TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION

PART 2. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

CHAPTER 57.FISHERIES

SUBCHAPTER A. HARMFUL OR POTENTIALLY HARMFUL FISH, SHELLFISH, AND AQUATIC PLANTS

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes the repeal of §57.136, an amendment to §57.113, and new §57.136 and §57.137, concerning Harmful or Potentially Harmful Fish, Shellfish, and Aquatic Plants. The proposed repeal, amendment, and new sections are necessary to establish special provisions for the culture and sale of water spinach.

Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, no person may import, possess, sell, or place into water of this state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the department.

Water spinach (Ipomoea aquatica) is an exotic aquatic plant native to southeast Asia, where it is a popular vegetable crop that has been cultivated for centuries. It is a fast-growing plant that thrives in warm, moist environments. Water spinach is a noxious species in areas where it has escaped containment. Owing to its prolific growth rate, it is a concern because it can infest lakes, ponds and river shorelines, displacing native plants that are important for fish and wildlife, and because it can block drainage structures, it can create ideal breeding environments for mosquitoes.

Water spinach has been classified as a noxious plant by the federal government, and is prohibited in many states. Possession of water spinach was prohibited in Texas until 2005, when the department discovered that southeast Asian immigrants in the Houston area had been growing and selling it undetected for over two decades. The department initiated survey efforts in an effort to determine if water spinach was growing in the wild in the Houston area and concluded that it was not. On that basis, the department in 2006 allowed the possession of water spinach for personal consumption while it developed a risk analysis to determine the potential environmental hazards associated with allowing culture and sale.

The department's risk analysis was completed earlier this year and concluded that water spinach is a low-risk species that can be cultured and sold with little potential for environmental hazard in Texas, provided it is strictly regulated. The proposed rules would implement a regulatory regime to require persons who grow water spinach for any purpose to acquire an exotic species permit issued by the department (in addition to any other permits required by other governmental entities). The proposed rules would establish facilities standards, require facility inspections, impose recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and prescribe processing and packaging standards, including standards for transportation. The intent of this rulemaking is to allow the culture and sale of water spinach without placing onerous administrative and regulatory burdens on consumers, while simultaneously providing a mechanism for the department to identify and monitor the points of origin of water spinach, which is intended to allow the department to react in a timely and effective fashion to protect native ecosystems in the event that water spinach is detected in the wild. To this end, the proposed rules would require only those persons who grow water spinach to obtain an exotic species permit. Persons who purchase water spinach for a commercial purpose would be required only to maintain invoices and sales receipts. Persons who purchase water spinach for personal consumption (e.g., diners, grocery store customers, etc.) would not be required to obtain a permit or maintain records. The proposed rules would be in addition to any other provisions of the department's existing rules governing possession of harmful and potentially harmful exotic aquatic plants.

The proposed amendment to §57.113, concerning Exceptions, would eliminate references to water spinach in subsections (d) and (m), which is necessary to prevent conflicts with proposed new §57.136, which would address all regulatory provisions specific to water spinach.

Proposed new §57.136, concerning Special Provisions--Water Spinach, would establish provisions unique to the issuance of exotic species permits for the culture of water spinach. All other provisions of the subchapter would continue to apply, except where expressly noted.

Proposed new §57.136(a) would set forth general provisions related to the culture of water spinach.

Proposed new §57.136(a)(1) would restrict the application of the section to the culture, possession, transport, sale, re-sale, and transfer of water spinach, which is necessary because the department does not intend for the section to apply to any other species of harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plant.

Proposed new §57.136(a)(2) would require any person who grows water spinach for a commercial purpose to obtain an exotic species permit from the department. The proposed new would also define "commercial purpose" as "the act of growing, possessing, or transporting water spinach in exchange for money or anything of value or offering to grow, possess, or transport water spinach in exchange for money or anything of value." The definition is necessary to create a standard for determining the conditions under which an exotic species permit must be obtained. The proposed new paragraph also would create two exceptions under which persons are not required to obtain an exotic species permit.

The first exception, set forth under proposed new §57.136(a)(3), would authorize the possession, purchase, and re-sale of water spinach obtained from a permitted source in Texas or a lawful out-of-state source, provided the water spinach is processed and packaged in accordance with all applicable food processing and handling laws; exotic species invoices and sales receipts are maintained for two years; any water spinach sold or transferred is sold or transferred to a consumer (defined as a person obtaining water spinach for personal consumption); and any water spinach not sold, transferred, or consumed is disposed of in such a way as to prevent release into the environment. As mentioned previously, the department's intent is to provide protection to the environment while minimizing regulatory burdens on people involved in water spinach commerce and consumers. For persons who obtain water spinach from a permitted grower or lawful out-of-state source for a commercial purpose, the department believes it is sufficient to require only that applicable food processing and handling laws be followed, that sales receipts and invoices be retained for a period of two years, and that excess or unwanted water spinach be properly disposed of. The need to follow legal requirements for food safety is self-evident. The proposed requirement to maintain invoices and sales receipts is necessary to provide a way for the department to follow a chain of possession to determine that water spinach being offered for sale in the state comes from known, regulated sources. The proposed requirement to safely dispose of unused or unsold water spinach is necessary to ensure that water spinach is not carelessly discarded, which could lead to establishment of populations in the wild.

The second exception, set forth in proposed new §57.136(a)(4), would allow any person to possess water spinach for personal consumption without having to obtain an exotic species permit. The proposed provision is necessary to allow restaurant and grocery store patrons to purchase and possess water spinach as end users.

Proposed new §57.136(a)(5) would require a person who seeks to obtain an exotic species permit for the culture of water spinach to provide a Texas driver's license or identification number and a Social Security number to the department as part of the permit application process. The proposed provision is necessary to establish the legal identity of all persons who culture water spinach so the department can prosecute violators and prevent convicted offenders from obtaining permits under the provisions of proposed new §57.136(g). The department is also required by state and federal law to collect social security numbers from all persons to whom the department issues recreational or commercial permits.

Proposed new §57.136(a)(6) would prohibit the use of water spinach as fodder or forage for animals. The proposed provision is necessary to prevent the establishment of water spinach in the wild. The rules as proposed impose standards that require water spinach to be confined within physical structures or within closed containers, which is necessary because of its potential to grow in the wild if it escapes. Therefore, the feeding of water spinach to animals, particularly in low-lying areas and other areas where water is abundant and occasionally prone to flooding, is obviously a practice that should be prohibited.

Proposed new §57.136(b) would allow persons who hold a valid exotic species permit for the culture of water spinach to designate additional persons to engage in permitted activities under the person's permit. The proposed provision is necessary because a culture operation may involve more than one person. The department does not wish to create a costly administrative structure for itself, nor does it wish to require persons who are employed by permittees to be subject to provisions that the permittee must comply with and that are sufficient for the department's purposes.

Proposed new §57.136(c) would establish facility requirements specific to facilities where water spinach is cultured. The department has determined that although the potential for water spinach to become established in the wild is slight, it is nonetheless reasonable and prudent to establish specific standards to prevent escapement.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(1) would require water spinach to be cultured only in enclosed greenhouses. The proposed provision is intended to isolate production within a physical structure and maintain a sterile zone around the structure, which is necessary to ensure that water spinach is under control at all times.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(2) would require all water spinach plants on a permitted property to be kept free of seeds and flowers at all times. The proposed provision is intended to prevent the natural reproduction of water spinach, because seeds could be easily transported or scattered by accident, which increases the potential for establishment in the wild.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(3) would require all propagation of water spinach to be by cuttings only. As noted in the discussion of proposed new §57.136(2), seeds present a potential risk for establishment in the wild. However, water spinach also reproduces by fragmentation (existing stems can be rooted and will grow readily), so the proposed rule would prohibit propagation by seed and require propagation only by cuttings.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(4) would require water spinach to be cultured only in moist soil. Water spinach can and does grow as a floating plant. The highest risk potential for establishment in the wild is via aqueous transmission. By requiring water spinach to be cultured only in moist soil, the department's intent is to minimize risk of escape as a result of flood events or in areas where there is abundant surface water.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(5) would require that all areas where water spinach is cultured, handled, packed, processed, stored, shipped, or disposed of to be enclosed within a minimum 10-ft buffer zone void of all vegetation. The proposed provision would isolate water spinach within a sterile zone during all stages of handling and shipping, which is necessary to ensure that water spinach is under control at all times.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(6) would require that all handling, packaging, and disposal or water spinach be done at the facility and in a manner to prevent dispersal. The proposed new provision is necessary to minimize the potential for water spinach to escape to the wild.

Proposed new §57.136(c)(7) would require all equipment used to cultivate water spinach to be cleaned of all vegetation prior to removal from a facility. Because water spinach can propagate vegetatively, it is important that equipment that comes into contact with water spinach be cleaned before being taken elsewhere in order to minimize the potential for escape to the wild.

Proposed new §57.136(d) would set forth requirements for the transport and packaging of water spinach.

