that the project will implement agricultural
water conservation project. New §367.16(a)(4) requires the lending institution
to submit such other documentation that the executive administrator determines
is necessary in order to insure that the linked deposit, if approved, will
fulfill the objectives of the program. This provision is adopted because the
board believes that the executive administrator should have the discretion
to request additional information that may only be able to be identified as
the program develops or after the initial review of the documents submitted
by a lending institution. This provision allows the executive administrator
the discretion to adapt the application requirements in order to fulfill the
objectives of the program. New §367.16(b) identifies the minimum requirements
that the board has determined to be appropriate before the executive administrator
is authorized to execute a linked deposit agreement. This subsection requires
the executive administrator to review the documentation submitted by the lending
institution and determine that the institution is eligible to participate
in the program, that the documents submitted comply with the requirements
of this section, and that executing the agreement will effectuate the purposes
of the program.
The board adopts new §367.17, Board Obligations in Linked Deposit
Agreements, to identify the minimum responsibilities that the board will assume
if the executive administrator executes a linked deposit agreement. The responsibilities
of the board adopted in new §367.17(a) are to provide money in the amount
identified in the linked deposit agreement to the eligible lending institution
from the fund and to otherwise fulfill the obligations set forth in the linked
deposit agreement. It is proposed to include these requirements by rule because
these are the minimum requirements that the board is expected to fulfill and
which may be enforceable pursuant to a rule of the board. By this section,
eligible lending institutions are informed of the minimum obligations undertaken
by the board with the execution of such an agreement and receive assurance
of compliance with the statutory provisions through enforcement of this section
in addition to contractual remedies available to the lending institution in
event of default. New §367.17(b) also authorizes the board or the executive
administrator to withdraw money deposited with a lending institution either
according to the terms of the linked deposit agreement or in the event that
the institution ceases to be either a state depository or a Farm Credit System
institution headquartered in this state. This rule implements the requirement
set forth in Water Code §17.911.
The board adopts new §367.18, Lending Institution Obligations in Linked
Deposit Agreements, to identify the minimum requirements that an eligible
lending institution will assume upon its execution of a linked deposit agreement
authorized by this section. New §367.18(a) provides that upon execution
of the agreement, the lending institution shall provide collateral equal to
the amount of the money from the fund placed on deposit with it, provide the
loan for the project substantially according to the draft loan agreement provided
with the application, pay interest on the deposit to the board at a rate equal
to the asking yield for a U.S. Treasury note with a twelve-month maturity,
submit compliance reports on a yearly basis to the executive administrator,
return the funds to the board according to the terms of the linked deposit
agreement, and otherwise comply with the linked deposit agreement, these rules,
and applicable federal and state law. These requirements are generally set
forth in the new Water Code provisions as requirements for the linked deposit
agreement. By this section, eligible lending institutions are informed of
the minimum obligations undertaken in executing such an agreement and the
board receives assurance of compliance with the statutory provisions through
enforcement of this section in addition to contractual remedies that may be
available to the board in event of default. New §367.18(b) specifies
that payment delays or defaults by the recipient of the loan do not affect
the liability of the lending institution to the board under the linked deposit
agreement. This rule implements the requirement set forth in Water Code §17.908.
The board adopts new §367.19, Requirements after Execution, to identify
the reporting requirements of the executive administrator to the board. Having
delegated the authority to approve and execute linked deposit agreements,
by new §367.19(1) the executive administrator is required to report monthly
to the board the linked deposit agreements that have been executed and the
status of each loans made by the lending institutions. This provision will
allow the board to routinely review the administration and performance of
the program. By new §367.19(2) the executive administrator is required
to report any instances of noncompliance by a participating lending institution
to the board as well as to the Texas comptroller of public accounts. The comptroller
is included in the reporting requirement for instances of noncompliance because
the board has deemed the lending institution eligible in part due to the comptroller
using the lending institution as a state depository. By reporting the instance
of noncompliance to the comptroller, the board potentially will be assisting
the comptroller in the protection of other funds of the state. This rule implements
the requirement set forth in Water Code §17.909.
