PART 1. GENERAL LAND OFFICE
CHAPTER 26. COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The General Land Office (GLO) adopts amendments to §§26.3, 26.4, 26.10, 26.13, 26.15, 26.18, 26.21, 26.23 - 26.25, 26.31, and 26.34 in 31 TAC Chapter 26, relating to the Coastal Management Program. The amendments are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 313) and therefore will not be republished.
JUSTIFICATION
These amendments are adopted to update cross references that became outdated as a result of the administrative transfer of rules from 31 TAC Chapter 501 to 31 TAC Chapter 26, effective on December 1, 2022. The adoption of the amendments is necessary because it further implements amendments to the Coastal Coordination Act by Senate Bill 656, 82nd Texas Legislature, which abolished the Coastal Coordination Council and transferred the Council's powers and duties to the GLO.
The adopted amendments update cross references within the following sections: §26.3, relating to Definitions and Abbreviations; §26.4, relating to Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee; §26.10, relating to Compliance with CMP Goals and Policies; §26.13, relating to Administrative Policies Review; §26.15, relating to Policy for Major Actions; §26.18, relating to Policies for Discharges of Wastewater and Disposal of Waste from Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities; §26.23, relating to Policies for Development in Critical Areas; §26.24, relating to Policies for Construction of Waterfront Facilities and Other Structures on Submerged Lands; §26.25, relating to Policies for Dredging and Dredged Material and Placement; §26.31, relating to Policies for Transportation Projects; and §26.34, relating to Policies for Levee and Flood Control Projects.
The adopted amendment to §26.21, relating to Policies for Discharge of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater to Coastal Waters, updates the name of a state agency from Texas Department of Health to Texas Department of State Health Services.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The GLO received no comments regarding the proposed amendments.
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; and §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302219
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §§26.10, 26.13, 26.15, 26.18, 26.23 - 26.25, 26.31, 26.34
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; and §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302220
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
The General Land Office (GLO) adopts an amendment to §27.1 in 31 TAC Chapter 27, relating to the Coastal Management Program Boundary. The amendment is adopted with changes to correct punctuation to the proposed text to published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 316), and therefore the rule will be republished.
JUSTIFICATION
This amendment is adopted to update a rule reference that became outdated as a result of the administrative transfer of rules from 31 TAC Chapter 503 to 31 TAC Chapter 27, effective on December 1, 2022. The adoption of the amendment is necessary because it further implements amendments to the Coastal Coordination Act by Senate Bill 656, 82nd Texas Legislature, which abolished the Coastal Coordination Council and transferred the Council's powers and duties to the GLO.
The adopted amendment updates the rule reference labeling the Attached Graphic in §27.1(a).
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The GLO received no comments regarding the proposed amendment.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendment is adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; and §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP.
The adoption of the amendment is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
§27.1.Coastal Management Program Boundary.
(a) General Description of the Coastal Management Program Boundary. The coastal management program boundary delineates the coastal zone. The inland part of the boundary is a modification of the coastal facility designation line, which is the line the State of Texas adopted under the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1991 (Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 40) to describe areas where oil spills are likely to enter coastal waters. Generally, the boundary encompasses the area within Texas lying seaward of the coastal facility designation line. It also includes coastal wetlands landward of the coastal facility designation line. The boundary includes areas within the following Texas counties: Cameron, Willacy, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, San Patricio, Aransas, Refugio, Calhoun, Victoria, Jackson, Matagorda, Brazoria, Galveston, Harris, Chambers, Jefferson, and Orange. The seaward reach of the boundary extends into the Gulf of Mexico to the limit of state title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Management Act (43 United States Code, §§1301 et seq.), that is, three marine leagues. The following maps outline the coastal management program boundary.
Figure: 31 TAC §27.1(a) (.pdf)
(b) Particular Description of the Coastal Management Program Boundary. The boundary is more particularly described in terms of the inland boundary, the boundary with the State of Louisiana, the seaward boundary, the boundary with the Republic of Mexico, and the excluded federal lands.
(1) The inland boundary. The inland boundary encompasses the following areas:
(A) Roadway portion of boundary. The boundary begins at the International Toll Bridge in Brownsville, thence northward along U.S. Highway 77 to the junction of Paredes Lines Road (FM Road 1847) in Brownsville, thence northward along FM Road 1847 to the junction of FM Road 106 east of Rio Hondo, thence westward along FM Road 106 to the junction of FM Road 508 in Rio Hondo, thence northward along FM Road 508 to the junction of FM Road 1420, thence northward along FM Road 1420 to the junction of State Highway 186 east of Raymondville, thence westward along State Highway 186 to the junction of U.S. Highway 77 near Raymondville, thence northward along U.S. Highway 77 to the junction of FM Road 774 in Refugio, thence eastward along FM Road 774 to the junction of State Highway 35 south of Tivoli, thence northward along State Highway 35 to the junction of State Highway 185 between Bloomington and Seadrift, thence northwestward along State Highway 185 to the junction of FM Road 616 in Bloomington, thence northeastward along FM Road 616 to the junction of State Highway 35 east of Blessing, thence southward along the State Highway 35 to the junction of FM Road 521 north of Palacios, thence northeastward along FM Road 521 to the junction of State Highway 36 south of Brazoria, thence northward along State Highway 36 to the junction of State Highway 332 in Brazoria, thence eastward along State Highway 332 to the junction of FM Road 2004 in Lake Jackson, thence northeastward along FM Road 2004 to the junction of Interstate Highway 45 between Dickinson and La Marque, thence northwestward along Interstate Highway 45 to the junction of Interstate Highway 610 in Houston, thence east and northward along Interstate Highway 610 to the junction of Interstate Highway 10 in Houston, thence eastward along Interstate Highway 10 to the Louisiana State line.
(B) Tidal portion of the boundary. The boundary runs at a distance of 100 yards inland from the mean high tide line along each of the following tidal river and stream segments from the points where they intersect the roadway boundary described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph:
(i) on the Arroyo Colorado, to a point 100 meters (110 yards) downstream of Cemetery Road south of Port Harlingen in Cameron County;
(ii) on the Nueces River, to Calallen Dam 1.7 kilometers (1.1 miles) upstream of U.S. Highway 77 in Nueces/San Patricio County;
(iii) on the Guadalupe River, to the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority Salt Water Barrier 0.7 kilometers (0.4 mile) downstream of the confluence of the San Antonio River in Calhoun and Refugio Counties;
(iv) on the Lavaca River, to a point 8.6 kilometers (5.3 miles) downstream of U.S. Highway 59 in Jackson County;
(v) on the Navidad River, to Palmetto Bend Dam in Jackson County;
(vi) on Tres Palacios Creek, to a point 0.6 kilometer (1.0 mile) upstream of the confluence of Wilson Creek in Matagorda County;
(vii) on the Colorado River, to a point 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) downstream of the Missouri-Pacific Railroad in Matagorda County;
(viii) on the San Bernard River, to a point 3.2 kilometers (2.0 miles) upstream of State Highway 35 in Brazoria County;
(ix) on Chocolate Bayou, to a point 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) downstream of State Highway 35 in Brazoria County;
(x) on Clear Creek, to a point 100 meters (110 yards) upstream of FM Road 528 in Galveston/Harris County;
(xi) on Buffalo Bayou, to a point 400 meters (440 yards) upstream of Shepherd Drive in Harris County;
(xii) on the San Jacinto River, to Lake Houston Dam in Harris County;
(xiii) on Cedar Bayou, to a point 2.2 kilometers (1.4 miles) upstream of Interstate Highway 10 in Chambers/Harris County;
(xiv) on the Trinity River, to the border between Chambers and Liberty Counties;
(xv) on the Neches River, to a point 11.3 kilometers (7.0 miles) upstream of Interstate Highway 10 in Orange County; and
(xvi) on the Sabine River, to Morgan Bluff in Orange County.