Proposed new §57.136(d)(1) would define a "package" of water spinach as "a closed or sealed container having a volume of no greater than three cubic feet, accompanied by all required invoices and documentation," and would require that a package contain only water spinach. The department has determined that a maximum package size is necessary to facilitate inspection and verification. The three-cubic-feet standard was selected because it represents a volume that can be readily and easily measured and inspected. The requirement that a package contain only water spinach is necessary because the intent of this rulemaking is to restrict facilities to monoculture production. Allowing facilities to culture and package other types of plants or foodstuffs increases the risk of escape and decreases the department's ability to monitor activities to ensure that water spinach is being handled, processed, and packaged in such a fashion as to minimize escapement. The requirement that each package of water spinach be accompanied by all documentation and invoices is necessary to maintain a chain of custody for law enforcement purposes. Since only the grower is required to obtain a permit, it is necessary for documentation and invoices to remain with water spinach as it proceeds through commerce, giving the department the ability to track water spinach back to a point of origin and verify that it was lawfully grown, processed, and shipped. Absence of documentation and invoices would therefore be evidence that water spinach is unlawfully possessed.

Proposed new §57.136(d)(2) would specify that each package of water spinach be clearly identified, in English, as water spinach. The proposed new provision is necessary to avoid problems with identification of the contents of packages at various points in the chain of commerce. The requirement that the label be in English is necessary because water spinach is known by many different names in various cultures, including many cultures that have ideogrammatic rather than phonetic languages.

Proposed new §57.136(d)(3) would require all water spinach removed from a facility for any reason to be accompanied by a transport invoice and would prescribe the information to be contained on the invoice. The invoice requirement is necessary because only the grower of water spinach is required to obtain a permit. Therefore, the department must have a way to determine that water spinach encountered outside of permitted facilities is lawfully possessed and lawfully grown. By requiring all water spinach removed from a facility to be accompanied by a transport invoice, the department can compare invoice information to the quarterly reports required from the growers to determine whether the water spinach was lawfully cultured.

Proposed new §57.136(e) would prescribe reporting and recordkeeping requirements for persons culturing water spinach under an exotic species permit issued by the department.

Proposed new §57.136(e)(1) would require permittees to maintain an accurate daily record of all sales and transfers of water spinach. The proposed new provision is necessary to ensure that all activities involving the sale or movement of water spinach are recorded in real time. By requiring daily recordkeeping, the department intends to avoid situations in which verification of the origin of water spinach encountered in places other than a permitted facility hinge on memory or hearsay.

Proposed new §57.136(e)(2) would require transport invoices to be retained by both the shipper and receiver of water spinach for a period of two years from the date of delivery. The proposed new provision is necessary to facilitate investigations when they are necessary. The two-year period was selected because that is the statute of limitations for an offense under the subchapter.

Proposed new §57.136(e)(3) would require all documents and records required by the section to be furnished upon request during normal business hours to a department employee acting within the scope of official duties. The proposed new provision is necessary because the department must be able to review records and documents to enforce the provisions of the section, to conduct investigations when necessary, and to verify that permittees are in compliance with the provisions of the subchapter.

Proposed new §57.136(f) would require a permittee to be financially responsible for the costs of detecting, controlling, and eradicating water spinach that escapes from the permittee's facility. The proposed new provision is necessary because the department believes that since water spinach has the potential to become an environmental nuisance, a person who has been entrusted with the privilege of culturing and handling water spinach under a permit should be financially liable for remediating an escapement from a facility.

Proposed new §57.136(g) would provide that a final conviction of a violation of the section is grounds for the department to deny further permit issuance for a period of five years from the date of the convictions. The proposed new provision is necessary because the department believes that a person who has demonstrated disregard for rules designed to protect the natural resources of this state should be prevented from obtaining the privilege of a permit for a reasonable amount of time, which is also intended to function as a deterrent to unscrupulous activities and carelessness.

Proposed new §57.136(h) would stipulate that no person is relieved of the responsibility of complying with other applicable provisions of federal, state, or local laws. The proposed new provision is necessary to clearly state that a permit issued under the subchapter is applicable only to activities governed by the Parks and Wildlife Code.

The proposed repeal of current §57.136, concerning Penalties, would relocate the provisions of that section to proposed new §57.137, which is necessary in order to create room for proposed new §57.136.

Proposed new §57.137, concerning Penalties, would reiterate the statutory penalties for a violation of the subchapter.

Mr. Earl Chilton, Invasive Species Program Director, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcement or administration of the rules.

Mr. Chilton also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rule as proposed will be the ability of persons to engage in the culture and sale of water spinach under rules that will minimize the potential of environmental damage.

Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that there will be no direct economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rules, because it is unlawful at the current time to culture or possess water spinach for a commercial purpose. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006. For the same reason, there will be no adverse economic effect on persons required to comply with the rules as proposed.

The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will exert a positive impact on local economies.

The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

Comments on the proposed rules may be submitted to Mr. Earl Chilton, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4652; e-mail: earl.chilton@tpwd.state.tx.us.

31 TAC §§57.113, 57.136, 57.137

The amendment and new rules are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which prohibits the importation, possession, sale, or placement into water of this state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the department and requires the department to make rules to carry out the provisions of that section.

The proposed amendment and new rules affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 66.

§57.113.Exceptions.

(a) A person who holds a valid Exotic Species Permit issued by the department may possess, propagate, sell and transport to the permittee's private facilities exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish and aquatic plants only as authorized in the permit provided the harmful or potentially harmful exotic species are to be used exclusively:

(1) as experimental organisms in a department approved research program; or

(2) for exhibit in a public aquarium approved for display of harmful or potentially harmful exotic fish, shellfish and aquatic plants.

(b) A person may possess exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish or shellfish, exclusive of grass carp, without a permit, if the fish or shellfish have been gutted, or in the case of oysters, if the oysters have been shucked or otherwise removed from their shells.

(c) A person may possess grass carp harvested from public waters that have not been permitted for triploid grass carp, without a permit, if the grass carp have been gutted.

(d) A person who holds a valid exotic species permit issued by the department may possess, propagate, transport or sell [water spinach,] triploid grass carp, bighead carp, blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureusa), Mozambique tilapia (O. mossambica), Nile tilapia (O. nilotocusa), or hybrids between the three tilapia species, unless otherwise provided by conditions of the permit or these rules.

(e) An aquaculturist who holds a valid exotic species permit issued by the department may possess, propagate, transport, or sell Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) provided the exotic shellfish meet disease free certification requirements listed in §57.114 of this title (relating to Health Certification of Harmful or Potentially Harmful Exotic Shellfish) and as provided by conditions of the permit and these rules.

(f) An operator of a wastewater treatment facility in possession of a valid exotic species permit issued by the department may possess and transport permitted exotic species to their facility only for the purpose of wastewater treatment.

(g) A person may possess Mozambique tilapia in a private pond or private facility subject to compliance with §57.116(d) of this title (relating to Exotic Species Transport Invoice).

(h) The holder of a valid triploid grass carp permit issued by the department may possess triploid grass carp as provided by conditions of the permit and these rules.

(i) A licensed retail or wholesale fish dealer is not required to have an exotic species permit to purchase or possess:

(1) live individuals of triploid grass carp, bighead carp, blue tilapia, Mozambique tilapia, Nile tilapia or hybrids of those species held in the place of business, unless the retail or wholesale fish dealer propagates one or more of these species. However, such a dealer may sell or deliver these species to another person only if the fish have been gutted or beheaded; or

(2) Live Pacific white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) held in the place of business if the place of business is not located within the exclusion zone described in §57.111 of this title (relating to Definitions). However, such a dealer may only sell or deliver this species to another person if the shrimp are dead and packaged on ice or frozen.

(j) The department is authorized to stock triploid grass carp into public waters in situations where the department has determined that there is a legitimate need, and when stocking will not affect threatened or endangered species, coastal wetlands, or specific management objectives for other important species.

(k) An aquaculturist who holds a valid exotic species permit issued by the department may possess, propagate, transport and sell Pacific blue shrimp (Litopenaeus stylirostris) provided the exotic shellfish are cultured under quarantine conditions in private facilities located outside the harmful or potentially harmful exotic species exclusion zone, and meet disease free certification requirements listed in §57.114 of this title [ (relating to Health Certification of Exotic Shellfish) ] and as provided by conditions of the permit and these rules.

(l) A person operating a mechanical plant harvester in accordance with the provisions of a valid exotic species permit issued by the department may remove and dispose of prohibited plant species from public or private waters only by means authorized in the permit.

[(m) Any person may possess water spinach for personal consumption.]

§57.136.Special Provisions--Water Spinach.

(a) General provisions.

(1) The provisions of this section apply only to the culture, possession, transport, sale, re-sale, and transfer of water spinach.

(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4) of this subsection, no person may grow water spinach, or possess or transport water spinach for a commercial purpose, unless that person possesses a valid exotic species permit issued by the department for that purpose. A commercial purpose is defined as the act or intent of growing, possessing, or transporting water spinach in exchange for money or anything of value or offering to grow, possess, or transport water spinach in exchange for money or anything of value.

(3) No permit issued under this section is required to purchase or obtain water spinach for sale or re-sale, provided:

(A) the water spinach is purchased or obtained from a lawful out-of-state source or person legally authorized under this section to grow water spinach;

(B) the water spinach is processed and packaged in accordance with applicable local, state and federal laws governing the processing and handling of food for sale to the public;

(C) copies of all invoices and receipts are retained for a period of two years following the date of purchase or receipt;

(D) the water spinach is sold or transferred directly to a consumer (defined as a person purchasing or obtaining water spinach for personal consumption); and

(E) water spinach that is not sold, transferred or consumed is disposed of in such a manner as to prevent the dispersal of water spinach beyond the establishment or location where it is sold or stored.