The board adopts new §367.20, State Liability, to establish as clearly
as possible that the state does not assume any liability to the lending institutions
for any payments that may be due by a borrower of the lending institution
and that the linked deposit is not an extension of credit within the meaning
of the state constitution. This rule implements the requirement set forth
in Water Code §17.910.
There were no comments received on the proposed amendments and new sections.
The amendments and new sections are adopted under the authority
of the Texas Water Code §6.101 and §17.912 which provides the Texas
Water Development Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry
out the powers and duties in the Water Code, other laws of the State, and
the agricultural water conservation program.
The statutory provisions affected by the amendments and new sections are
Texas Water Code Chapter 17, Subchapter J.
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 June 16, 2004.
TRD-200403968
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Effective date: July 6, 2004
Proposal publication date: May 7, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052
The Texas Water Development Board (the board) adopts the repeal of
31 TAC Chapter 375, Subchapter C, §§375.301 - 375.306, concerning
the Nonpoint Source Pollution Loan and Estuary Management Program from the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. The board also adopts new Subchapter C,
Division 1, §375.301 - §375.302, Division 2, §§375.325
- 375.329, and Division 3, §§375.350 - 375.357, concerning Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Project and Estuary Management Financial Assistance
Programs from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund without changes to the
proposed text as published in the May 7, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 4424) and will not be republished. The repeal
and new sections reflect changes to the Texas Water Code enacted by the 78th
Legislature that authorized the creation of the Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Linked Deposit Program (NPSLDP).
The current Subchapter C, Nonpoint Source Pollution Loan and Estuary Management
Program, §§375.301 - 375.306 sets out the provisions of the Nonpoint
Source Loan Program (NPSLP) and the Estuary Management Program (EMP). The
NPSLP is currently the only program of the board which provides financial
assistance to individuals and others for nonpoint source pollution control
projects. In the current NPSLP, the board provides loans directly to individuals
and other private or public entities for nonpoint source pollution control
projects using funds from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, defined in §375.2
as the CWSRF Program Account. Under the repeal and new sections, the NPSLP
and EMP will continue as currently written. The new NPSLDP will provide financial
assistance for nonpoint source pollution control projects in the form of depositing
funds from the CWSRF Program Account into local lending institutions conditioned
on, or linked to, the institution making a loan to an individual for a nonpoint
source pollution control project. The NPSLP and the NPSLDP share common elements
and similar scopes in that both programs provide financial assistance for
nonpoint source pollution control projects.
Therefore, the board adopts new Division 1 for the purpose of identifying
the common scope of the subchapter, which is providing financial assistance
for nonpoint source pollution control projects and estuary management projects,
and to define common terminology. The board adopts new Division 2 to contain
the provisions appropriate for the NPSLP and EMP. The board adopts new Division
3 to contain the provisions appropriate for the NPSLDP.
The board adopts new §375.301, Scope of Subchapter, for the purpose
of identifying the programs covered by the subchapter, which are the NPSLP,
EMP, and the NPSLDP using funds from the CWSRF Program Account. Since all
these programs will be using funds in the CWSRF program account, this section
also states that the other provisions in Subchapter A may apply unless a provision
in this subchapter specifically applies.
The board adopts new §375.302, Definitions of Terms, to provide definitions
of common terminology used in the subchapter. The board adopts a definition
of Best Management Practices, BMP, to refer to those measures that are the
most efficient, practical, and cost effective means to guide a particular
activity or address a particular problem. This term is currently used in the
NPSLP and EMP and no amendments to the definition are proposed. The board
adopts a definition of eligible lending institution that refers to a commercial
lending institution that is either designated a depository of state funds
by the Texas comptroller of public accounts or an institution of the Farm
Credit System headquartered in this state, that agrees to participate in a
linked deposit program established under Water Code §15.611, and that
is willing to agree to provide collateral equal to the amount of linked deposits
placed with it. This definition follows the language of the new legislation
in order to maximize the number of institutions that are eligible to participate.