(C) Wetlands portion of boundary. Except for the part of the boundary adjacent to the Trinity and Neches rivers, the boundary includes wetlands lying within one mile inland of the mean high tide lines of the tidal river and stream segments identified in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph.
(i) Adjacent to the Trinity River, the boundary includes wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide line on the western shoreline of the river and Farm-to-Market Road 565 and Farm-to-Market Road 1409, and wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline of that portion of the river and Farm-to-Market Road 563.
(ii) Adjacent to the Neches River, the boundary includes wetlands within one mile of the mean high tide line on the western shoreline of the river, and wetlands within the area located between the mean high tide line on the eastern shoreline of that portion of the river and Farm-to-Market Road 105.
(2) The boundary with the State of Louisiana. The boundary with the State of Louisiana begins in Orange County at Morgans Bluff, the northernmost extent of tidal influence, along the adjudicated boundary between the State of Texas and the State of Louisiana, as established by the United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Louisiana, 410 U.S. 702 (1973); thence it continues in a southerly direction along the adjudicated boundary out into the Gulf of Mexico until it intersects the seaward boundary.
(3) The seaward boundary. The seaward boundary is that line marking the seaward limit of Texas title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (43 United States Code, §1301 et seq.), as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Louisiana et al., 364 U.S. 502 (1960).
(4) The boundary with the Republic of Mexico. The boundary with the Republic of Mexico begins at a point three marine leagues into the Gulf of Mexico where the line marking the seaward limit of Texas title and ownership under the Submerged Lands Act (43 United States Code, §§1301 et seq.) intersects the international boundary between the United States and the Republic of Mexico, as established pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (February 2, 1848) between the United States and the Republic of Mexico; thence it continues in a westerly direction along the international border with the Republic of Mexico until it meets the International Toll Bridge in Brownsville.
(5) The excluded federal lands. The excluded federal lands are those lands owned, leased, held in trust by, or whose use is otherwise by law subject solely to the discretion of the federal government, its officers or agents.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302221
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
The General Land Office (GLO) adopts amendments to §§28.2, 28.3, 28.10, 28.11, and 28.20 in 31 TAC Chapter 28, relating to Permitting Assistance and Preliminary Consistency Review. The amendments to §§28.3, 28.10, 28.11, and 28.20 are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 317) and therefore will not be republished. The amendments to §28.2 are adopted with changes to the proposed text and will be republished.
JUSTIFICATION
These amendments are adopted to update cross references that became outdated as a result of the administrative transfer of rules from 31 TAC Chapter 504 to 31 TAC Chapter 28, effective on December 1, 2022. The adopted amendments also include minor revisions to ensure that the role of the Permitting Assistance Group conforms with current practice. The adoption of the amendments is necessary because it further implements amendments to the Coastal Coordination Act by Senate Bill 656, 82nd Texas Legislature, which abolished the Coastal Coordination Council and transferred the Council's powers and duties to the GLO.
The adopted amendments update cross references within the following sections: §28.2, relating to Definitions; §28.11, relating to Permitting Assistance Coordinator; and §28.20, relating to Requests for Preliminary Consistency Review.
The adopted amendment to §28.10, relating to Permit Service Center, adds updated terminology, including a clarification that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issues "certificates of location."
The adopted amendment to §28.3, relating to Permitting Assistance Group (PAG), adds a new subsection (d) to conform with current practice by clarifying that the PAG's role may include participation in the planning and development of regional general permits and general permits to support future beach management and nourishment, coastal restoration projects, and the continued development of the Texas Coastal Management Program, as needed.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The GLO received no comments regarding the proposed amendments.
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.205, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule processes for preliminary consistency review and permitting assistance.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
§28.2.Definitions.
(a) The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
(1) Agency of subdivision--Any state agency, department, board, or commission or political subdivision of the state.
(2) Applicant--An individual or small business. In addition, the term includes a city, county, or special district.
(3) Coastal zone--The area within the CMP boundary established in §27.1 of this title.
(4) Commissioner--Commissioner of the General Land Office (GLO).
(5) Committee--Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee.
(6) CMP goals and policies--The goals and policies set forth in Chapter 26 of this title.
(7) Permitting assistance coordinator--The GLO staff member designated by the commissioner.
(8) Permitting assistance group (PAG)--The group composed of representatives of committee member agencies and other interested committee members.
(9) Permit service center (PSC)--The center that administers permitting assistance for activities in the coastal zone. The PSC has an office that serves the Upper Coast and an office that serves the Lower Coast.
(10) Program boundary--The CMP boundary established in §27.1 of this title.
(b) To the extent that reference is made to statutory or regulatory terms or phrases which are not defined in this chapter, such terms and phrases shall retain the meaning provided in the pertinent agency or political subdivision policies or regulations.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302222
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.205, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule processes for preliminary consistency review and permitting assistance.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302223
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.205, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule processes for preliminary consistency review and permitting assistance.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302224
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
The General Land Office (GLO) adopts amendments to §§29.11, 29.12, 29.20 - 29.26, 29.30 - 29.34, 29.36, 29.42, 29.51, 29.52, 29.60, 29.62 - 29.66, 29.68, and 29.74 in 31 TAC Chapter 29, relating to Procedures for State Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Policies. The amendments are adopted without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 320) and therefore will not be republished.
JUSTIFICATION
These amendments are adopted to update cross references that became outdated as a result of the administrative transfer of rules from 31 TAC Chapter 505 to 31 TAC Chapter 29, effective on December 1, 2022. The adoption of the amendments is necessary because it further implements amendments to the Coastal Coordination Act by Senate Bill 656, 82nd Texas Legislature, which abolished the Coastal Coordination Council and transferred the Council's powers and duties to the GLO.