(4) No permit issued under this section is required to purchase or possess water spinach for personal consumption, provided the water spinach was lawfully purchased or obtained.

(5) In addition to the requirements of §57.117 of this title (relating to Exotic Species Permit: Application Requirements), an applicant for an exotic species permit under this section shall submit a Texas driver's license or identification number issued in the applicant's name and the applicant's Social Security number as part of the application process.

(6) The use of water spinach to feed domestic or exotic livestock is prohibited.

(b) Subpermittees. A permittee may designate additional persons to conduct permitted activities under the permittee's exotic species permit as subpermittees. A subpermittee must be named on the exotic species permit issued by the department, and the permittee shall furnish the full legal name, physical address, Texas driver's license or identification number, and Social Security number for each subpermittee on the original application for an exotic species permit and any amendments to an exotic species permit.

(c) Facility requirements. In addition to the provisions of this subchapter applicable to a facility where harmful or potentially exotic fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants are cultured, the following provisions apply to the culture of water spinach:

(1) water spinach shall be cultured only in enclosed greenhouses;

(2) all water spinach plants on the property where the facility is located must be free of flowers and seeds at all times;

(3) propagation shall be by cuttings only; seeds are prohibited;

(4) water spinach shall be grown in only in moist soil; aqueous media are prohibited;

(5) a buffer area of at least 10 feet in width and void of all vegetation must be maintained around the perimeter of all areas where water spinach is cultured, handled, packed, processed, stored, shipped, or disposed of;

(6) all handling, packaging, and disposal of water spinach by a permittee must be done at the permitted facility and in such a manner as to prevent dispersal; and

(7) all equipment used in the cultivation of water spinach must be cleaned of all vegetation prior to being removed from a facility.

(d) Transport and packaging requirements.

(1) All water spinach transported from a facility shall be packaged in compliance with this section. A package is defined as a closed or sealed container having a volume no greater than three cubic feet, accompanied by all required invoices and documentation. A package shall contain water spinach only.

(2) Each package of water spinach shall be identified by a label placed on the outside of the package. The label must be clearly visible and shall bear the legend "Water Spinach" in English.

(3) No person may remove water spinach from a permitted facility for any reason unless the water spinach is accompanied by a transport invoice. A transport invoice shall contain the following information, legibly written:

(A) a unique invoice number (invoice numbers shall be sequential);

(B) date of shipment;

(C) name, address and phone number of shipper;

(D) name, address and phone number of receiver;

(E) if applicable, the aquaculture license number of the shipper and receiver; and

(F) if applicable, the exotic species permit number of the shipper and receiver.

(e) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

(1) A person permitted under this section to grow water spinach must maintain an accurate daily record of all sales and/or transfers of water spinach from each permitted facility and submit quarterly reports to the department on a form supplied by the department. The quarterly reports required by this paragraph are due by September 15, December 15, March 15, and June 15 of each year.

(2) A copy of the transport invoice shall be retained by both the shipper and the receiver for a period of two years from the date of delivery of the shipment.

(3) All records and documents required by this section shall promptly be provided upon request during normal business hours to any department employee or peace officer acting within the scope of official duties

(f) Remediation. In the event that water spinach escapes or is improperly or unlawfully dispersed from a facility, the permittee is responsible for all costs associated with the detection, control, and eradication of free-growing water spinach resulting from such escape or dispersal.

(g) A final conviction for a violation of this section is grounds for the department to deny issuance of a permit under this section for a period of five years from the date of conviction. The department will not authorize the designation of any person as a subpermittee if that person has been convicted of a violation of this section within the five-year period preceding a request for subpermittee status.

(h) Nothing in the section shall be construed to relieve any person of any other applicable requirements of federal, state, or local law.

§57.137.Penalties.

The penalties for violation of this subchapter are prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.012 and Agriculture Code, §134.023.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 13, 2009.

TRD-200902838

Ann Bright

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 23, 2009

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


31 TAC §57.136

(Editor's note: The text of the following section proposed for repeal will not be published. The section may be examined in the offices of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department or in the Texas Register office, Room 245, James Earl Rudder Building, 1019 Brazos Street, Austin, Texas.)

The repeal is proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.007, which prohibits the importation, possession, sale, or placement into water of this state exotic harmful or potentially harmful fish, shellfish, or aquatic plants except as authorized by rule or permit issued by the department and requires the department to make rules to carry out the provisions of that section.

The proposed repeal affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 66.

§57.136.Penalties.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 13, 2009.

TRD-200902839

Ann Bright

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 23, 2009

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


CHAPTER 58. OYSTERS AND SHRIMP

SUBCHAPTER A. STATEWIDE OYSTER FISHERY PROCLAMATION

31 TAC §58.11, §58.21

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes amendments to §58.11, concerning Definitions, and §58.21, concerning Taking or Attempting to Take Oysters from Public Oyster Beds: General Rules.

The proposed amendment to §58.11 would implement the provisions of Senate Bill 2379, enacted by the most recent session of the Texas Legislature, which amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 76, to add definitions for "barrel of oysters,'' "natural oyster bed,'' and "open season.'' The proposed amendment would add those definitions to the current rule. The proposed amendment also would replace references to the Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division, which has been reorganized and renamed, with references to the Texas Department of State Health Services, which is the state agency responsible for health certification of shellfish.

The proposed amendment to §58.21 would close public oyster reefs in the East Bay Approved Area in Galveston Bay for two harvest seasons, which will allow for oyster habitat to repopulate with oysters and for those oysters to reach market size. Private oyster leases would not be affected by the closure. The proposed amendment also would replace a reference in subsection (c) to the Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division, which has been reorganized and renamed and is now the Texas Department of State Health Services. The Texas Department of State Health Services is the state agency responsible for health certification of shellfish.

Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.033, the department is required to specify the exact area of beds or reefs from which oysters may be taken. Additionally, Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.115, authorizes the commission to close an area to the taking of oysters when the commission finds that the area is being overworked or damaged or the area is to be reseeded or restocked. Under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.116, oysters cannot be taken from an area that has been closed by the Department of State Health Services (DSHS). DSHS currently allows the harvest of oysters in approved areas of Galveston Bay and the department by permit regulates that harvest.

A pre-Hurricane Ike site assessment showed that the proposed closure area of East Bay, located within the Galveston Bay Complex (made up of West Bay, Trinity Bay, Upper Galveston Bay, East Bay, and Lower Galveston Bay), contained 2,585 productive acres of oyster reef habitat, of which 1,758 acres were public reefs. The remaining 827 acres were contained within 15 private lease sites, controlled by four leaseholders. The last complete pre-Hurricane Ike harvest season for public reefs (November 1, 2007 - April 30, 2008) and private lease reefs (September 1, 2007 - August 31, 2008) in East Bay showed that East Bay accounted for 19% (691,964 lbs.) of coastwide oyster harvest and 25% of total oyster harvest from the Galveston Bay Complex. The 15 private lease sites located within the proposed closure area accounted for 45% (311,010 lbs.) of all oysters harvested from East Bay. Total ex-vessel values (the value of the oysters landed) during that season totaled $2.4 million, 20% of the coastwide value of oyster landings.

When Hurricane Ike struck the Texas gulf coast region on September 13, 2008, it caused extensive damage to the oyster reef habitat in East Bay. The damage was mainly caused by siltation on the reefs and the deposition of sediment on reef material. This siltation does not allow for spat (juvenile oysters) to set on the reef and begin the process of oyster reef repopulation. Sidescan sonar surveys conducted by department staff indicated an approximately 50-60% loss of oyster habitat in Galveston Bay due to heavy sedimentation/siltation and debris over consolidated reefs. The impact was greatest in East Bay, where over 80% of oyster habitat was lost.

In order to repopulate the reefs in East Bay, the department has begun a restoration effort on approximately 20 acres in East Galveston Bay. This effort involves placing additional cultch (reef) material on damaged areas, allowing spat to attach to the material so that restoration can begin. A portion of the 20 acres will be set aside as a research reef. Total oyster reef area permitted for this effort is 350 acres.

The department has determined that the reefs must be closed to harvest for at least two years in order to repopulate the public oyster reefs in East Bay and allow oysters to reach market size.

Robin Riechers, Director of Science and Policy, has determined that for each of the first five years that the proposed rules will be in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local governments as a result of administering or enforcing the proposed rules.

Mr. Riechers also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be rules that accurately reflect statutory intent and rules that lead to increased oyster production by repopulating damaged public oyster reefs and allowing those oysters to reach market size.

Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic affect on small businesses and micro-businesses. As required by Government Code, §2006.002(g), the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule's potential adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guidelines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule's "direct adverse economic impacts'' to small businesses and micro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required. For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic impact'' to mean a requirement that would directly impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department has determined that there will be adverse economic effects on small businesses, microbusinesses, and persons required to comply with the amendments as proposed; however, those effects will be minimal as a result of factors unrelated to the rulemaking. The department has determined that most if not all businesses affected by the proposed rules qualify as small or microbusinesses.