The board defines individual water quality management plan as a land management
plan that is developed and approved to conserve or improve water resources
of a particular site after having considered characteristics such as soil
types, slope, climate, vegetation and land usage. This term is currently used
in the NPSLP and EMP and no amendments to the definition are proposed. The
board adopts a definition for linked deposit to be a deposit governed by a
linked deposit agreement which requires that: 1) the lending institution pay
interest to the board on the deposit at a rate equal to the asking yield for
a U.S. Treasury note with a twelve-month maturity as of the date five days
preceding the submission of all the documents required of the eligible lending
institution to the executive administrator requesting a linked deposit agreement;
2) the state not withdraw any part of the deposit except as according to the
terms of the linked deposit agreement and the terms of this chapter; and 3)
the institution agree to lend the value of the deposit to a person at a rate
not to exceed the interest paid by the eligible lending institution to the
board plus four percent. This definition follows the language of the new legislation
in order to implement the program to maximize extent possible under the legislation.
The board adopts a definition for linked deposit agreement as a written agreement
between the board and an eligible lending institution that provides for the
deposit of funds from the CWSRF program account with the lending institution
according to the conditions of this subchapter. By defining linked deposit
agreement in this manner, the rules have a ready reference to the contract
while leaving the details of the terms of the contract to be more fully explained
in the division of this subchapter related to the NPSLDP. The board adopts
a definition of the national estuary program to refer to the program created
by the Water Quality Act of 1987. This term is currently used in the NPSLP
and EMP and no amendments to the definition are proposed. The board adopts
a definition of NPS Loan Program to refer to the Nonpoint Source Pollution
Loan Program which is set forth in Division 2 of this subchapter. The definition
is currently used for the NPSLP but is amended here for the purpose of reflecting
that provisions of the program are proposed to be set forth in Division 2
of this subchapter. The board defines NPS management report as the most recent
Texas Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Report and Management Program adopted
by the commission. This term is currently defined for the NPSLP but is amended
here for the purpose of referring to the most recent version of the commission's
report because the report is amended from time to time by the commission.
This definition, as amended, will therefore clarify which report is being
referred to. The board adopts a definition of person to include an individual,
corporation, partnership, association, state, municipality, commission, or
political subdivision of a state or any interstate body, and that explicitly
coincides with the definition of the Clean Water Act. This term is currently
used in the NPSLP and EMP and no amendments to the definition are proposed.
The board adopts new Division 2, Nonpoint Source Pollution Loan and Estuary
Management Program, to contain the provisions previously used for the NPSLP
and EMP. The board adopts new §375.325, Purpose, to clearly state that
the purpose of this division is to set forth the terms of the program by which
the board will make a loan from funds in the CWSRF program account to a person
for the purposes set forth in this division.
The board adopts new §375.326, Eligible Projects; §375.327, Application
for Assistance; §375.328, Promissory Notes and Loan Agreements; and §375.329,
Lending Rates, to contain the exact same provisions as the former §375.303,
Eligible Projects; §375.304, Application for Assistance; §375.305,
Promissory Notes and Loan Agreements; and §375.306, Lending Rates, respectively.
The board adopts new Division 3, Nonpoint Source Pollution Link Deposit
Program, to implement the newly enacted provisions of Water Code §15.601
et seq. The board adopts new §375.350, Purpose, to identify the purpose
as providing linked deposits from the CWSRF program account to eligible lending
institution so that those institutions will provide loans to persons for the
purpose of nonpoint source pollution control projects.
