TITLE 31.NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

Part 10. TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Chapter 367. AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM

31 TAC §§367.2, 367.17, 367.18, 367.21 - 367.26

The Texas Water Development Board (the board) adopts amendments to 31 TAC §§367.2, 367.17 and 367.18 and new §§367.21 - 367.26 under the Agricultural Water Conservation Program, without changes to the proposed text as published in the March 4, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1254) and will not be republished.

The rules are adopted as the board’s policy on collateral under the nonpoint source pollution control linked deposit program. Under that program, lending institutions agree to make loans to individuals for nonpoint source pollution control projects in exchange for the board’s deposit of funds with the institution. These rules provide the requirements on how the deposit of board funds will be collateralized, or secured, as required by the Public Funds Collateralization Act (PFCA).

The board adopts amendments to §367.2 to amend the definition of eligible lending institution. The change will clarify that a state depository is an institution designated by the Texas comptroller of public accounts as a state depository. The section is also amended to add a new definition of pledged security. The term is used throughout the adopted rules, and refers to the securities authorized by the board’s rules and the linked deposit agreement to secure the board’s deposit of funds with the eligible lending institution.

The board adopts an amendment to §367.17 to clarify that when the executive administrator withdraws funds under the linked deposit agreement or because the institutions cease to be eligible to hold the board’s funds, such withdrawal shall be without penalty and shall include withdrawal of accrued interest.

The board adopts an amendment to §367.18 to clarify that the amount of funds required to be deposited as collateral is governed by the newly adopted §367.21 rather than the amount of funds deposited with the lending institution. The difference is that the new provision specifies that the total amount of securities must include accrued interest, and may be reduced by the amount of federal insurance (i.e., FDIC) on the funds.

The board adopts new §367.21 to describe the collateral requirements. New subsection (a) establishes that the funds the board deposits must be secured in an amount not less than the amount on deposit under the linked deposit agreement increased by the amount of any accrued interest and reduced to the extent the deposit is insured by the United States or its instrumentality. This provision reflects the requirements in the PFCA, and assures the board’s deposits are fully secured. New subsection (b) establishes the value of the securities as the market value from a nationally recognized financial information service based upon the previous day’s closing market quotations. This establishes a neutral method for valuation based upon an industry standard, and establishes a specific time for the valuation. This also is the method used to value securities under the board’s rules on investments in 31 TAC Chapter 365, thereby providing consistency between board programs in similar situations. New subsection (c) requires additional collateral to be pledged if the market value falls below the funds on deposit by the board, in order to assure full collateralization of the board’s deposit, and also allows a reduction in collateral if the market value exceeds the board’s funds on deposit, and if allowed in the linked deposit agreement. New subsection (d) lists the securities that will be accepted to secure board deposits, and new subsection (e) lists those securities that will not be accepted. The list is taken from the Public Funds Investment Act, §2256.009, and provides a conservative approach to collateralization that will limit the board’s risk in the deposit of its funds. New subsection (f) allows a lending institution to substitute one group of eligible securities with other eligible securities, thereby providing flexibility for the lending institutions while at the same time assuring adequate protection of the board’s deposits. New subsection (g) allows the executive administrator to further limit the selection of securities in the linked deposit agreement, thereby allowing for situation-specific evaluation.

New §367.22 through §367.26 include specific provisions of the PFCA into board rules in order to put lending institutions and custodians on notice of these requirements. Specifically, new §367.22 establishes the requirements for the lending institutions to maintain records and the ability of the comptroller or executive administrator to examine such records and securities. New §367.23 requires the lending institution to deposit the securities issued with a custodian, which must execute a written agreement with the executive administrator regarding the terms and conditions of how the funds will be secured. Still tracking the requirements of the PFCA, the section further provides which entities are eligible to be a custodian, and that the custodian holds the pledged securities in trust, and acts as a bailee or agent of the board. It establishes the requirements of a custodian to record the receipt of a pledged security and issue a trust receipt to the executive administrator. It further establishes that the eligible lending institution shall pay any charges of the custodian bank for accepting and holding the securities.