The adopted amendments update cross references within the following sections: §29.11, relating to Actions and Rules Subject to the Coastal Management Program; §29.12, relating to Definitions; §29.20, relating to Commissioner Review and Certification of Agency Rules and Rule Amendments; §29.21, relating to Effect of Commissioner Certification of Agency Rules and Rule Amendments; §29.22, relating to Consistency Required for New Rules and Rule Amendments Subject to the Coastal Management Program; §29.23, relating to Expedited Certification of Rules and Rule Amendments; §29.24, relating to Pre-Certification Review of Draft Rules and Draft Rule Amendments; §29.25, relating to Revocation of Certification; §29.26, relating to Approval of Thresholds for Referral; §29.30, relating to Agency Consistency Determination; §29.31, relating to Preliminary Consistency Review of Proposed Agency Action; §29.32, relating to Requirements for Referral of a Proposed Agency Action; §29.33, relating to Filing of Request for Referral; §29.34, relating to Referral of a Proposed Agency Action to the Commissioner for Consistency Review; §29.36, relating to Standard of Commissioner Review of a Proposed Agency Action; §29.42, relating to Enforcement after Commissioner Protest of a Proposed Agency Action; §29.51 relating to Request for a Non-Binding Advisory Opinion and Commissioner Action; §29.52, relating to Request for Commissioner Participation in the Development of General Plans; §29.60, relating to Subdivisions Actions Subject to the Coastal Management Program; §29.62, relating to Subdivision Consistency Determinations; §29.63, relating to Preliminary Consistency Review of a Proposed Subdivision Action; §29.64, relating to Requirements for a Referral of a Proposed Subdivision Action; §29.65, relating to Filing of Request for Referral; §29.66, relating to Referral of a Proposed Subdivision Action to the Commissioner for Review; §29.68, relating to Standard of Commissioner Review of a Proposed Subdivision Action; and §29.74, relating to Enforcement after Commissioner Protest of a Proposed Subdivision Action.
The adopted amendment to §29.11(a)(7)(A) adds updated terminology, including a clarification that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department issues "certificates of location."
PUBLIC COMMENTS
The GLO received no comments regarding the proposed amendments.
SUBCHAPTER A. PURPOSE AND SCOPE
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.2052, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule a process by which an agency may submit rules to the commissioner for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the CMP.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302225
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.2052, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule a process by which an agency may submit rules to the commissioner for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the CMP.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302226
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §§29.30 - 29.34, 29.36, 29.42
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.2052, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule a process by which an agency may submit rules to the commissioner for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the CMP.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302227
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.2052, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule a process by which an agency may submit rules to the commissioner for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the CMP.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302228
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §§29.60, 29.62 - 29.66, 29.68, 29.74
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The amendments are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including, §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule; and §33.2052, which authorizes the commissioner to establish by rule a process by which an agency may submit rules to the commissioner for review and certification for consistency with the goals and policies of the CMP.
The adoption of the amendments is necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302229
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
The General Land Office (GLO) adopts the repeal of §§30.10 - 30.13, 30.20 - 30.37, 30.40 - 30.45, and 30.50 - 30.54, and adopts new §§30.10, 30.11, 30.20, 30.30, 30.40, and 30.60 without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 326). These rules will not be republished.
The GLO adopts new §30.12 with changes to the proposed text as published in the January 27, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 326). This rule will be republished.
The GLO has determined that the procedures in proposed new §30.50 are not needed at this time and therefore proposed §30.50 is withdrawn.
BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
The Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) is based on the Coastal Coordination Act, Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter F. In 1991, the Coastal Coordination Council (Council) was created for the purpose of developing CMP policy, facilitating interagency coordination, conducting dispute resolution, and overseeing the CMP. The CMP goals and policies are utilized for ensuring state and federal actions are consistent with the CMP. In 2010, the Council was reviewed by the Texas Sunset Advisory Commission. The Sunset Commission's review found that the Council had transitioned from developing and implementing the CMP to merely administering it. The Sunset Commission further determined that since the GLO was charged with the primary administrative responsibility for the CMP, the GLO could more efficiently perform the Council's duties. Based on these findings, the Sunset Commission recommended abolishing the Council and transferring the Council's functions to the Commissioner and GLO.
During the 82nd Legislative Session, the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 656, amending the Coastal Coordination Act. SB 656 abolished the Council and transferred the duties and powers of the Council to the Commissioner and GLO. SB 656 also directed the Commissioner to establish the Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee's membership closely resembles the former Council's membership, as it requires a representative from each of eight state agencies with coastal duties, as well as four public members appointed by the Commissioner to represent coastal priorities.
The adopted rules repeal and replace the sections in Chapter 30 with new sections and a new chapter title. The new rules are intended to better reflect SB 656 and more closely conform to the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930. Specifically, the new rules help further implement SB 656 by removing all references to the abolished Council, by clarifying the transfer of the Council's functions and duties to the Commissioner and the GLO, and by adding references to the Committee. Additionally, the GLO's federal consistency procedures are required to be consistent with the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, promulgated by the National Oceanic and Administrative Administration (NOAA). The new rules closely adhere to the Federal Consistency regulations and incorporate the review timeframes for federal agency actions in 15 CFR Part 930.
The adopted rules also reorganize, streamline, and clarify the GLO's federal consistency review procedures for federal license or permit activities, federal agency activities and development projects, and outer continental shelf (OCS) plans. In addition, the new sections incorporate updated rule cross-references that became outdated as a result of the administrative transfer of rules from 31 TAC Chapter 506 to 31 TAC Chapter 30, effective on December 1, 2022.
The adopted repeals and new sections are necessary for the continued implementation of the Coastal Coordination Act, as amended by SB 656, and to ensure the GLO's federal consistency procedures conform to the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930.
SECTION BY SECTION SUMMARY
The adopted rules include repealing the title of Chapter 30, "Council Procedures for Federal Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Priorities," and adopting a new title for Chapter 30, "Procedures for Federal Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Policies."
New §30.10, relating to Purpose and Policy, stipulates that the rules in the Chapter establish a process for federal consistency review, as required by Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.206(d). This new section reflects federal procedures for implementing the federal consistency requirements of the CZMA and provides that federal actions and activities subject to the Texas CMP are consistent with the goals and enforceable policies. The procedures in this Chapter are also intended to allow the Commissioner to identify, address, and resolve federal consistency issues. The new section also stipulates that if any inconsistencies are found between these rules and those of the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, the federal regulations control. This new section is necessary to implement SB 656 and to update the rules to conform with the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930.
New §30.11, relating to Definitions, sets forth the meanings of key terms used in the Chapter.
New §30.11(a) adds an interpretive provision clarifying that the defined terms have the meanings set forth in this section unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.
New §30.11(a)(1) adds a definition for "associated facilities," which means all "proposed facilities: (A) which are specifically designed, located, constructed, operated, adapted, or otherwise used, in full or in major part, to meet the needs of a federal action (e.g., activity, development project, license, permit, or assistance); and (B) without which the federal action, as proposed, could not be conducted." See 15 CFR §930.11(d).
New §30.11(a)(2) adds a definition for "Coastal Coordination Act," which is the short title of Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapter F.
New §30.11(a)(3) adds a definition for "coastal zone," which means the "portion of the coastal area located within the boundaries established by the CMP under Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.2053(k), and described in Chapter 27 of this title (relating to Coastal Management Program Boundary)."
New §30.11(a)(4) adds a definition for "CMP," which means "Texas Coastal Management Program, which was accepted into the federal Coastal Zone Management Program in 1996 after receiving approval from the federal Office for Coastal Management."
New §30.11(a)(5) adds a definition for "CMP coordinator," which means the "GLO Coastal Resources staff member designated by the commissioner."
New §30.11(a)(6) adds a definition for "CMP goals and enforceable policies," which means the "goals and enforceable policies set forth in Chapter 26 of this title."
New §30.11(a)(7) adds a definition for "Commissioner," which means the "Commissioner of the GLO."
New §30.11(a)(8) adds a definition for "Committee," which means the "Coastal Coordination Advisory Committee."
New §30.11(a)(9) adds a definition for "CZMA," which means the "Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended."