The board adopts new §375.351, Authorization to Execute Agreements,
to provide the specific authorization to the executive administrator to execute
linked deposit agreements with eligible lending institutions for the purpose
of providing funds from the CWSRF program account to be used for the purposes
set forth in this division. Pursuant to new Water Code §15.614, the board
is authorized to approve or disapprove an application for a linked deposit
agreement submitted by an eligible lending institution. Water Code §15.614
specifically authorizes the board to delegate to the executive administrator
the authority to approve or disapprove such applications. Water Code §15.615
provides that upon approval of the application by the board, the board and
the eligible lending institution shall enter into a linked deposit agreement.
Execution of an agreement of any sort only requires that one person actually
sign, or execute, the agreement. As a six-member board, only one individual
need take the action necessary to execute the agreement. The term "execute",
in the broader sense of ensuring performance, is a matter that requires more
time and attention than the board members can perform. Therefore, as a matter
of necessity, the board delegates the function of executing financial assistance
agreements to the executive administrator, both in the narrow and broad sense.
New §375.351, in conjunction with new §375.352(b), is adopted to
delegate to the executive administrator the function of reviewing applications
for linked deposit agreements and, if approved, executing such agreements.
In addition to the contract provisions required pursuant to the other sections
in this division, new §375.351 provides the executive administrator with
the discretion to include any additional provisions in such agreements, as
the executive administrator may deem necessary to fulfill the purposes and
intent of the program.
The board adopts new §375.352, Conditions Prior to Execution, to set
forth the minimum requirements that the board has determined must be met prior
to the eligible lending institution and the executive administrator executing
a linked deposit agreement. New §375.352(a) identifies the minimum requirements
that the board has determined must be met for an eligible lending institution
to submit a request to the executive administrator for a linked deposit agreement.
These requirements are prescribed by the statute or are considered prudent
application requirements. New §375.352(a)(1) requires that submission
of the loan application from the person who will be constructing the nonpoint
source pollution control project. This paragraph requires that the lending
institution determine that the submitted loan application is creditworthy
according to the criteria of the lending institution. New §375.352(a)(2)
requires submission of a draft loan agreement between the lending institution
and its borrower that identifies the amount of the loan, identifies the interest
rate applied to the loan, sets forth the repayment schedule, limits the use
of the loan proceeds to an eligible project, and contains all such other terms
as determined in the sole discretion of the lending institution to be appropriate
for its loan agreement. New §375.352(a)(1)(A) limits the total amount
of the loan to $250,000 as required by statute. New §375.352(a)(1)(B)
limits the interest rate under the agreement to no more than four percentage
points above the interest rate charged by the board to the lending institution
as required by statute. New §375.352(a)(3) requires two certifications.
New §375.352(a)(3)(A) requires a certification by the lending institution
setting the interest rate that will be charged to its borrower for the proposed
project. New §375.352(a)(3)(B) requires that the lending institution
provide a certification as identified in new §375.353(a) or (b). These
certifications are required by statute to accurately identify the interest
charged to the borrower and to insure that the project will implement nonpoint
source pollution control projects. New §375.352(a)(4) requires the lending
institution to submit such other documentation that the executive administrator
determines is necessary in order to insure that the linked deposit, if approved,
will fulfill the objectives of the program. This provision is adopted because
the board believes that the executive administrator should have the discretion
to request additional information that may only be able to be identified as
the program develops or after the initial review of the documents submitted
by a lending institution. This provision allows the executive administrator
the discretion to adapt the application requirements in order to fulfill the
objectives of the program. New §375.352(b) identifies the minimum requirements
that the board has determined to be appropriate before the executive administrator
is authorized to execute a linked deposit agreement. This subsection requires
the executive administrator to review the documentation submitted by the lending
institution and determine that institution is eligible to participate in the
program, that the documents submitted comply with the requirements of this
section, and that executing the agreement will effectuate the purposes of
the program.
The board adopts new §375.353, Project Certifications, for the purpose
of insuring the proposed project receiving a loan backed by a linked deposit
will be constructing a nonpoint source pollution control project. New §375.353(a)
applies to projects that are proposed for agricultural or silvicultural projects.