New §367.24 allows the custodian to deposit a pledged security with a specified list of institutions, and establishes the duties of the institution into which the pledged security is deposited, in a manner that reiterates the requirements of the PFCA. New §367.25 requires the custodian to maintain records regarding the pledged securities and transactions relating to them, allows the executive administrator and comptroller to examine the securities or records of the custodian, and requires custodians to file a collateral report with the comptroller. New §367.26 establishes, as required by the PFCA, that an audit or regulatory examination of lending institutions and custodians must include an examination and verification of pledged securities and records relating to such, and that significant or material noncompliance with the requirements of board rule and the PFCA shall be reported to the comptroller and board.

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 §17.905, which provide the Texas Water Development Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties in the Texas Water Code and other laws of the State and for the linked deposit 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 April 19, 2005.

TRD-200501609

Suzanne Schwartz

General Counsel

Texas Water Development Board

Effective date: May 9, 2005

Proposal publication date: March 4, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052

Chapter 375. CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

Subchapter C. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT AND ESTUARY MANAGEMENT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

The Texas Water Development Board (the board) adopts amendments to 31 TAC §§375.302, 375.354 and 375.355 and new §§375.358 - 375.363 under Clean Water State Revolving Fund, without changes to the proposed text as published in the March 4, 2005, issue of the Texas Register (30 TexReg 1257) and will not be republished.

The rules are adopted as the board’s policy on collateral under the nonpoint source pollution control linked deposit program. Under that program, lending institutions agree to make loans to individuals for nonpoint source pollution control projects in exchange for the board’s deposit of funds with the institution. These rules provide the requirements on how the deposit of board funds will be collateralized, or secured, as required by the Public Funds Collateralization Act (PFCA).

The board adopts an amendment to §375.302 to add a definition of pledged security. The term is used throughout the adopted rules, and refers to the securities authorized by the board’s rules and the linked deposit agreement to secure the board’s deposit of funds with the eligible lending institution.

The board adopts an amendment to §375.354 to clarify that when the executive administrator withdraws funds under the linked deposit agreement or because the institutions cease to be eligible to hold the board’s funds, such withdrawal shall be without penalty and shall include withdrawal of accrued interest.

The board adopts an amendment to §375.355 to clarify that the amount of funds required to be deposited as collateral is governed by the newly adopted §375.358 rather than the amount of funds deposited with the lending institution. The difference is that the new provision specifies that the total amount of securities must include accrued interest, and may be reduced by the amount of federal insurance (i.e., FDIC) on the funds.

The board adopts new §375.358 to describe the collateral requirements. New subsection (a) establishes that the funds the board deposits must be secured in an amount not less than the amount on deposit under the linked deposit agreement increased by the amount of any accrued interest and reduced to the extent the deposit is insured by the United States or its instrumentality. This provision reflects the requirements in the PFCA, and assures the board’s deposits are fully secured. New subsection (b) establishes the value of the securities as the market value from a nationally recognized financial information service based upon the previous day’s closing market quotations. This establishes a neutral method for valuation based upon an industry standard, and establishes a specific time for the valuation. This also is the method used to value securities under the board’s rules on investments in 31 TAC Chapter 365, thereby providing consistency between board programs in similar situations. New subsection (c) requires additional collateral to be pledged if the market value falls below the funds on deposit by the board, in order to assure full collateralization of the board’s deposit, and also allows a reduction in collateral if the market value exceeds the board’s funds on deposit, and if allowed in the linked deposit agreement. New subsection (d) lists the securities that will be accepted to secure board deposits, and new subsection (e) lists those securities that will not be accepted. The list is taken from the Public Funds Investment Act, §2256.009, and provides a conservative approach to collateralization that will limit the board’s risk in the deposit of its funds. New subsection (f) allows a lending institution to substitute one group of eligible securities with other eligible securities, thereby providing flexibility for the lending institutions while at the same time assuring adequate protection of the board’s deposits. New subsection (g) allows the executive administrator to further limit the selection of securities in the linked deposit agreement, thereby allowing for situation-specific evaluation.