The rules as proposed would prohibit the commercial harvest of oysters from public oyster reefs in the East Bay of Galveston Bay. Since it is unlawful to harvest oysters for a commercial purpose without having acquired a commercial oyster fisherman's license from the department, the proposed rules affects only those persons who hold a current commercial oyster fisherman's license. The department requires commercial oyster fisherman to report oyster catch by location, weight, and selling price. During the most recent oyster season (November 1, 2008 - April 30, 2009), 22 licensed commercial oystermen reported landing oysters taken from public reefs in the area proposed for closure. Using the same data, the dollar value of the annual catch from the area proposed for closure ranged from $70,768 to $564, with an average value of $28,031.72. Therefore, the maximum adverse economic impact of the rules would be a revenue loss of $70,768, the minimum adverse economic effect would be a loss of $564, and the average loss would be $28,031.72.

The analysis above does not take into account the effects of Hurricane Ike. Because Hurricane Ike destroyed more than 80% of the oyster reef habitat in East Bay, a viable commercial fishery in that location is a practical impossibility at the present time and for the immediate future. Allowing continued harvest in the damaged area would prolong and perhaps negate recovery of the fishery to pre-hurricane levels. It is a certainty that if the area were to remain open to oyster harvest, there would be a severe reduction in revenue from oyster catch. Therefore, analyzing the adverse economic impact of the rules on small and microbusinesses, based on an 80% reduction in harvest, the department estimates that the maximum adverse economic impact to small and microbusinesses affected by the rules would be a revenue loss of $14,153.60, the minimum adverse economic impact would be a loss of $112.80, and the average loss would be $5,606.34. The department acknowledges that an 80% reduction in habitat does not correlate exactly to an 80% reduction in harvest, but it provides an estimate of loss that probably underestimates harvest reduction and profits, since more effort would be required to find fewer oysters.

Other than the closure of the East Bay, the proposed rules will not impose additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; adversely affect market competition; or require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.

The department is considering regulatory options other than the closure of public oyster reefs, including the implementation of seasons and bag limits, means and methods requirements, and the implementation of individual quotas for collection. The rules as adopted may reflect one or more of these approaches as a method of reducing or eliminating impacts to small and microbusinesses while still accomplishing the department's goals of implementing regulations to repopulate oyster reefs in the East Bay of Galveston Bay.

The department has determined that the proposed rules will have very little impact upon local employment at the macro or micro level and hence an insignificant impact upon local economies in the Galveston Bay geographical area. The department has determined that the direct employment impact of the proposed rules in this area will to varying degrees affect a total of 22 licensees who reported harvesting oysters in East Bay. However, because approximately 80% of the oyster populations in East Bay were destroyed by Hurricane Ike, the fishery there for all practical commercial purposes ceases to exist. The department notes that the direct employment impacts of the proposed rules will be positive over time, as the proposed rules are intended to restore a commercially viable fishery.

The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

The department has determined that the proposed rules are in compliance with Government Code, §505.11 (Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program) and §505.22 (Consistency Required for New Rules and Rule Amendments Subject to the Coastal Management Program).

Comments on the proposal may be submitted to Jeremy Leitz, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4333; email: jeremy.leitz@tpwd.state.tx.us.

The amendments are proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.301, which authorizes the commission to regulate the taking, possession, purchase, and sale of oysters.

The proposed amendments affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 76.

§58.11.Definitions.

The following words and terms, when used in the subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Approved area--A molluscan shellfish growing area determined to be acceptable for harvesting of molluscan shellfish for direct marketing according to the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP).

(2) Barrel of oysters--As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.001, a barrel of oysters is three boxes of oysters in the shell or two gallons of shucked oysters without shells [ equal to three boxes (bushels) of oysters in the shell]. The dimensions of a box are ten inches by 20 inches by 13 1/2 inches. In filling a box for measurement the oysters may not be piled more than 2 1/2 inches above the height of the box at the center. [Two gallons of shucked oysters without shells equals one barrel of oysters in the shell.]

(3) Conditionally approved area--The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS) [ Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division ] to meet approved area criteria for a predictable period. The period is conditional upon established performance standards specified in a management plan. A conditionally approved area is a restricted area when the area does not meet the approved growing area criteria.

(4) Commission--Refers to the nine member Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Commission.

(5) Department--Refers to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

(6) Natural oyster bed (reef)--As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.051, a natural oyster bed is an area where [exists when ] at least five barrels of oysters are found within 2,500 square feet of any position on a reef or bed.

(7) Open season--A period during which it is lawful to take oysters.

(8) [(7)] Oyster--That species of molluscan shellfish identified as the Eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica and its subspecies. No other species of molluscan shellfish are included within this proclamation.

(9) [(8)] Possess--The act of having in possession or control, keeping, detaining, restraining, or holding as owner, or as an agent, bailee, or custodian of another.

(10) [(9)] Private oyster lease--Those state water bottoms leased from the state for the purpose of producing oysters to individuals or corporations incorporated under the laws of this state.

(11) [(10)] Prohibited area--The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the TDSHS [Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division ] to be unacceptable for the transplanting, gathering for depuration, or harvesting of shellfish. The only shellfish removal permitted from a prohibited area is for the purpose of depletion, as defined in the Control of Harvesting Section of Part 1 of the NSSP.

(12) [(11)] Public oyster bed (reef)--As defined in Parks and Wildlife Code, §76.002, all natural oyster beds (reefs) are public. All oyster beds not designated as private are public.

(13) [(12)] Restricted area--The classification of a shellfish growing area determined by the TDSHS [Texas Department of Health Seafood Safety Division ] to be unacceptable for harvesting of shellfish for direct marketing, but which is acceptable for transplanting or gathering for depuration. A restricted area may be closed for transplanting or gathering for depuration when the Seafood Safety Division determines that the area does not meet the restricted area criteria established in the NSSP.

(14) [(13)] Sack of oysters--A volume of oysters equivalent to a box that weighs no more than 110 pounds including the sack.

§58.21.Taking or Attempting to Take Oysters from Public Oyster Beds: General Rules.

(a) Seasons and Times.

(1) The open season extends from November 1 of one year through April 30 of the following year.

(2) Legal oystering hours--sunrise to sunset.

(b) Size Limits and Possession of Undersized Oysters.

(1) Size limit--Legal oysters must be three inches or larger as measured along the greatest length of the shell.

(2) Oysters which are between 3/4 inch and three inches in length must be returned to the reef at the time of harvest.

(3) Unculled oysters shall be kept separate from culled oysters.

(4) It is unlawful for any person to take or possess a cargo of oysters more than 15% of which are between 3/4 inch and three inches measured from beak to bill or along an imaginary line through the long axis of the shell.

(c) Area Closures.

(1) There is no open public season for oysters from areas declared to be restricted or prohibited by the Texas Department of State Health Services or areas closed by the Commission.

(2) Until September 1, 2011, the area eastward of a line beginning at the Intracoastal Waterway Channel Marker 4 at Sievers Cove (29° 25' 51.3'', 94° 42' 46.2''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker A (29° 26' 17.2'', 94° 43' 28.9''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker B (29° 26' 32.7'', 94° 43' 54.5''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker C (29° 26' 57.5'', 94° 44' 35.5''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker D (29° 27' 17.2'', 94° 45' 07.9''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker E (29° 27' 39.0'', 94° 45' 44.0''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker F (29° 28' 01.2'', 94° 46' 20.7''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker G (29° 28' 19.7'', 94° 46' 51.2''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker H (29° 28' 42.0'', 94° 47' 28.0''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker I (29° 29' 13.2'', 94° 46' 59.3''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker J (29° 29' 45.4'', 94° 46' 29.6''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker K (29° 30' 14.6'', 94° 46' 02.8''), to Galveston Shellfish Marker L (29° 30' 45.3'', 94° 45' 34.5''), to the Smith Point Tide Gauge Piling (29° 31' 17.9'', 94° 45' 04.5'') will be closed to the harvest of oysters from public oyster bed (reef) during the open public season.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 13, 2009.

TRD-200902840

Ann Bright

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 23, 2009

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


CHAPTER 65. WILDLIFE

SUBCHAPTER I. DEPREDATION PERMITS

31 TAC §§65.220 - 65.233

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes new §§65.220 - 65.233, concerning Permits to Control Depredating Wildlife.

House Bill 1965 (H.B. 1965), enacted by the 81st Texas Legislature (Regular Session), amended Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, to alter statutory provisions governing the lethal control of wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code that is causing serious damage to agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests. (Note: The term "aquiculture" is used in Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H; however, the more commonly used variant "aquaculture" is used within the proposed rules to avoid confusion.)

Prior to the enactment of H.B. 1965, Parks and Wildlife Code, Subchapter H, provided for the issuance of a permit to kill protected wildlife, provided the applicant presented evidence to a local county judge or mayor clearly showing that the wildlife was causing serious damage to agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests or other property, or was a threat to public safety. Upon receiving notice from a county judge or mayor, the department was required to inspect the property where the damage was alleged to occur and to make recommendations appropriate for controlling the damage or threat. Under the previous law, a person could apply for a permit (hereinafter, "depredation permit") to kill the protected wildlife only if the measures recommended by the department had failed to remedy the problem caused by the depredating wildlife. A depredation permit specifying the time, place, number and type of wildlife to be killed could be issued by the department, and wildlife killed under a permit was required to be donated to a charitable institution, hospital, a needy person, any other appropriate person, or as directed by the court.