New §30.11(a)(10) - (16) adds definitions for "development project," "Director," "federal agency," "federal agency activity," "federal assistance," "federal license or permit activity," and "Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) plan," that are consistent with the Federal Consistency Regulations in 15 CFR Part 930.
New §30.11(a)(17) adds a definition for "program boundary," which means "CMP program boundary established in §27.1 of this title (relating to the Coastal Management Program Boundary)."
New §30.11(b) adds an interpretive provision clarifying that statutory or regulatory terms or phrases that are not defined in the Chapter retain the meaning provided in the pertinent agency's regulations unless a different meaning is assigned in the applicable regulations under the CZMA.
New §30.12, relating to Federal Listed Activities Subject to CZMA Review, identifies federal agency actions that are subject to the Federal Consistency regulations set out in 15 CFR Part 930.
New §30.12(a) states that federal actions within the CMP boundary may adversely affect coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs) within the coastal zone. The list of federal actions that are subject to CZMA federal consistency review by the GLO include federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, and federal assistance applications.
New §30.12(a)(1) explains that a consistency determination is required for federal agency activities and development projects by or on behalf of federal agencies that may have reasonably foreseeable effects on CNRAs. The new subsection also states that a consistency determination or negative determination must be submitted to the GLO in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Consistency regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, subpart C.
New §30.12(a)(1)(A) - (F) identify federal agencies that must submit consistency determinations or negative determinations to the GLO for specifically listed activities in this section.
New §30.12(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) identify the following United States Department of the Interior activities subject to consistency review: "(i) modifications to the boundaries of the Coastal Barrier Resource System under 16 United States Code Annotated, §3503(c); and (ii) OCS lease sales within the western and central Gulf of Mexico under 43 United States Code Annotated, §1337."
New §30.12(a)(1)(B) identifies a United States Environmental Protection Agency activity subject to consistency review: "Selection of remedial actions under 42 United States Code Annotated §9604(c)."
New §30.12(a)(1)(C)(i) - (viii) identify the following United States Army Corps of Engineer activities subject to consistency review: "(i) small river and harbor improvement projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §577; (ii) water resources development projects under 42 United States Code Annotated, §1962d-5; (iii) small flood control projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §701s; (iv) small beach erosion control projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §426g; (v) operation and maintenance of civil works projects under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Parts 335 and 338; (vi) dredging projects under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Part 336; (vii) approval for projects for the prevention or mitigation of damages to shore areas attributable to federal navigation projects pursuant to 33 United States Code Annotated, §426i; and (viii) approval for projects for the placement on state beaches of beach-quality sand dredged from federal navigation projects pursuant to 33 United States Code Annotated, §426j."
New §30.12(a)(1)(D)(i) and (ii) identify the following Federal Emergency Management Agency activities subject to consistency review: "(i) model floodplain ordinances; and (ii) approval of a community's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 59, subpart B."
New §30.12(a)(1)(E)(i) and (ii) identify the following General Services Administration activities subject to consistency review: "(i) acquisitions under 40 United States Code Annotated, §602 and §603; and (ii) construction under 40 United States Code Annotated, §605."
New §30.12(a)(1)(F)(i) and (ii) identify the following federal agency activities subject to consistency review: "(i) all other development projects; (ii) and natural resource restoration plans developed pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 United States Code Annotated §§2701-2761) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 United States Code Annotated §§9601-9675)."
New §30.12(a)(2), relating to Federal License or Permit Activities, explains that for all proposed activities requiring a federal license or permit, a consistency certification must be submitted to GLO pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart D.
New §30.12(a)(2)(A) - (F) identify federal agencies and associated licenses and permits that have reasonably foreseeable adverse effects upon CNRAs and require applicants to submit a consistency certification to the GLO if the proposed action occurs in the Texas coastal zone.
New §30.12(a)(2)(A)(i) - (v) identify the following Environmental Protection Agency activities that are subject to consistency review: "(i) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1342; (ii) ocean dumping permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1412; (iii) approvals of land disposal of wastes under 42 United States Code Annotated, §6924(d); and (iv) development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and associated federally developed TMDL implementation plans under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1313; and (v) approvals of National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1330f."
New §30.12(a)(2)(B)(i) - (v) identify the following United States Army Corps of Engineers activities and Memoranda of Agreement that are subject to consistency review: "(i) ocean dumping permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1413; (ii) dredge and fill permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1344; (iii) permits under §9 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 United States Code Annotated, §401; (iv) permits under §10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 United States Code Annotated, §403; and (v) Memoranda of Agreement for mitigation banking."
New §30.12(a)(2)(C)(i) - (iii) identify the following United States Department of Transportation approvals and licenses that are subject to consistency review: "(i) approvals under §7(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1963, 23 United States Code Annotated, §106; (ii) approvals under §502 of the General Bridge Act of 1946, 33 United States Code Annotated, §525; and (iii) deepwater port licenses under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1503."
New §30.12(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies airport operating certificates for the Federal Aviation Administration under 49 United States Code Annotated, §44702.
New §30.12(a)(2)(E)(i) - (iii) identify the following Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authorizations that are subject to consistency review: "(i) certificates under §7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 United States Code Annotated, §717f; (ii) licenses under §4 of the Federal Power Act, 16 United States Code Annotated, §797(e); and (iii) exemptions under §403 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 United States Code Annotated, §2705(d)."
New §30.12(a)(2)(F) identifies Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses that are subject to consistency review: "Licenses under §103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 United States Code Annotated, §2133."
New §30.12(a)(3), relating to State and Local Government Applications for Federal Assistance, is adopted with changes from the language in the proposal. The change to this subsection was made in response to comments and discussion with NOAA Office for Coastal Management (OCM) staff regarding the list of federal financial assistance awards in the proposal, and the GLO's decision to postpone listing certain federal financial assistance awards pending further analysis and evaluation. Specifically, §30.12(a)(3) has been changed to remove the proposed list of federal financial assistance awards. Instead of the proposed list, the subsection adds and adopts language that provides as follows: "Federal financial assistance awards may be subject to federal consistency review in accordance with the procedures specified at 15 CFR §§ 930.98 and 930.54 with the approval of the Office for Coastal Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration." As the GLO is no longer including listed federal financial assistance awards, the language in adopted §30.12(a)(3) is intended to outline the procedure for reviewing unlisted federal financial assistance awards pursuant to the federal regulations.
New §30.12(b), relating to the review of OCS Exploration Plans, and Development and Production Plans, as set out in 43 United States Code, §§1340(c) and 1351, includes "activities that are authorized by the United States Department of the Interior and provides for the review of a federal license or permit activity described in detail in OCS plans, including pipeline activities."
New §30.12(c), relating to the review of a proposed federal agency activity that is unlisted in subsection (a)(1) of this section, states that the GLO will follow the federal regulations process set out in 15 CFR §930.34(c) and that if the GLO elects to review a proposed federal license or permit activity of a type that is unlisted in subsection (a)(2) of this section the GLO will follow the procedures set out in 15 CFR §930.54.
New §30.20, relating to Consistency Determinations for Federal Agency Activities and Development Projects, adds a section that details the required information for a consistency determination and the associated federal consistency review process for a federal agency activity or development project.