New §375.359 through §375.363 include specific provisions of the PFCA into board rules in order to put lending institutions and custodians on notice of these requirements. Specifically, new §375.359 establishes the requirements for the lending institutions to maintain records and the ability of the comptroller or executive administrator to examine such records and securities. New §375.360 requires the lending institution to deposit the securities issued with a custodian, which must execute a written agreement with the executive administrator regarding the terms and conditions of how the funds will be secured. Still tracking the requirements of the PFCA, the section further provides which entities are eligible to be a custodian, and that the custodian holds the pledged securities in trust, and acts as a bailee or agent of the board. It establishes the requirements of a custodian to record the receipt of a pledged security and issue a trust receipt to the executive administrator. It further establishes that the eligible lending institution shall pay any charges of the custodian bank for accepting and holding the securities.

New §375.361 allows the custodian to deposit a pledged security with a specified list of institutions, and establishes the duties of the institution into which the pledged security is deposited, in a manner that reiterates the requirements of the PFCA. New §375.362 requires the custodian to maintain records regarding the pledged securities and transactions relating to them, allows the executive administrator and comptroller to examine the securities or records of the custodian, and requires custodians to file a collateral report with the comptroller. New §375.363 establishes, as required by the PFCA, that an audit or regulatory examination of lending institutions and custodians must include an examination and verification of pledged securities and records relating to such, and that significant or material noncompliance with the requirements of board rule and the PFCA shall be reported to the comptroller and board.

There were no comments received on the proposed amendments and new sections.

1. INTRODUCTORY PROVISIONS

31 TAC §375.302

The amendments are adopted under the authority of the Texas Water Code §6.101 and §15.611, which provide the Texas Water Development Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties in the Texas Water Code and other laws of the State and for the linked deposit program.

The statutory provisions affected by the amendments 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 April 19, 2005.

TRD-200501610

Suzanne Schwartz

General Counsel

Texas Water Development Board

Effective date: May 9, 2005

Proposal publication date: March 4, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052

3. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION LINK DEPOSIT PROGRAM

31 TAC §§375.354, 375.355, 375.358 - 375.363

The amendments and new sections are adopted under the authority of the Texas Water Code §6.101 and §15.611, which provide the Texas Water Development Board with the authority to adopt rules necessary to carry out the powers and duties in the Texas Water Code and other laws of the State and for the linked deposit program.

The statutory provisions affected by the amendments and new sections 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 April 19, 2005.

TRD-200501611

Suzanne Schwartz

General Counsel

Texas Water Development Board

Effective date: May 9, 2005

Proposal publication date: March 4, 2005

For further information, please call: (512) 475-2052

Part 16. COASTAL COORDINATION COUNCIL

Chapter 501. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Subchapter B. GOALS AND POLICIES

31 TAC §501.26

The Texas Coastal Coordination Council (Council) adopts amendments to §501.26 relating to Policies for Construction in the Beach/Dune System. The amendment to §501.26(b) is adopted with changes to the proposed text published in the October 22, 2004 issue of the Texas Register (29 TexReg 9812). The proposed text included an amendment to §501.26(b)(5), relating to the construction of shore protection projects in sea turtle nesting areas, and a proposed amendment to §501.26(b)(6), relating to construction of shore protection projects on stable and accreting beaches. The Council adopts the proposed amendment to §501.26(b)(5) as published on October 22, 2004, to allow for the location of shore protection projects in permitted areas as long as such projects do not "adversely affect sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species." The Council is not adopting the proposed amendment to §501.26(b)(6), which would have specifically allowed for the construction of shore protection projects on stable or accreting beaches as long as such projects were "landward of the foredune ridge, or where there is no foredune ridge, landward of the line of vegetation," in light of issues raised by public comment.