For these projects, new §375.353(a) requires that a director of the soil
and water conservation district for the district in which the project is located
must certify to two facts: 1) that the loan recipient has a water quality
management plan that has been certified by the State Soil and Water Conservation
Board; and 2) that the project furthers or implements such plan. New §375.353(b)
applies to proposed projects that are not agricultural or silvicultural projects.
In this instance, the executive director must certify that the loan recipient's
proposed project implements or furthers the most recent nonpoint source pollution
management plan. Both of these subsections are adopted to implement the requirement
set forth in Water Code §15.613.
The board adopts new §375.354, Board Obligations in Linked Deposit
Agreements, to identify the minimum responsibilities that the board will assume
if the executive administrator executes a linked deposit agreement. The responsibilities
of the board in new §375.354(a) are to provide funds in the amount identified
in the linked deposit agreement to the eligible lending institution from the
CWSRF program account and to otherwise fulfill the obligations set forth in
the linked deposit agreement. It is proposed to include these requirements
by rule because there are the minimum requirements that the board is expected
to fulfill and which may be enforceable pursuant to a rule of the board. By
this section, eligible lending institutions are informed of the minimum obligations
undertaken by the board with the execution of such an agreement and receive
assurance of compliance with the statutory provisions through enforcement
of this section in addition to contractual remedies available to the lending
institution in event of default. New §375.354(b) also authorizes the
board or the executive administrator to withdraw funds deposited with a lending
institution either according to the terms of the linked deposit agreement
or in the event that the institution ceases to be either designated a state
depository by the Texas comptroller of public accounts or a Farm Credit System
institution headquartered in this state. This rule is adopted to implement
the requirement set forth in Water Code §15.618.
The board adopts new §375.355, Lending Institution Obligations in
Linked Deposit Agreements, to identify the minimum requirements that an eligible
lending institution will assume upon its execution of a linked deposit agreement
authorized by this division. New §375.355(a) provides that upon execution
of the agreement, the lending institution shall provide collateral equal to
the amount of the funds from the CWSRF program account placed on deposit with
it, provide the loan for the project substantially according to the draft
loan agreement provided with the application, pay interest on the deposit
to the board at a rate equal to the asking yield for a U.S. Treasury note
with a twelve-month maturity, submit compliance reports on a yearly basis
to the executive administrator, return the funds to the board according to
the terms of the linked deposit agreement, and otherwise comply with the linked
deposit agreement, these rules, and applicable federal and state law. These
requirements are generally set forth in the new Water Code provisions as requirements
for the linked deposit agreement. By this section, eligible lending institutions
are informed of the minimum obligations undertaken in executing such an agreement
and the board receives assurance of compliance with the statutory provisions
through enforcement of this section in addition to contractual remedies that
may be available to the board in event of default. New §375.355(b) specifies
that payment delays or defaults by the recipient of the loan do not affect
the liability of the lending institution to the board under the linked deposit
agreement. This rule is adopted to implement the requirement set forth in
Water Code §15.617.
The board adopts new §375.356, Requirements after Execution, to identify
the reporting requirements of the executive administrator to the board. Having
delegated the authority to approve and execute linked deposit agreements,
by new §375.356(1) the executive administrator is required to report
monthly to the board the linked deposit agreements that have been executed
and the status of each loans made by the lending institutions. This provision
will allow the board to routinely review the administration and performance
of the program. By new §375.356(2) the executive administrator is required
to report any instances of noncompliance by a participating lending institution
to the board as well as to the Texas comptroller of public accounts. The comptroller
is included in the reporting requirement for instances of noncompliance because
the board has deemed the lending institution eligible in part due to the comptroller
using the lending institution as a state depository. By reporting the instance
of noncompliance to the comptroller, the board potentially will be assisting
the comptroller in the protection of other funds of the state. This rule is
adopted also to implement the requirement set forth in Water Code §15.616(b).