H.B. 1965 provides for a more streamlined, efficient, and timely process for controlling wildlife causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests, or that is a threat to public safety. The provisions of H.B. 1965 eliminate the involvement of county judges and mayors and require persons seeking a depredation permit to apply directly to the department. H.B. 1965, retains the applicability of Subchapter H to situations in which protected wildlife pose a threat to public safety, but eliminates the applicability of the subchapter to situations in which protected wildlife cause damage to property other than agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests, and requires an agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interest to be "commercial" in order to qualify for issuance of a depredation permit.

Additionally, H.B. 1965 authorizes the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission to adopt rules necessary to implement the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, including rules governing reports, reinstatement of cancelled permits, possession of wildlife resources taken or held under the subchapter, qualifications for permit issuance, and the electronic issuance of permits.

The proposed new rules would establish definitions; general provisions; permit application and issuance standards; inspection requirements; the period of validity for depredation permits; notification requirements; lawful means and methods; documentation, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements; provisions for permit denial, cancellation, and reinstatement; establish fees; and provide for prohibited acts and penalties for violation.

Proposed new §65.220, concerning Definitions, would set forth the meanings for words and terms used in the subchapter. The proposed new section is necessary in order to provide unambiguous meanings so that compliance and enforcement are not problematic.

Proposed new §65.220(1) would define the term "appropriate recipient." Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.155, requires the holder of a depredation permit to dispose of wildlife killed under the permit by donating the wildlife to a charitable institution, a hospital, a needy person, or any other appropriate recipient. The proposed new rules would define "appropriate recipient" as "a person or public or private organization that utilizes the donated wildlife for the public good and not for pecuniary gain." It is clear that under Parks and Wildlife Code, Subchapter H, as amended by H.B. 1965, wildlife killed under a depredation permit is to be used to provide a public and not personal benefit. H.B. 1965 amended Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.155, to stipulate that "the permit holder or a person designated under Section 43.154(c)(4) may not keep or sell any part of the wildlife taken under this subchapter, including antlers." The department therefore intends to ensure that an "appropriate recipient" is an entity or person engaged in an activity that is consistent with Subchapter H, as amended.

Proposed new §65.220(2) would create definitions for the term "evidence of commercial interest." Prior to the enactment of H.B. 1965, Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.151, stipulated that depredation permits could be issued to "agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests." H.B. 1965 amended Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.151, to further restrict eligibility to "commercial" agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests. Since there are agricultural, horticultural, and aquacultural interests that are not commercial in nature, it is therefore necessary to establish criteria that can be used to determine eligibility for the issuance of a depredation permit.

Proposed new §65.220(2) defines "evidence of commercial interest" by providing two mechanisms for demonstrating that the applicant's agricultural, horticultural or aquacultural interests are, in fact, commercial interests. Proposed new §65.220(2)(A) would define "evidence of commercial interest" as an attestation by an applicant for a depredation permit that the applicant either raises crops or products that are sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value, or that the applicant raises crops or products to feed livestock or aquacultural stock that is sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value. As noted earlier, H.B. 1965 provides a more streamlined and efficient method for persons to obtain depredation permits. To that end, the department believes an attestation that serious damage is occurring is an initially sufficient basis to justify permit issuance, provided the applicant complies with all other provisions of the proposed rules.

Proposed new §65.220(2)(B) would define "evidence of commercial interest" as "sales receipts, tax receipts, or other documentation acceptable to the department" that the applicant either raises crops or products that are sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value, or raises crops or products to feed livestock or aquacultural stock that is sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value. The proposed definition is intended to address those situations in which a permittee's original attestation, for whatever reasons, requires verification. The proposed definition is necessary to give the department a mechanism to make a determination that a fraudulent application has been submitted, which by other provisions of the proposed new rules would be a basis for permit cancellation, permit denial, or prosecution.

Proposed new §65.220(3) would establish "depredation permit" to mean a permit issued under the authority of the subchapter. The definition is intended to provide a shorthand term for "permits to control wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code" and is necessary avoid repetition of an unwieldy phrase.

Proposed new §65.220(4) would define the term "evidence clearly showing serious damage." As amended by H.B. 1965, Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.151 establishes a statutory standard for a person who seeks issuance of a depredation permit. That standard is "a person who has evidence clearly showing that wildlife protected by this code is causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests, or is a threat to public safety." Proposed new §65.220(4) defines "evidence clearly showing serious damage" by providing three mechanisms for demonstrating that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code are causing serious damage to the applicant's commercial agricultural, horticultural or aquacultural interests. The proposed new provisions are intended to address those situations in which a permittee's attestation, for whatever reasons, requires verification and are necessary to give the department a method of making a determination that a fraudulent application has been submitted, which by other provisions of the proposed new rules would be a basis for permit cancellation, permit denial, or prosecution.

Proposed new §65.220(4)(A) would define "evidence clearly showing serious damage" as an attestation by an applicant for a depredation permit that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code is causing serious damage to a commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crop or product. As noted earlier, H.B. 1965 provides a more streamlined and efficient method for persons to obtain depredation permits. To that end, the department believes an attestation that serious damage is occurring is an initially sufficient basis to justify permit issuance, provided the applicant complies with all other provisions of the proposed rules.

Proposed new §65.220(4)(B) would define "evidence clearly showing serious damage" as "current or recent photographs or video of commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or operations demonstrating serious damage caused by wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code." The proposed definition is necessary to provide the department with the option of requesting tangible proof that damage is occurring in the event an attestation, for whatever reasons, requires verification and is necessary to give the department a method of making a determination that a fraudulent application has been submitted, which by other provisions of the proposed new rules would be a basis for permit cancellation, permit denial, or prosecution.

Proposed new §65.220(4)(C) would define "evidence clearly showing serious damage" as "an affidavit supplied by an agent of Texas AgriLIFE Extension Service attesting to the fact that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code is causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products." The proposed definition is intended to provide the department with the option of requiring that the applicant submit expert testimony from an entity that is acknowledged as a reliable source of expertise on the subject of agriculture.

Proposed new §65.220(5) would define the term "destruction of antlers and horns." Proposed new §65.232(5) would require permittees to destroy the antlers or horns of deer, antelope, or bighorn sheep killed under a depredation permit. The proposed definition is necessary because H.B. 1965 amended Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.155, to stipulate that "the permit holder or a person designated under Section 43.154(c)(4) may not keep or sell any part of the wildlife taken under this subchapter, including antlers." In order to ensure that antlers or horns are not sold, it is necessary to require that antlers and horns be destroyed, and, therefore, a definition of what constitutes destruction is in order.

Proposed new §65.220(6) would define the term "protected wildlife" as wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code. This definition is intended to enhance readability of the subchapter.

Proposed new §65.221, concerning General Provisions, would set forth a number of provisions that are generally applicable to depredation permit activities and permittees.

Proposed new §65.221(a) would stipulate that activities conducted under a depredation permit be conducted only by persons named on the permit. The proposed provision is necessary because wildlife is the property of the people of the state and except under extraordinary circumstances, the killing of wildlife is a privilege enjoyed by persons who purchase a recreational license for that purpose. It is therefore the department's duty to ensure that under extraordinary circumstances, such as the need to control depredating wildlife under a depredation permit, that such activities are carefully regulated.

Proposed new §65.221(b) would provide that a depredation permit authorizes the killing of protected wildlife at any time, irrespective of open seasons and lawful shooting hours. The purpose of the depredation permit is to allow the efficient killing of wildlife causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests. It is therefore necessary to enable permittees to accomplish this purpose in the most advantageous way possible, which logic dictates should be at any time that it is possible to kill the depredating wildlife.

Proposed new §65.221(c) would provide that a depredation permit may be issued upon a finding by the department that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code are a threat to public safety. Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.151, authorizes the department to issue a depredation permit on the basis of public safety. The proposed new provision recapitulates the statutory provision for the sake of clarity.

Proposed new §65.221(d) would provide that lawful hunting activities may take place on a property for which a depredation permit has been issued. The proposed provision is necessary because the department does not wish to interfere with hunting activities on properties that sustain or provide recreational hunting opportunity and also are used for commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural purposes.

Proposed new §65.221(e) would create exceptions for the control of depredating cormorants and fur-bearing animals, which is provided for by other regulatory mechanisms. The proposed new provision is necessary to avoid duplicative rules.

Proposed new §65.221(f) would stipulate that nothing in the proposed new subchapter shall be construed to relieve any person of any other applicable requirement federal, state, or local law, including hunting license and hunter education requirements, which is necessary to clearly establish that the proposed new rules are not intended to replace, supplant, or negate any other laws, such as local ordinances governing the discharge of firearms.

Proposed new §65.221(g) would provide that the department will not issue a depredation permit for the killing of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, or desert bighorn sheep, except as provided in Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.152(b) and §43.154(a-1). Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.152(b) and §43.154(a-1) dictate special provisions regarding the killing of depredating mule deer, pronghorn antelope, or desert bighorn sheep. These provisions require, rather than merely authorize, the department to conduct an inspection of the property for which a permit is sought and make recommendations to the applicant for ways to minimize the threat or damage. Also, the applicant must make a reasonable effort to comply with the department's recommendations. Rather than repeat the language of Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.152(b) and §43.154(a-1), the proposed rule merely references those sections.