New §30.20(a), relating to the Review of a Consistency Determination, sets forth the review standard that the GLO must follow when conducting a consistency review of a federal agency activity or development project as set out in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart C. The new subsection requires a federal agency activity or development project to be consistent with the CMP goals and enforceable policies.
New §30.20(b), relating to Required Information for a Consistency Determination, identifies the information required for a consistency determination as set out in 15 CFR §930.39. This includes: a detailed description of the activity, its associated facilities, coastal effects, and comprehensive data and information sufficient to support the federal agency's consistency statement. The new subsection also provides that the amount of detail in the evaluation of the enforceable policies, activity description and supporting information is to be commensurate with the expected coastal effects of the activity. Additionally, a federal agency may submit the information to the GLO in any manner that it chooses so long as the requirements in 15 CFR §930.39 are met. The federal agency is also required to provide the consistency determination to the GLO for review no later than ninety (90) days prior to the approval of the activity. The new subsection also requires a statement in the consistency determination indicating whether the proposed activity will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the Texas CMP. This is in conformance with 15 CFR §930.39(a).
New §30.20(c), relating to Request for Information, explains how GLO staff may request information from a federal agency if the federal agency provides an incomplete consistency determination, the GLO provides notice of the incomplete submission in accordance with the federal regulations, and it is the type of information identified in 15 CFR §930.39(a).
New §30.20(d), relating to NEPA or other Project documents, describes the types of documents, a federal agency may provide to GLO to sufficiently support the federal agency's consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR §930.39(a).
New §30.20(e), relating to Demonstration of Consistency, describes the type of information a federal agency must provide in support of the federal agency's consistency determination. The information is set out in 15 CFR §930.39(a) and this section notes that the federal agency should demonstrate consistency to the maximum extent practicable with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. The demonstration of consistency may rely upon information contained in NEPA documents or other project documents, but if a consistency determination is embedded within a NEPA document, this should be clearly stated and provided to the GLO. The consistency determination should also meet all of the information requirements of 15 CFR §930.39(a) which can include a reference to the findings of the NEPA document.
New §30.20(f), relating to Public Participation, provides a description of the public notice and comment period for a consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR §930.42. The new subsection provides that the GLO may issue joint public notices with federal agencies involved with the respective activity or development project. The GLO may also extend the public notice and comment period or schedule a public meeting. The new subsection also provides that the GLO will consider all comments received during the notice period.
New §30.20(g), relating to Referral to Commissioner, describes the process for referring a matter to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review. This new subsection states that to refer an issue, at least three committee members must agree that a significant unresolved issue exists regarding consistency with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. If this requirement is met, then at least three committee members must submit a letter or email addressed to the CMP coordinator with a request that the matter be referred to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review. Any applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies that are unresolved and potential impacts to CNRAs should be addressed in the letter or email. The referral process tracks the requirements in Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.206(e), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.20(h), relating to Commissioner Review, describes the factors the Commissioner must consider when conducting an elevated consistency review for a federal agency activity or development project. The new subsection states that the Commissioner will consider: (1) oral or written testimony received during the public comment period; (2) applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies; (3) information submitted by the federal agency or applicant; and (4) other relevant information to determine consistency with CMP goals and enforceable policies. This new subsection conforms to the requirements of Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.204(e), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.20(i), relating to the Review Period, sets the timeframe in which GLO will provide a decision or status update to the federal agency on the consistency determination. Under the new subsection, the GLO will provide a status update to the federal agency in writing within sixty (60) days from the date the consistency determination was deemed administratively complete. If the GLO has not completed its review during this time, the GLO will explain the basis for delay and follow the procedures set out in 15 CFR §930.36(b)(2) if an additional fifteen (15) days for review is necessary. The new subsection further states that a concurrence may be presumed by the federal agency if the matter has not been acted upon by the GLO after sixty (60) days from the date of administrative completeness and the GLO has not requested additional time for review. The sixty (60) day presumption of concurrence is set out in 15 CFR §930.41.
New §30.20(j), relating to Commissioner Objection, describes the process in which the Commissioner may object to the consistency determination. The new subsection provides that the federal agency will be notified of the objection prior to the time, including any extensions, that the federal agency is entitled to presume the activity's consistency. The Commissioner's objection will follow the requirements provided in 15 CFR §930.43 which set out the required content for an objection.
New §30.20(k), relating to Mediation, describes how mediation may be sought if the Commissioner objects to the federal agency's consistency determination because it is deemed inconsistent with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. The mediation process is set out in 15 CFR §§930.110 et seq.
New §30.20(l), relating to Final Approval, describes the time that must pass before a federal agency may make a decision to undertake a proposed federal agency activity subject to CZMA review in §30.12 of this chapter.
New §30.30, relating to Consistency Certifications for Federal License or Permit Activities, describes the requirements for a consistency certification and the federal consistency process associated with the review of federal license or permit activities as provided for in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart D.
New §30.30(a), relating to Review of a Consistency Certification, describes the consistency certification review process for a non-federal applicant for a federal license or permit activity listed under §30.12 of this chapter. This new subsection provides the applicable review standard that the GLO will follow when conducting a consistency certification review of a federal license or permit activity in accordance with 15 CFR Part 930, subpart D. The new subsection also requires a federal license or permit activity listed under §30.12 of this Chapter to be consistent with the CMP goals and enforceable policies.
New §30.30(b), relating to Required Information for a Consistency Certification, requires an applicant for a federal license or permit activity to submit a consistency certification to the GLO for a consistency review. The consistency certification must be complete and follow the requirements set out in 15 CFR §930.57. This includes the necessary data and information that is required in 15 CFR §930.58 and §§30.30(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this Chapter. The applicant must also provide a statement affirming that the "The proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of Texas's approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program" which is in conformance with 15 CFR §930.57(b).
New §30.30(c), relating to a Request for Necessary Data and Information, states that GLO staff may request necessary data and information from the applicant when it has received an incomplete submission of information, as required by 15 CFR §§930.57 and 930.58. The GLO will send a notice of incomplete submission and may delay the start of the review period if the request for this information is provided within thirty (30) days from the date the consistency certification is received by the GLO.
New §30.30(d), relating to the Review Period, provides the GLO up to six (6) months to conduct the consistency review and issue a decision on the consistency certification request. The review period is initiated when the required necessary data and information has been received by the GLO. The required necessary data and information is identified in 15 CFR §930.58 and 31 TAC §30.30(b). The GLO cannot require the issuance of state or local permits to begin the consistency review, but the lack of this information may result in an objection based on lack of information because the GLO is unable to complete the consistency review without the identified information.
New §30.30(e), relating to Mutual Stay Agreement, allows the GLO and applicant to enter into a mutual written agreement with the applicant to stay the CZMA review period in accordance with 15 CFR §930.60(b). The mutual stay agreement provides additional time for the applicant and GLO to resolve any issues before the consistency review period expires. For a stay to be executed, the mutual stay agreement must be entered into before the consistency review period expires. The remaining day count in the federal consistency review period that is available on the date the mutual stay agreement is signed will be available to the GLO for purposes of completing the consistency review after the stay agreement expires.
New §30.30(f), relating to Permit Assistance, states that the GLO will provide permit assistance and guidance when requested by the applicant in accordance with 15 CFR §930.56.