The board adopts new §375.357, State Liability, to establish as clearly
as possible that the state does not assume any liability to the lending institutions
for any payments that may be due by a borrower of the lending institution
and that the linked deposit is not an extension of credit within the meaning
of the state constitution. This rule is adopted also to implement the requirement
set forth in Water Code §15.617.
There were no comments received on the proposed repeal and new sections.
Subchapter C. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION LOAN AND ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
31 TAC §§375.301 - 375.306
The repeal is adopted under the authority of the Texas Water
Code §6.101 and §15.605 which provide the Texas Water Development
Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers
and duties in the Water Code and other laws of the State and of the state
revolving loan funds.
The statutory provisions affected by the repeal are Texas Water Code Chapter
15, Subchapter J.
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 June 16, 2004.
TRD-200403969
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Effective date: July 6, 2004
Proposal publication date: May 7, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052
1.
INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS
31 TAC §375.301, §375.302
These new sections are adopted under the authority of Texas
Water Code, §6.101, which requires the board to adopt rules necessary
to carry out the powers and duties of the board, Texas Water Code, §15.605
which requires the board to adopt rules for Subchapter J, Chapter 15, Water
Code including the nonpoint source loan program and estuary management program,
and rules to establish the nonpoint source linked deposit program.
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 June 16, 2004.
TRD-200403970
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Effective date: July 6, 2004
Proposal publication date: May 7, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052
31 TAC §§375.325 - 375.329
These new sections are adopted under the authority of Water
Code, §6.101, which requires the board to adopt rules necessary to carry
out the powers and duties of the board and Water Code, §15.605 which
requires the board to adopt rules establishing the nonpoint source loan program
and estuary management program.
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 June 16, 2004.
TRD-200403971
Suzanne Schwartz
General Counsel
Texas Water Development Board
Effective date: July 6, 2004
Proposal publication date: May 7, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052
Part 2.
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
Subchapter B. STAMPS
Subchapter C. VESSEL REGISTRATION AGENTS AND SURETY BONDS
Subchapter D. LICENSE DEPUTIES
Subchapter E. SELLING PRICE OF DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION
Subchapter F. COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT NUMBERS
Subchapter G. TEXAS FRESHWATER FISHERIES CENTER ADMISSION FEES
Subchapter H. MARINE SAFETY ENFORCEMENT--TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FEES
Subchapter I. PROTEST PROCEDURES FOR VENDORS
Subchapter J. EXEMPTIONS FOR DISABLED VETERANS
Subchapter K. LICENSE STANDARDS
Subchapter L. MARINE DEALERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND MANUFACTURERS
Subchapter A. FEES
2.
FACILITY ADMISSION AND USE FEES
3.
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION FEES
Subchapter B. STAMPS
Subchapter C. LICENSE DEPUTIES AND VESSEL REGISTRATION AGENTS
Subchapter D. COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT NUMBERS
Subchapter E. DISPLAY OF BOAT REGISTRATION
Subchapter F. BONDED TITLE FOR VESSELS/OUTBOARD MOTORS
Subchapter G. MARINE DEALERS, DISTRIBUTORS, AND MANUFACTURERS
Subchapter H. LICENSE STANDARDS
Chapter 65.
WILDLIFE
2.
OPEN SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS--HUNTING PROVISIONS
3.
SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS--FISHING PROVISIONS
Chapter 65.
WILDLIFE
2.
OPEN SEASONS AND BAG LIMITS--HUNTING PROVISIONS
Subchapter C. PERMITS FOR TRAPPING, TRANSPORTING, AND TRANSPLANTING GAME ANIMALS AND GAME BIRDS
Part 5.
BOARDS FOR LEASE OF STATE-OWNED LANDS
Part 10.
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Chapter 375.
CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND
Subchapter C. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT AND ESTUARY MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
2.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION LOAN AND ESTUARY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
3.
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION LINK DEPOSIT PROGRAM