The Council is amending §501.26(b)(5) to allow for the location of shore protection projects in permitted areas as long as such projects do not adversely affect sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species. Section 501.26(b)(5) currently prohibits the location of a shore protection project in a sea turtle nesting area or in any other location where the project will adversely affect an endangered species. The Council is amending §501.26(b)(5) to make consistency determinations relating to shore protection projects uniform for both sea turtle nesting areas and other endangered species. Under the current rule, consistency determinations regarding sea turtle nesting areas depend on whether the particular location is, in fact, a sea turtle nesting area. If it is, then a shore protection project is prohibited. If another endangered species is involved, however, the determination is limited to whether that endangered species is adversely affected.

Potential sea turtle nesting areas have expanded to cover most of the Texas coast, including areas where shore protection projects currently exist. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), which regulates actions under the Endangered Species Act, informally considers all Texas beaches bordering on the seaward shore of the Gulf of Mexico as potential sea turtle nesting areas. Thus, the current rule could be interpreted in a manner that would preclude the construction of shore protection projects along the entire Texas coast, even in areas where sea turtles have never been present, and even if construction activities are limited and controlled to minimize the effects on sea turtle nesting activities.

The Council believes that the focus of the consistency determination should be on whether construction activities connected with a shore protection project actually affect sea turtle nesting areas adversely, rather than on whether or not that particular area might be a nesting area. By changing this rule to require the avoidance of any adverse impacts to a sea turtle nesting area, the Council's intent is that any shore protection project must be designed and constructed so as to avoid impacts to all sea turtle nesting areas, whether or not they are designated as sea turtle nesting areas or habitat, are designated as potential nesting areas, or include areas of the coast with documented past nesting activity.

Representatives of the following entities provided comments generally in favor of the proposed rulemaking related to turtle nesting areas: Galveston County, Texas.

Representatives of the following organizations provided comments generally opposed to the proposed rulemaking related to turtle nesting areas: Help Endangered Animals-Ridley Turtles (HEART), and Sierra Club Galveston Group.

A representative of HEART commented that beach nourishment projects should never be conducted during sea turtle nesting season. The Council disagrees. Beach nourishment is often required in conjunction with the construction of a shore protection project. The rule, as amended, requires that shore protection projects must avoid adverse impacts to sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that the construction of a project will not adversely impact sea turtle nesting areas, whether or not the construction will occur during sea turtle nesting season. No change was made in response to this comment.

The same commenter also said that the Land Office should also set guidelines for lighting that will not attract sea turtles and hatchlings to roads where they will be killed by vehicles. The Council agrees. The Land Office has indicated to the Council that it is developing a comprehensive educational program to minimize impacts to nesting sea turtles for not only nourishment projects and shore protection projects, but beach maintenance practices and the general public's use of the beach as well. The educational program will address the issue of lighting, and the danger it may pose to nesting sea turtles. No change was made in response to this comment.

One commenter stated that a project was not monitored for sea turtle nesting areas because federal money was not involved. The rule requires that shore protection projects must avoid adverse impacts to sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that the construction of a project will not adversely impact sea turtle nesting areas. Also, the Land Office has indicated to the Council that it is currently implementing an educational and training program for beach maintenance personnel as well as local governments permitting projects such as sand fencing to ensure that sea turtle nesting is not adversely affected by activities on the beach. No change was made in response to this comment.

The same commenter also noted that beach nourishment projects create escarpments that can harm sea turtles. The Council agrees. The rule requires that shore protection projects must avoid adverse impacts to sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that the construction of a project will not adversely impact sea turtle nesting areas. In assuring that sea turtle nesting areas are not adversely affected, post-project grading will be required that will first provide for inspection to ensure that no turtles have nested in the escarpment, then the escarpment will be graded to provide a natural slope conducive to nesting sea turtles. No change was made in response to this comment.

One commenter representing the Sierra Club Galveston Group opposes amending the Council's rules to allow beach replenishment, armoring and protection during the Kemp's ridley sea turtle nesting season, and stated that there has been inadequate investigation regarding potential harm to the endangered Kemp's ridley sea turtle. The Council disagrees with this comment. The rule requires that shore protection projects must avoid adverse impacts to sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that the construction of a project will not adversely impact sea turtle nesting areas. No change was made in response to this comment.