New §30.30(g), relating to Consolidation of Federal License or Permit Activities, encourages applicants to consolidate related federal license or permit activities that are identified in §30.12 of this chapter (relating to Listed Federal Activities Subject to CZMA Review) to maximize efficiency and avoid unnecessary delays by reviewing all federal license or permit activities relating to a project at the same time.
New §30.30(h), relating to Public Participation, describes the public participation process which is in accordance with 15 CFR §930.61. The new subsection states that the GLO may issue joint public notices with the federal permitting or licensing agency. The new subsection also provides that the GLO may extend the public comment period or schedule a public meeting on the consistency certification. Comments received during the comment period will be considered.
New §30.30(i), relating to Demonstration of Consistency, explains how an applicant should demonstrate that the federal license or permit activity under review is consistent with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. The new subsection allows required state and local permits that have been issued to the applicant to be used by the applicant as evidence to demonstrate consistency with the CMP goals and enforceable policies.
New §30.30(j), relating to Referral to Commissioner, explains the process for referring a matter to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review of the consistency certification. To refer a matter, at least three committee members must agree that a significant unresolved issue exists regarding consistency with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. If this requirement is met, then at least three committee members must submit a letter or email addressed to the CMP coordinator with a request that the issue be referred to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review. Any applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies that are unresolved and potential impacts should be addressed in the letter or email. The referral process is consistent with the requirements in Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.206(e), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.30(k), relating to Commissioner Review, describes the factors the Commissioner must consider when conducting an elevated consistency review of a consistency certification. The factors that will be considered include: (1) oral or written testimony received during the public comment period; (2) applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies; (3) information submitted by the federal agency or applicant; and (4) other relevant information to determine consistency with CMP goals and enforceable policies. This new subsection conforms to the requirements of Texas Natural Resource Code, §33.204(e), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.30(l), relating to Presumption of Concurrence, describes when a concurrence may be presumed. Under the new subsection, the GLO will provide a status update in writing within ninety (90) days to the applicant seeking a federal license or permit. If the GLO has not issued a decision within six (6) months from the date the GLO received the complete consistency certification, the applicant may presume a concurrence.
New §30.30(m), relating to Commissioner Objection, provides that once a matter has been referred to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review with the goals and enforceable policies of the CMP, the Commissioner may object to the consistency certification in accordance with the requirements in 15 CFR §930.63.
New §30.30(n), relating to Right of Appeal, provides that if the Commissioner finds that the proposed federal license or permit activity is inconsistent with the CMP goals and enforceable policies and objects to the consistency certification, the GLO shall notify the applicant of its appeal rights to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, and the federal agency shall not authorize the federal license or permit activity, except as provided through the appeal process established in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart H.
New §30.40(a), relating to Consistency Review of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration, Development, and Production Activities, requires that an authorization from the U.S. Department of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 USC §§1331-1356(a)) be consistent with the goals and enforceable policies of the CMP. The GLO shall conform to the requirements and procedures set out in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart E and 43 U.S.C. §§1331 et seq.
New §30.40(b), relating to Consistency Certification of an OCS Plan, requires that any person, as defined at 15 CFR §930.72, submitting any OCS plan to the Secretary of Interior or designee shall provide a copy of the OCS plan and that the consistency certification include a provision affirming as follows: "The proposed activities described in detail in this plan shall comply with Texas' approved coastal management program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program." The new section also incorporates the requirement in 15 CFR §930.76 that the Secretary of the Interior or designee must provide the plan and consistency certification to the appropriate State agency, which in this case is the GLO.
New §30.40(c), relating to Request for Information, states that GLO's six (6) month review period on a consistency certification for an OCS plan begins on the date the GLO receives the information required at 15 CFR §930.76, and all the necessary data and information required at 15 CFR §930.58(a). Pursuant to 15 CFR §930.60(a), within thirty (30) days of an incomplete submission, GLO shall inform the person submitting the OCS plan that the GLO six (6) month review period will commence on the date of receipt of the missing consistency certification or necessary data and information. The GLO may waive the requirement that all necessary data and information described in §930.58(a) be submitted before commencement of the State agency's six (6) month consistency review. In the event of such a waiver, the requirements of 15 CFR §930.58(a) must be satisfied prior to the end of the six (6) month consistency review period or the GLO may object to the consistency certification for insufficient information.
New §30.40(d), relating to Consolidation of Related Authorizations, encourages persons submitting OCS plans to consolidate related federal licenses and permits that are subject to GLO review. This is not required but would allow for a more efficient review and minimize the duplication of effort and unnecessary delays. See 15 CFR §930.81.
New §30.40(e), relating to Public Participation, describes the public notice and comment period in accordance with 15 CFR §930.77. The new subsection provides that the GLO may issue joint public notices with the federal permitting or licensing agency. The new subsection also provides that the GLO may extend the public comment period or schedule a public meeting on the consistency certification. Comments received during the comment period will be considered by the GLO.
New §30.40(f), relating to Referral to Commissioner, explains the process for referring a matter to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review of the OCS plan's consistency certification. To refer an issue, at least three committee members must agree that a significant unresolved issue exists regarding the OCS plan's consistency with the CMP goals and enforceable policies. If this requirement is met, then at least three committee members must submit in writing a letter or email addressed to the CMP coordinator with a request that the issue be referred to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review. Any applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies that are unresolved and potential impacts should be addressed in the letter or email. The referral process conforms to Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.206(e), as amended.
New §30.40(g), relating to Commissioner Review, describes the factors the Commissioner must consider when conducting an elevated consistency review of an OCS Plan's consistency certification. The factors that will be considered include: (1) oral or written testimony received during the public comment period; (2) applicable CMP goals and enforceable policies; (3) information submitted by the federal agency or person; and (4) other relevant information to determine consistency with CMP goals and enforceable policies. This new subsection follows the requirements of Texas Natural Resources Code, §33.204(e), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.40(h), relating to Review Period, states that if the GLO has not issued a decision regarding the OCS plan within three months from the date the GLO received the administratively complete consistency certification, then the GLO shall notify the person submitting the plan, Secretary of the Interior, and the Office for Coastal Management (OCM) Director of the status of the review and basis for further delay. See 15 CFR §930.78. The GLO's review period is up to six (6) months but if no action is taken by the GLO, a concurrence may be presumed after three (3) months.
New §30.40(i), relating to Presumption of Concurrence, provides that if the GLO does not act on an OCS plan within three (3) months of the date from when the GLO receives an administratively complete consistency certification, then the GLO's concurrence with the consistency certification shall be conclusively presumed. If the GLO provides a status of review letter within three (3) months and continues its review, a concurrence may be presumed at six (6) months. Additionally, if the GLO issues a concurrence or the action is presumed concurrent, then the person submitting the OCS plan is not required to submit additional consistency certifications to the GLO for the individual federal authorizations that will be required to authorize the activities described in detail in the OCS plan as set out in 15 CFR §930.79.
New §30.40(j), relating to Commissioner Objection, provides that once a matter has been referred to the Commissioner for an elevated consistency review with CMP goals and enforceable policies, the Commissioner may object to a federal license or permit activity described in detail in the OCS plan's consistency certification as provided for in 15 CFR §930.79. The GLO will notify the person of its appeal rights to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.