Proposed new §65.221(h) would stipulate that the department may at any time require an applicant for a depredation permit or a person to whom a depredation permit has been issued to furnish evidence of commercial interest as defined in §65.220(4)(B) or (C). The provision is necessary to provide the department with a mechanism to verify a claim that serious economic damage is occurring.

Proposed new §65.222, concerning Application and Issuance, would prescribe requirements governing the application and issuance of depredation permits.

Proposed new §65.222(a) would require an applicant for a depredation permit to complete and submit an application on a form supplied by the department, accompanied by the fee specified elsewhere in the proposed new subchapter, which is necessary to establish an orderly and controlled mechanism for person to apply for a depredation permit. The proposed new §65.222(a)(1) would require applicants to furnish the name, Texas driver's license or identification number, and Social Security number, and physical address of each person for whom authorization is sought to conduct activities under a depredation permit. The proposed provision is necessary to establish the legal identity and whereabouts of prospective permittees and participants for purposes of law enforcement activities. Texas is required by federal law to obtain the Social Security number of any person to whom a license or permit is issued, for purposes of child-support enforcement. Proposed new §65.222(a)(2) and (a)(3) require the applicant to also provide evidence of commercial interest and evidence clearly showing serious damage, as defined in the subchapter.

Proposed new §65.222(b) would stipulate that by signing an application for a depredation permit, the applicant swears to the truth and accuracy of all information contained in the application. The proposed provision is necessary because Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.153, requires that an application for a depredation permit contain a sworn statement containing the facts relating to the damage or threat and an agreement to comply with the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H and any rules adopted by the commission under that subchapter.

Proposed new §65.222(c) would stipulate that the department, upon a determination that measures other than depredation permit are warranted, may make recommendations concerning ways to minimize the damage or threat and will not issue a permit unless it is satisfied that the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to implement the recommendations. The proposed provision is necessary because the department views the issuance of a depredation permit as a remedy of last resort. If there are other management alternatives that would be effective, such as fencing, harassment, or hunting, the department believes that those alternatives should be pursued and a depredation permit issued only when those alternatives fail.

Proposed new §65.223, concerning Inspection, would provide that the department may inspect a property to determine if issuance of a depredation permit is warranted, and that the department may cancel a depredation permit if an inspection reveals that a permittee is not complying or has not complied with the provisions of the proposed new subchapter or the provisions of a depredation permit. The proposed new section is necessary to allow the department to verify, if necessary, that depredation is occurring on a prospective property or that a permittee is in fact complying with the provisions of a permit.

Proposed new §65.224, concerning Period of Validity, would set forth the conditions under which a depredation permit is valid.

Proposed new §65.224(a) would stipulate that a depredation is not valid unless the crop for which the permit is issued has been planted and is growing on the property for which the permit is issued. The proposed provision is necessary because H.B. 1965 authorizes the killing of wildlife only to protect commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests. It is therefore logical to conclude that a permit should not be valid unless the basis for permit issuance exists.

Proposed new §65.224(b) would stipulate that a depredation permit is not valid after a crop or product for which the permit has been issued has been harvested on the property for which the permit has been issued. The proposed provision is necessary because the statutory intent of both Parks and Wildlife Code and H.B. 1965 is to authorize the killing of wildlife only to protect commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests. It is therefore logical to conclude that a permit should not be valid unless the basis for permit issuance exists.

Proposed new §65.224(c) would stipulate that the department will authorize a period of validity for a depredation permit, when applicable or necessary, based on the planting dates and growing seasons for individual crops. The proposed provision is necessary because there is no reason for a depredation permit to be valid at times when the crop or product for which the permit is sought cannot be grown or is not viable.

Proposed new §65.224(d) would stipulate that the department will authorize the period of validity of a depredation permit issued because of a threat to public safety. The department has determined that because of the wide variety of possibilities related to issues of public safety, the department should prescribe the period of validity of permits issued on that basis on a case-by-case basis.

Proposed new §65.225, concerning Notification, would establish requirements for permittees to notify the department when permitted activities will be or have been conducted.

Proposed new §65.225(a) would require permittees to notify the department not more than 24 hours nor less than four hours prior to any activity authorized by the permit. The proposed provision is necessary to provide the department an opportunity to observe permitted activities and verify compliance.

Proposed new §65.225(b) would require permittees who do not provide prior notice of permitted activities to provide notice of permitted activities not later than two hours after wildlife is killed. The proposed provision is necessary to provide the department an opportunity to observe permitted activities and verify compliance in instances where permittees have an unplanned opportunity to conduct permitted activities and are unable to provide prior notice.

Proposed new §65.226, concerning Means and Methods, would set forth the manners in which wildlife authorized to be killed under a depredation permit may be killed. The intent of the department is to authorize only the most effective and efficient methods for killing wildlife under a depredation permit.

Proposed new §65.227, concerning Documentation, Reporting, and Recordkeeping, would prescribe the requirements for identifying wildlife killed under a depredation permit, reporting requirements related to permitted activities, and recordkeeping.

Proposed new §65.227(a) would require all wildlife killed under a depredation permit to be documented and/or tagged as set forth in the provisions of a permit. Because a depredation permit may be authorize the permittee to kill any wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code, the great variety of possible scenarios cannot be specifically addressed in the proposed regulations. For instance, a depredation permit could authorize the killing of thousands of squirrels, or a small number of javelina. Therefore, the proposed rules would allow the department to issue specific instructions for the labeling, tagging, or documentation of specific species in the provisions of the permit.

Proposed new §65.227(b) would require a permittee to maintain an accurate daily log of all activities conducted under a depredation permit and would specify the specific types of information that must be recorded in the daily log. The proposed provision would require the daily log to contain the number, species, sex, date, and disposition of all wildlife killed under a depredation permit, which is necessary in order for the department to be able to determine that the permittee is in compliance with the provisions of the permit. The proposed new subsection also would require that for permits authorizing the killing of deer, the daily log reflect whether the deer was antlered or antlerless, and if antlered, the number of points on each main beam. The proposed provision is necessary because the department intends to ensure that all deer killed are accounted for, especially buck deer. Antlers from buck deer are a commodity, and the department seeks to remove the opportunity for unscrupulous persons to engage in the sale or trafficking of antlers, which is specifically forbidden under the provisions of H.B. 1965.

Proposed new §65.227(c) would require permittees to submit a final report to the department within ten days of the expiration of a depredation permit. The proposed provision is necessary to ensure compliance with the proposed rules and with the provisions of H.B. 1965.

Proposed new §65.228, concerning Permit Cancellation, would allow the department to cancel a depredation permit if a permittee fails to conduct permitted activities, fails to timely submit required reports, fails to maintain the daily log, misrepresents information on an application, misrepresents information on a report or record, or violates a provision of a depredation permit or Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H. The proposed new section is necessary because Parks and Wildlife Code, Subchapter H, as amended by H.B. 1965, provides for the cancellation of a depredation permit if the permit does not accomplish its intended purposes, if the permit holder fails to submit a required report to the department or if the permit holder intentionally made false claims on the application for the permit. The department believes that it is necessary to provide additional detail regarding the reasons for which the department may cancel a permit.

Proposed new §65.229, concerning Permit Reinstatement, would allow for the reinstatement of a cancelled depredation permit upon a determination by the department that a cancelled depredation should be reinstated because of extenuating circumstances. The proposed new section is necessary because there may be instances in which a permittee is unable to accomplish permit activities due to circumstances beyond the permittee's control.

Proposed new §65.230, concerning Permit Denial, would provide that the department may deny permit issuance or participation in permitted activities to any person who within five years of applying for a depredation permit has been finally convicted of a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H; a violation of the conditions of a depredation permit; or a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or a felony. The proposed new section is necessary because the department believes that a person who has demonstrated a proven disregard for wildlife and conservation law should not be entrusted with a permit or be allowed to engage in permitted activities that allow the killing of wildlife out of season, and without regard to bag limits or lawful shooting hours.

Proposed new §65.231, concerning Fees, would establish a fee of $500 for an application for a depredation permit. The proposed new section is necessary because the department has determined, based on estimates of demand for the permit and anticipated commitment of agency law enforcement and biologist resources, that a fee of $500 is the minimum amount necessary to recoup the agency's costs to administer and enforce the proposed rules.

Proposed new §65.232, concerning Prohibited Acts, would for clarity's sake list specific acts that are a violation of the subchapter.

Proposed new §65.232(1) and (2) would clarify that it is an offense for any person not named on a depredation permit to participate in activities under a depredation permit and for any person to whom a depredation permit has been issued to allow any person not named on the permit to engage in permitted activities. It is logical that unpermitted persons should not engage in permitted activities, whether by their own volition or by the acquiescence of a permittee.

Proposed new §65.232(3) would clarify that it is an offense to kill game animals or game birds outside of lawful shooting hours or during a closed season on a property for which a depredation permit has been cancelled. The proposed new provision is necessary to make it absolutely clear that when a depredation permit is cancelled, all hunting laws of the state apply.