One commenter stated that the language as found in the proposed rule revision is consistent with language provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in their concurrence letters for the Galveston Island and Bolivar Peninsula repair projects. The Council agrees with the commenter. No change was made in response to this comment.

Pursuant to Texas Government Code §2001.0225, a regulatory analysis is not required for the rulemaking as a "major environmental rule." Under the Government Code, a "major environmental rule" is a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. A regulatory analysis is required only when a major environmental rule exceeds a standard set by federal law, exceeds an express requirement of state law, exceeds a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state or federal program, or are adopted solely under the general powers of the Council. The rulemaking will not adversely affect, in a material way, the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector of the state. The rulemaking does not exceed a standard set by federal law, does not exceed an express requirement of state law, does not exceed a requirement of a delegation agreement or contract between the state and an agency or representative of the federal government to implement a state or federal program, and is not adopted solely under the general powers of the Council.

This amendment is adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the Council and the Texas General Land Office to perform the duties provided in Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the commissioner to develop a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.053, which sets out the elements of the CMP, including a description of the organizational structure for implementing and administering the CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.055, which requires the Council to hold public hearings, as deemed appropriate, to consider amendments to the CMP; and §33.204, which authorizes the Council to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule.

Texas Natural Resources Code §§33.051, 33.052, 33.053, 33.054, 33.055, and 33.204 are affected by this proposed rulemaking.

§501.26.Policies for Construction in the Beach/Dune System.

(a) Construction in critical dune areas or areas adjacent to or on Gulf beaches shall comply with the following policies:

(1) Construction within a critical dune area that results in the material weakening of dunes and material damage to dune vegetation shall be prohibited.

(2) Construction within critical dune areas that does not materially weaken dunes or materially damage dune vegetation shall be sited, designed, constructed, maintained, and operated so that adverse "effects" (as defined in §15.2 of this title (relating to Coastal Area Planning) on the sediment budget and critical dune areas are avoided to the greatest extent practicable. For purposes of this section, practicability shall be determined by considering the effectiveness, scientific feasibility, and commercial availability of the technology or technique. Cost of the technology or technique shall also be considered. Adverse effects (as defined in Chapter 15 of this title (relating to Coastal Area Planning) that cannot be avoided shall be:

(A) minimized by limiting the degree or magnitude of the activity and its implementation;

(B) rectified by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the adversely affected dunes and dune vegetation; and

(C) compensated for on-site or off-site by replacing the resources lost or damaged seaward of the dune protection line.

(3) Rectification and compensation for adverse effects that cannot be avoided or minimized shall provide at least a one-to-one replacement of the dune volume and vegetative cover, and preference shall be given to stabilization of blowouts and breaches and on-site compensation.

(4) The ability of the public, individually and collectively, to exercise its rights of use of and access to and from public beaches shall be preserved and enhanced.

(5) Non-structural erosion response methods such as beach nourishment, sediment bypassing, nearshore sediment berms, and planting of vegetation shall be preferred instead of structural erosion response methods. Subdivisions shall not authorize the construction of a new erosion response structure within the beach/dune system, except as provided by subsection (b) of this section or a retaining wall located more than 200 feet landward of the line of vegetation. Subdivisions shall not authorize the enlargement, improvement, repair or maintenance of existing erosion response structures on the public beach. Subdivisions shall not authorize the repair or maintenance of existing erosion response structures within 200 feet landward of the line of vegetation except as provided in §15.6(d) of this title (relating to Concurrent Dune Protection and Beachfront Construction Standards).

(b) Construction of structural shore protection projects, including geotextile shore protection projects, in critical dune areas or areas adjacent to or on Gulf Beaches shall comply with the following policies:

(1) The size and the length of a shore protection project shall be determined as part of a site-specific construction and maintenance plan, taking into account both technical requirements and policy issues as described under this subsection, and shall be limited to the minimum size necessary to fulfill the project's goals and purposes.