Proposed new §30.50, relating to Consistency Review of Federal Assistance Applications, is withdrawn. Given that new §30.12(a)(3), as adopted with the changes discussed above, does not include listed federal financial assistance awards, the GLO has determined that the more detailed review procedures in proposed new §30.50 are not needed at this time. Although §30.50 is withdrawn, the GLO intends to reserve the section number for future use.
New §30.60, relating to Equivalent Federal and State Actions, sets out the referral thresholds of a proposed activity for state consistency review, and does not allow a state and federal consistency review to occur for the same action.
New §30.60(a), relating to Below Thresholds, provides that if a proposed activity requiring a state agency or subdivision action falls below thresholds for referral approved under Chapter 29, Subchapter B of this title (relating to Commissioner Certification of State Agency Rules and Approval of Thresholds for Referral) and requires an equivalent federal permit or license under this chapter, the GLO may only determine the state agency or subdivision action's consistency by using the process provided in Chapter 29 of this title (relating to Procedures for State Consistency with Coastal Management Program Goals and Policies). The GLO's determination regarding the consistency of an action under this subsection constitutes the state's determination regarding consistency of the equivalent federal action.
New §30.60(b), relating to Above Thresholds, states that if an activity requiring a state agency or subdivision action meets the threshold for referring the matter for an elevated consistency review and requires an equivalent federal permit or license, the GLO may determine the consistency of the state agency or subdivision action or the federal license or permit, but not both. Texas Natural Resource Code, §33.206(f), as amended by SB 656.
New §30.60(c), relating to Equivalent State Action or Federal Action, explains that an action made by the GLO under §§30.60(a) and (b) is the state's determination regarding consistency of the equivalent agency or subdivision action or federal action. Texas Natural Resource Code, §33.206(f), as amended by SB 656.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
During the public comment period, GLO received comments from NOAA OCM staff regarding the proposed new rules in Chapter 30. Specifically, OCM staff provided comments regarding the federal consistency list in §30.12. Following discussion between GLO and OCM staff, several of the comments were resolved and resulted in no changes to the proposal. In response to OCM comments regarding proposed §30.12(a)(3), relating to State and Local Government Applications for Federal Assistance, the GLO decided to revise the subsection. Specifically, the proposed list of federal financial assistance awards in §30.12(a)(3) was removed and replaced with the adopted language which outlines the procedures for reviewing unlisted federal financial assistance awards pursuant to the federal regulations. Pending further evaluation and analysis, the GLO may decide in the future to propose adding a list of certain federal financial assistance awards and seek OCM approval of the same, in which case this rule would be proposed for amendment in a subsequent rulemaking action. In the meantime, given the changes to §30.12(a)(3) as adopted, the GLO has determined that the procedures in proposed §30.50 are not needed at this time and therefore §30.50 is withdrawn.
No other comments were received on the proposed repeals and new rules.
31 TAC §§30.10 - 30.13, 30.20 - 30.37, 30.40 - 30.45, 30.50 - 30.54
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The repeals are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; and §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule.
The repeals are necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302230
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
31 TAC §§30.10 - 30.12, 30.20, 30.30, 30.40, 30.60
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
The new sections are adopted under Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, including §33.051, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to perform the duties provided in Chapter 33, Subchapter C; §33.052, which authorizes the GLO and the commissioner to develop, coordinate, and implement a continuing comprehensive CMP; §33.054, which allows the commissioner to review and amend the CMP; and §33.204, which authorizes the commissioner to adopt goals and policies of the CMP by rule.
The adopted new sections are necessary to implement Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 33, Subchapters C and F.
§30.12.Federal Listed Activities Subject to CZMA Review.
(a) For purposes of this section, the following federal actions within the CMP boundary may adversely affect coastal natural resource areas (CNRAs) within the coastal zone. This list of federal actions includes federal agency activities, federal license or permit activities, and federal assistance applications that are subject to CZMA federal consistency review by the GLO.
(1) Federal Agency Activities and Development Projects. For all actions proposed by or on behalf of federal agencies that may have reasonably foreseeable effects on CNRAs, a consistency determination or negative determination must be submitted to the GLO pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Consistency regulations found at 15 CFR Part 930, subpart C.
(A) United States Department of the Interior:
(i) modifications to the boundaries of the Coastal Barrier Resource System under 16 United States Code Annotated, §3503(c); and
(ii) OCS lease sales within the western and central Gulf of Mexico under 43 United States Code Annotated, §1337;
(B) United States Environmental Protection Agency. Selection of remedial actions under 42 United States Code Annotated, §9604(c);
(C) United States Army Corps of Engineers:
(i) small river and harbor improvement projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §577;
(ii) water resources development projects under 42 United States Code Annotated, §1962d-5;
(iii) small flood control projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §701s;
(iv) small beach erosion control projects under 33 United States Code Annotated, §426g;
(v) operation and maintenance of civil works projects under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Parts 335 and 338;
(vi) dredging projects under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Part 336;
(vii) approval for projects for the prevention or mitigation of damages to shore areas attributable to federal navigation projects pursuant to 33 United States Code Annotated, §426i; and
(viii) approval for projects for the placement on state beaches of beach-quality sand dredged from federal navigation projects pursuant to 33 United States Code Annotated, §426j;
(D) Federal Emergency Management Agency:
(i) model floodplain ordinances; and
(ii) approval of a community's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 59, subpart B;
(E) General Services Administration:
(i) acquisitions under 40 United States Code Annotated, §602 and §603; and
(ii) construction under 40 United States Code Annotated, §605;
(F) All federal agencies:
(i) all other development projects; and
(ii) natural resource restoration plans developed pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 United States Code Annotated §§2701-2761) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 United States Code Annotated §§9601-9675).
(2) Federal license or permit activities. For all actions proposed by an applicant a consistency certification must be submitted to the GLO pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Consistency regulations in 15 CFR Part 930, subpart D.
(A) Environmental Protection Agency:
(i) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1342;
(ii) ocean dumping permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1412;
(iii) approvals of land disposal of wastes under 42 United States Code Annotated, §6924(d);
(iv) development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and associated federally developed TMDL implementation plans under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1313; and
(v) approvals of National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation Management Plans under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1330f;
(B) United States Army Corps of Engineers:
(i) ocean dumping permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1413;
(ii) dredge and fill permits under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1344;
(iii) permits under §9 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 United States Code Annotated, §401;
(iv) permits under §10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899, 33 United States Code Annotated, §403; and
(v) Memoranda of Agreement for mitigation banking;
(C) United States Department of Transportation:
(i) approvals under §7(a) of the Federal-Aid Highway Amendments Act of 1963, 23 United States Code Annotated, §106;
(ii) approvals under §502 of the General Bridge Act of 1946, 33 United States Code Annotated, §525; and
(iii) Deepwater port licenses under 33 United States Code Annotated, §1503;
(D) Federal Aviation Administration: Airport operating certificates under 49 United States Code Annotated, §44702;
(E) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission:
(i) certificates under §7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 United States Code Annotated, §717f;
(ii) licenses under §4 of the Federal Power Act, 16 United States Code Annotated, §797(e); and
(iii) exemptions under §403 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978,16 United States Code Annotated, §2705(d);
(F) Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Licenses under §103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 United States Code Annotated, §2133.