Proposed new §65.232(4) would make it an offense to offer or accept money or anything of value in exchange for participation in activities under a depredation permit, except for persons employed by a person to whom a depredation permit is issued. The proposed new provision is necessary to make clear that a depredation permit is not intended to allow a person to sell or trade permit privileges; however, an employee of the permittee who is named on a permit may engage in permitted activities as a consequence of employment.

Proposed new §65.232(5) would make it an offense to fail to immediately destroy the antlers or horns of a buck deer, antelope, or bighorn sheep killed by the person under a depredation permit. The proposed new provision is necessary because under Parks and Wildlife Code, §65.155, as amended by H.B. 1965, a permit holder or a person designated under Section 43.154(c)(4) may not keep or sell any part of the wildlife taken under this subchapter, including antlers.

Proposed new §65.233, concerning Penalties, would recapitulate the penalties prescribed for a violation of the subchapter or a permit by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter. The proposed new rule is necessary for the sake of easy reference.

Mr. Clayton Wolf, Big Game Program Director, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rules as proposed are in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcement or administration of the rules. The department is proposing a fee for the depredation permit that should result in no fiscal impact to the department.

Mr. Wolf also has determined that for each of the first five years the rules as proposed are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as proposed will be the protection of commercial agricultural, horticultural, and aquacultural interests from serious damage as a result of depredation by wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code and the protection of public safety.

Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that when the purpose and intent of the proposal is considered as a whole, there will not be a direct adverse economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rules. As explained below, the costs to the persons required to comply with the proposal would be outweighed by the financial benefits of the activities authorized by the proposal.

Although the rules as proposed would impose fees and reporting and recordkeeping requirements, they would not necessarily require the purchase of additional professional expertise. Similarly, the rules as proposed would not necessarily impose or require additional capital costs or costs for modification of existing processes or procedures, lead to loss of sales or profits, or change market competition.

With regard to the application fee established by the proposed rules, Parks and Wildlife Code §43.153(d), as amended by H.B. 1965, established a permit fee of $50, or a fee set by the commission, whichever is higher. Also, Parks and Wildlife Code §11.027(b) authorizes the department to establish fees to cover costs associated with the review of applications for permits authorized by the Parks and Wildlife Code. As explained below, the application fee of $500 was calculated by considering the department staff time required to process and issue depredation permits and is proposed at an amount that is estimated by cover the department's costs.

With regard to the recordkeeping requirements, Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 43, Subchapter H, as amended by H.B. 1965, authorizes the department to adopt rules regarding permit applications and reports to be submitted by persons holding or seeking depredation permits.

However, since the proposed rules are intended to provide a tool to reduce or eliminate economic losses from damage to commercial crops and products, the rules as proposed should result in a net economic benefit for small and microbusinesses.

The department has learned that certain protected wildlife have been causing significant damage to commercial crops in the state, resulting in economic injury to individuals engaged in commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural activities. The application fee and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the proposed new rules are insignificant when compared to the loss to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural caused by depredating wildlife. Other mechanisms for addressing such damage, such as fencing, are significantly more costly than the proposed application fee and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, any costs imposed by the rules as proposed would be outweighed by the economic benefits realized by permittees in the reduction of losses to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural interests.

Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006 for depredation permits issued to address damage caused by protected wildlife to commercial agriculture, horticulture, or aquaculture.

Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, also provides for issuance of a depredation permit in instances in which wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code are a threat to public safety. Currently, the primary entities to which the department issues depredation permits for the protection of public safety are airports. Some of these permittees may quality as small or micro-businesses. In the Fiscal Year 2008, the last complete fiscal year for which the department has records, the department issued 12 depredation permits to airports for the protection of public safety. As a result, 12 potential small or micro-businesses would be impacted by the proposed rules. The primary economic impact to such businesses would be the increase in the depredation permit fee from $0 to $500. Also, the proposed rules impose additional reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Therefore, the economic impact would be $500, plus administrative costs associated with the additional recordkeeping and reporting. The department considered alternatives such as reducing the fee for entities seeking permits issued to address public safety or modifying the period of validity for depredation permits issued to address public safety or. In an effort to reduce the potential adverse economic impact on small or micro-businesses seeking a permit to address public safety, the department included in the proposal new §65.224(d) which enables the department to specify the period of validity for a depredation permit issued to address wildlife that pose a threat to public safety. This will enable the department to issue depredation permits to address public safety for a longer period, which will result in an overall reduction in the cost of compliance for small or micro-businesses. The rules will affect persons required to comply as described above.

The $500 fee for a depredation permit application imposed by proposed new §65.231 was determined as follows. The department estimates that each application will require an average of one hour of administrative time, 30 minutes of a Wildlife Division District Leader's time, and one hour of the White-tailed Deer Program Leader's time. In addition, the department estimates that 5% of the applications will require 12 hours of a biologist's time to conduct an inspection. Of the remaining 95%, the department estimates that 80% will require four hours of a biologist's time to conduct an inspection and 20% will not require an inspection as a result of familiarity with the property. In other words, of the applications received, 5% will require a 12-hour inspection, 76% will require a four-hour inspection and 19% will require no inspection. The department also estimates that the department's law enforcement communications dispatchers will receive an average of 12 calls per permittee and will spend an average of 30 minutes on each call. Also, the department estimates that game wardens will average three spot-checks a year per permit and will spend an average of two hours on each spot-check. Using salary information, the department estimates that the cost to the department in staff time, not including overhead, supplies, or benefits would be around $485. This amount was rounded up to $500 to address, in part, overhead, supplies and benefits.

The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will not impact local economies.

The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rules.

The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rules.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Robert Macdonald, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4775 (e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.state.tx.us).

The new rules are proposed under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, as amended by House Bill 1965, 81st Texas Legislature (Regular Session) which authorized the department to adopt rules to implement. The new rules are also proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code §11.027(b) which authorizes the department to establish fees to cover costs associated with the review of applications for permits authorized by the Park and Wildlife Code.

The proposed new rules affect Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, and Chapter 11, §11.027.

§65.220.Definitions.

The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

(1) Appropriate recipient--A person or public or private organization that utilizes the donated wildlife for the public good and not for pecuniary gain.

(2) Evidence of commercial interest--Documentation required by the department to demonstrate that the applicant has a commercial interest in agriculture, horticulture, or aquaculture.

(A) The department shall require the attestation of the applicant on the application that agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products raised or grown on a property for which a depredation permit is sought are:

(i) sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value; or

(ii) used to feed livestock, exotic livestock, or aquacultural stock that are sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value; or

(B) In addition to the attestation required by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the department may require additional information, such as sales receipts, tax receipts, or other documentation acceptable to the department indicating that agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products raised or grown on a property for which a depredation permit is sought are:

(i) sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value; and/or

(ii) used to feed livestock, exotic livestock, or aquacultural stock that are sold or exchanged for cash or anything of value.

(3) Depredation permit--A permit issued under the provisions of this subchapter.

(4) Evidence clearly showing serious damage--Documentation required by the department to demonstrate that protected wildlife is causing serious damage. The department may require one or all of the following as evidence clearly showing serious damage:

(A) the attestation of an applicant for a depredation permit that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code is causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products;

(B) recent or current photographs or video of commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products demonstrating serious damage caused by wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code; or

(C) an affidavit supplied by an agent of Texas AgriLIFE Extension Service attesting to the fact that wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code is causing serious damage to commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crops or products.

(5) Destruction of antlers or horns--To saw, cut, or chop completely through each main beam of antler or horn at a point within two inches of the skull, and at the approximate midpoint between the base and tip of each main beam or horn.

(6) Protected wildlife--Wildlife protected by the Parks and Wildlife Code.

§65.221.General Provisions.

(a) Activities authorized under a depredation permit shall be conducted only by persons named on the permit.

(b) A depredation permit authorizes the killing of protected wildlife identified on the permit at any time during the period of validity of the permit, irrespective of open seasons and lawful shooting hours.

(c) A depredation permit may be issued at any time upon a finding by the department that protected wildlife presents a threat to public safety.

(d) Lawful hunting activities may take place on a property for which a depredation permit has been issued.

(e) The department will not issue a permit under this subchapter to control cormorants or fur-bearing animals. Cormorant control permits are governed by the provisions of §65.901 of this title (relating to Cormorant Control Permit), and nuisance fur-bearing animals are addressed by Subchapter Q of this chapter (relating to Statewide Fur-bearing Animal Proclamation).

(f) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to relieve any person of any other applicable requirements of federal, state, or local law, including laws prescribing hunting license and hunter education requirements.

(g) Notwithstanding other provisions of this subchapter, the department will not issue a permit under this subchapter for the killing of mule deer, pronghorn antelope, or desert bighorn sheep, except as provided in Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.152(b) and §43.154(a-1).

(h) The department may at any time require an applicant for a depredation permit or a person to whom a depredation permit has been issued to furnish evidence clearly showing serious damage as defined in §65.220(4)(B) and (C) of this title (relating to Definitions).

§65.222.Application and Issuance.