(2) A shore protection project shall only be used to protect community developments, public infrastructure, and for other lawful public purposes and shall not be used solely to protect individual structures or properties. A community development may include a neighborhood or aggregation of residences or commercial structures.

(3) A shore protection project located parallel to the shore shall be located landward of the boundary of state-owned submerged land as determined by a coastal boundary survey conducted in accordance with Texas Natural Resources Code §33.136, and shall avoid and otherwise minimize adverse effects to dunes and dune vegetation.

(4) To maximize the protection offered by a shore protection project, to enhance the survivability of the project, and to minimize adverse effects to natural resources, a shore protection project shall be located according to the following preferred order:

(A) In an area where a foredune ridge is present, where practicable, a shore protection project shall be located landward of the foredune ridge;

(B) Where there is no foredune ridge, a project shall be located landward of the line of vegetation, where practicable;

(C) Where it is not practicable to locate a shore protection project landward of the line of vegetation, a project shall be located at the line of vegetation; or

(D) Where there is no other practicable location, a shore protection project shall be located at the most landward point of the public beach provided that the project sponsor has provided financial assurance that the pre-project beach width will be maintained through beach nourishment.

(5) A shore protection project shall not adversely affect sea turtle nesting areas or an endangered species.

(6) Shore protection projects shall not be constructed on stable or accreting beaches.

(7) A shore protection project shall be designed to avoid and otherwise minimize any adverse effects to adjacent beaches or properties at either end of a project.

(8) To the extent allowed by law, a dune protection permit is required to authorize the construction of a shore protection project in the beach/dune system.

(9) A mitigation plan shall be submitted for any adverse effects to critical dune areas as a result of the construction and presence of a shore protection project.

(10) Public input shall be incorporated into a local government's review and approval of a shore protection project. Methods to obtain public input include public meetings, notices by mail to affected property owners, publication of notices in local newspapers, the Texas Register , and web sites.

(11) The success criteria for a shore protection project shall be developed by a project sponsor with consideration for the health and maintenance of the beach/dune system.

(12) The sponsor of a shore protection project shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the project and, if necessary, beach nourishment and/or removal of the project.

(13) Sand from the beach/dune system shall not be used to fill or cover a shore protection project. Where appropriate, a shore protection project shall remain covered with sand and dune vegetation with a preference for natural dune vegetation. The sand and vegetation used to cover a shore protection project shall conform to the standards for dune restoration projects as described in §15.4 (relating to Dune Protection Standards) and §15.7, (relating to Local Government Management of the Public Beach) of this title.

(14) Long-term monitoring of a shore protection project shall be required to determine the project's effect on the beach/dune system and the project's effectiveness. Prior to the construction of a shore protection project, a project sponsor shall collect scientifically valid baseline data for monitoring the line of vegetation, the extent of the dry beach, a beach profile, and any other characteristics necessary for evaluating the project's effectiveness.

(15) Existing public access in the area of a shore protection project shall be replicated if not enhanced. A local government shall not impair or close an existing public access point or close a public beach to pedestrian or vehicular traffic without prior approval of the GLO as required under the Open Beaches Act, Texas Natural Resource Code Annotated, Chapter 61, and the Beach/Dune rules, Chapter 15 of this title.

(c) The GLO shall comply with the policies in this section when certifying local government dune protection and beach access plans and adopting rules under the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 61 and 63. Local governments required by the Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapters 61 and 63, and Chapter 15 of this title (relating to Coastal Area Planning) to adopt dune protection and beach access plans shall comply with the applicable policies in this section when issuing beachfront construction certificates and dune protection permits.

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

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on April 21, 2005.

TRD-200501655

Trace Finley

Policy Director, General Land Office

Coastal Coordination Council

Effective date: May 11, 2005

Proposal publication date: October 22, 2004

For further information, please call: (512) 305-8598