(a) An applicant for a depredation permit shall complete and submit to the department an application on a form supplied by the department, accompanied by the fee stipulated in §65.231 of this title (relating to Fees). The applicant shall furnish the information required by Parks and Wildlife Code, §43.153, including but not limited to:

(1) the name, Texas driver's license or personal identification number, Social Security number, and physical address of each person for whom authorization is sought to conduct activities authorized under the depredation permit;

(2) evidence of commercial interest as defined in this subchapter; and

(3) evidence clearly showing serious damage, as defined in this subchapter.

(b) By signing the application, the applicant swears to the truth and accuracy of all information contained in the application, including the attestation that serious damage is occurring to a commercial agricultural, horticultural, or aquacultural crop or product.

(c) If the department determines that measures other than a depredation permit are warranted, it shall make recommendations concerning ways to minimize the damage or threat caused by wildlife. The department will not issue a depredation permit if it is not satisfied that the applicant has made a reasonable attempt to implement the recommendations.

§65.223.Inspection.

(a) The department may inspect any property to determine if permit issuance is warranted and may refuse to issue a depredation permit on the basis of an inspection.

(b) The department may inspect any property to determine compliance with the provisions of a depredation permit and may cancel a depredation permit if an inspection reveals that a permittee is not complying or has not complied with this subchapter or the provisions of a depredation permit.

§65.224.Period of Validity.

(a) A depredation permit is not valid unless the crop or product for which the permit is issued has been planted and is growing on the property for which the permit is issued.

>(b) A depredation permit is not valid after the crop for which the permit is issued has been harvested on the property for which the permit is issued.

(c) The period of validity of a depredation permit, when applicable or necessary, may be determined by the planting dates and growing seasons for individual crops or products.

(d) The department shall specify the period of validity for a depredation permit issued because of a threat to public safety.

§65.225.Notification.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a permittee under this subchapter shall notify the department by calling the notification number provided on the permit not more than 24 hours nor less than four hours prior to any authorized activity.

(b) A permittee who does not notify the department as provided in subsection (a) of this section shall notify the department by calling the notification number provided on the permit not more than two hours following any unscheduled killing of wildlife under a depredation permit.

§65.226.Means and Methods.

(a) Centerfire firearms are the only lawful means for killing deer, antelope, javelina, or desert bighorn sheep under a depredation permit.

(b) Centerfire firearms, rimfire firearms, and shotguns are the only lawful means for killing non-migratory game birds and squirrels under a depredation permit.

(c) Depredating nongame wildlife and alligators may be taken by any lawful means under a depredation permit.

(d) The department may authorize the live capture and humane dispatch of wildlife other than deer, antelope, javelina, bighorn sheep, and non-migratory game birds.

§65.227.Documentation, Reporting, and Recordkeeping.

(a) All wildlife killed under a depredation permit shall be documented and/or tagged as set forth in the permit provisions.

(b) A person conducting activities under a depredation permit shall maintain an accurate daily log of all activities conducted under a depredation permit. The daily log shall be made available at the request of any department employee acting within the scope of official duties, and shall indicate, at a minimum:

(1) the number of wildlife killed by each person named on the permit;

(2) the sex of the wildlife killed by each person named on the permit;

(3) if the animal is a deer, whether the deer was antlered or antlerless, and if the deer was antlered, the number of antler points on each main beam;

(4) the date that each animal or bird was killed; and

(5) the disposition of the wildlife, to include the name of the person or organization receiving the donated wildlife.

(c) A person to whom a depredation permit has been issued shall submit a final report, including the daily log required by subsection (b) of this section, to the department's Austin headquarters, on a form supplied by the department, within 10 days of the expiration of the period of validity of the permit.

§65.228.Permit Cancellation.

The department may cancel a depredation permit at any time upon determining that the permittee:

(1) has failed to conduct the activities authorized by a depredation permit;

(2) has failed to maintain the daily log required by §65.227(b) of this title (relating to Documentation, Reporting, and Recordkeeping);

(3) has failed to timely submit any required report;

(4) has misrepresented any information required on the application for a depredation permit;

(5) has misrepresented any information on a report or record required by this subchapter; or

(6) has violated a provision of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H, or a depredation permit.

§65.229.Permit Reinstatement.

A permit that has been cancelled may be reinstated by the department upon a determination that extenuating circumstances warrant reinstatement.

§65.230.Permit Denial.

(a) The department may refuse to issue a depredation permit to any person who within five years of applying for a depredation permit has been finally convicted of:

(1) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H;

(2) a violation of the conditions of a depredation permit; or

(3) a violation of Parks and Wildlife Code that is a Class B misdemeanor, a Class A misdemeanor, or a felony.

(b) The department may prohibit a person from participating in activities under a depredation permit if the person has been convicted of a violation listed in subsection (a) of this section within the previous five years.

§65.231.Fees.

The application fee for a depredation permit shall be $500. The fee prescribed by this section is nonrefundable.

§65.232.Prohibited Acts.

It is an offense for any person:

(1) not named on a depredation permit to kill protected wildlife under the depredation permit;

(2) to whom a depredation permit is issued to allow any person not named on the depredation permit to engage in permitted activities;

(3) to kill game animals or game birds outside of lawful shooting hours or during a closed season on a property for which a depredation permit has been cancelled;

(4) to offer or accept money or anything of value in exchange for participation in activities under a depredation permit, except for persons employed by a person to whom a depredation permit is issued; or

(5) to fail to immediately destroy the antlers or horns of a buck deer, antelope, or bighorn sheep killed by the person under a depredation permit. Antlers and horns destroyed under this paragraph shall be discarded as waste.

§65.233.Penalties.

The penalties for a violation of this subchapter or the provisions of a depredation permit are prescribed by Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter H.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 13, 2009.

TRD-200902842

Ann Bright

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 23, 2009

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775


SUBCHAPTER K. RAPTOR PROCLAMATION

31 TAC §65.261

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amendment to §65.261, concerning Applicability. The proposed amendment would adopt federal falconry regulations by reference and clarify that the federal regulations control in instances where the department's rules conflict by being less restrictive than the federal regulations.

The practice of falconry is regulated at both the state and federal levels. The federal authority to regulate falconry is derived from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §703 et seq. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act authorizes the states to adopt rules that are more restrictive than the federal rules, but not less restrictive, 16 U.S.C. §708.

Under current state rules and federal regulations, an applicant for a state falconry permit must apply for a federal falconry permit concurrently with the application for a state permit. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has recently conducted a significant revision of federal falconry regulations. Part of that revision allows states that meet the federal falconry standards to handle falconry permitting with a single state permit application. In those states, the state becomes, in effect, an administrative agent of the Service. In states that do not participate in joint federal/state falconry certification, applicants must continue to apply for state and federal falconry permits separately. Texas falconers have expressed a strong desire to be administratively regulated by the department alone.

As a consequence of the new federal falconry regulations, the Texas falconry rules are at variance with the federal regulations in some instances. Federal regulations require federal certification of state rules by September 1, 2009 if the state is to take advantage of the joint permitting program. The proposed amendment would make a provisional alteration necessary to temporarily eliminate conflicts between state rules and federal falconry regulations, which will allow for the certification of the state program by the Service. Meanwhile, the department is currently involved with the regulated community to develop new state falconry regulations, which should be ready within the year.

Mr. Robert Macdonald, Regulations Coordinator, has determined that for each of the first five years that the rule as proposed is in effect, there will be no fiscal implications to state or local government as a result of enforcement or administration of the rule.

Mr. Macdonald also has determined that for each of the first five years the rule as proposed is in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the rule as proposed will be the reduction of administrative complexity for Texas falconers by creating a single administrative process for licensure at the state level.

Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an adverse economic effect on small businesses and micro-businesses. The department has determined that there will be no direct economic effect on small or micro-businesses or persons required to comply as a result of the proposed rules. The rule would not compel or mandate any action on the part of any entity, including small businesses or microbusinesses. In particular, the proposed rule would not add new reporting or recordkeeping requirements; require any new professional expertise, capital costs, or costs for modification of existing processes or procedures; lead to loss of sales or profits; change market competition; or increase taxes or fees. Accordingly, the department has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government Code, Chapter 2006.

The department has not drafted a local employment impact statement under the Administrative Procedures Act, §2001.022, as the agency has determined that the rule as proposed will not impact local economies.

The department has determined that Government Code, §2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.

The department has determined that there will not be a taking of private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter 2007, as a result of the proposed rule.

Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Robert Macdonald, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (512) 389-4775 (e-mail: robert.macdonald@tpwd.state.tx.us).

The amendment is proposed under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 49, which authorizes the department to prescribe rules for the taking, capture, possession, propagation, transportation, export, import, and sale of raptors, the times and areas from which raptors may be taken or captured, and species that may be taken or captured; provide standards for possessing and housing raptors held under a permit; prescribe annual reporting requirements and procedures; prescribe eligibility requirements and fees for and issue any falconry, raptor propagation, or nonresident trapping permit; and require and regulate the identification of raptors held by permit holders.

The proposed rule affects Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 49.

§65.261.Applicability.

(a) This subchapter applies to all raptors indigenous to state of Texas.

(b) The department adopts by reference the federal falconry regulations contained in 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 21 and 22.

(c) If any provisions of this subchapter are less restrictive than any provision of federal falconry regulations contained in 50 CFR Parts 21 or 22, the federal regulations control.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on July 13, 2009.

TRD-200902841

Ann Bright

General Counsel

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Earliest possible date of adoption: August 23, 2009

For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775