(3) State and Local Government Applications for Federal Assistance. Federal financial assistance awards may be subject to federal consistency review in accordance with the procedures specified at 15 CFR §§ 930.98 and 930.54 with the approval of the Office for Coastal Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
(b) OCS Exploration Plans and Development and Production Plans. 43 United States Code, §§1340(c) and 1351. United States Department of the Interior. This includes federal agency actions requiring a license or permit described in detail in OCS plans, including pipeline activities.
(c) In the event the GLO elects to review a proposed federal agency activity of a type that is unlisted in subsection (a)(1) of this section the GLO will follow the federal regulations process set out in 15 CFR §930.34(c). If the GLO elects to review a proposed federal license or permit activity of a type that is unlisted in subsection (a)(2) of this section, the GLO will follow the procedures set out in 15 CFR §930.54.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 20, 2023.
TRD-202302231
Mark Havens
Chief Clerk, Deputy Land Commissioner
General Land Office
Effective date: July 10, 2023
Proposal publication date: January 27, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 475-1859
CHAPTER 53. FINANCE
SUBCHAPTER A. FEES
DIVISION 1. LICENSE, PERMIT, AND BOAT AND MOTOR FEES
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 23, 2023 adopted an amendment to 31 TAC §53.2, concerning License Issuance Procedures, Fees, Possession, and Exemption Rules, without changes to the proposed text as published in the February 17, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 824). The rule will not be republished.
The amendment authorizes reciprocal license privileges regarding the activities of freshwater fishing guides in the shared boundary waters of Texas and Louisiana. The department has entered into a reciprocity agreement with the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries to allow appropriately licensed residents of both states to engage in business as freshwater fishing guides in the shared boundary fresh waters of either state.
The department received one comment opposing adoption of the rule as proposed. The commenter did not provide a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 11 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The Coastal Conservation Association commented in support of adoption of the rule as proposed.
The amendment is adopted under Parks and Wildlife Code, §41.003, which authorizes the director to negotiate for the commission with the proper representatives of each state having a common border with Texas to allow reciprocal fishing on rivers and lakes on the common boundary between Texas and the border state, and under Parks and Wildlife Code, §41.006, which authorizes the commission to make regulations conforming to an agreement under §41.003 for the conservation of fish and wildlife.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 21, 2023.
TRD-202302241
James Murphy
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2023
Proposal publication date: February 17, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
SUBCHAPTER N. STATEWIDE RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL FISHING PROCLAMATION
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission in a duly noticed meeting on March 23, 2023, adopted the repeal of §57.985 and amendments to 31 TAC §§57.971 - 57.974, 57.981, and 57.992, concerning the Statewide Recreational and Commercial Fishing Proclamation. The amendments to §57.981 and §57.992 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the February 17, 2023, issue of the Texas Register (48 TexReg 825). The repeal of §57.985 and the amendments to §§57.971 - 57.974 are adopted without change and will not be republished.
The change to §57.981, concerning Bag, Possession, and Length Limits, removes an exception to catfish harvest regulations currently in effect for Dixieland Reservoir in Cameron County. Biological assessments have revealed that Dixieland Reservoir now meets the definition of a community fishing lake (CFL) because it is less than 75 acres in size and located within a city park.
The change to §57.981 also eliminates the proposed vessel limit for cobia. The proposed rule would have instituted a bag limit of one cobia per person per day with a vessel limit of two cobia per day. The proposal was intended to make harvest regulations for cobia in Texas waters consistent with federal rules in effect in federal waters. In the course of its deliberations, the commission determined that the vessel limit could in some cases act to restrict angler opportunity in Texas waters by eliminating the opportunity for more than two persons aboard any vessel to retain a cobia if desired.
The change to §57.981 also alters subsection (d)(2) to replace the phrase "greater than 14 inches" with the phrase "14 inches or greater," with respect to minimum length limits for black bass, which is necessary to prevent confusion. The department does not intend for the length limit to prohibit the retention of fish of exactly 14 inches in length. The change also alters subsection (d)(2) by adding language to clarify that Elm Lake is on Brazos Bend State Park and inserting Lake Pilant (also in Brazos Bend State Park) in the list of affected waterbodies because it is one of the state park lakes that will continue to be managed under CFL rules.
The change to §57.992, concerning Bag, Possession, and Length Limits for commercial harvest, would also eliminate the proposed vessel limit for cobia in state waters, for the same reasons articulated in the discussion of the changes to §57.981.
The repeal of §57.985, concerning Largemouth Bass - Special Bag, Possession, and Length Limits, is necessary to rescind what was, in effect, a temporary regulation that is no longer necessary because its provisions are now contained in §57.981(d)(1)(C)(iii).
The amendment to §57.971, concerning Definitions, alters the definition for "community fishing lake" and add new definitions for "descending device" and "venting tool." The alteration to the definition of community fishing lake replaces the term "public park" with the phrase "municipal, city, county, or state park" to exclude federal parklands (which are not regulated by the department) and to clarify that the provisions of the subchapter with respect to angling on community fishing lakes apply to waterbodies at all levels of political jurisdiction within the state.
The amendment also defines the terms "descending device" and "venting tool." Federal law (50 CFR Part 622) requires anglers on commercial vessels, charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels), and private recreational vessels to have a descending device or venting tool rigged and ready to use when fishing for Gulf reef fish in federal waters, which is intended to reduce release mortality caused by barotrauma (the lethal expansion of gases inside a fish when it is caught at depth and quickly brought to the surface).
The amendment to §57.972, concerning General Rules, requires a descending device or venting tool be rigged, present, and ready for use while fishing for reef fish, and be deployed on reef fish exhibiting signs of barotrauma when returning reef fish to the water; thus, the terms must be defined for purposes of compliance and enforcement.
The amendment to §57.973, concerning Devices, Means and Methods, consists of several actions.
Several components of this rulemaking affect harvest regulations on community fishing lakes (CFLs). CFLs are currently defined as "all public impoundments 75 acres or smaller located totally within an incorporated city limits or a public park, and all impoundments of any size lying totally within the boundaries of a state park." Because the overwhelming majority of CFLs are proximally located to urban and suburban environments, the department believes they are an ideal "gateway" to the angling experience for the uninitiated and curious public. The department wishes to encourage new participants to the angling experience and believes that making the experience less intimidating/confusing is crucial to that goal. Therefore, the amendments in concert implement a single harvest regulation applicable on all CFLs (with certain specific exceptions based on management goals on specific lakes), which the department believes will make the angling experience less daunting to those unfamiliar with it as well as making compliance and enforcement easier for all concerned. Historically, the department has treated virtually all state park lakes, irrespective of size, as CFLs. The CFL rules as adopted exclude several lakes associated with certain state parks that are currently being managed as CFLs (because of their size); however, the department wishes to retain certain restrictions governing means and methods (restriction of method of take to pole-and-line only, limitations on taking devices per angler) on those water bodies, which is necessary, given the high angling pressure typical on those water bodies, to equitably distribute angling opportunity and reduce user conflicts. Therefore, those state park water bodies must be identified for those restrictions to apply.
The amendment also removes Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County from special gear restriction rules because there is no longer public access to the reservoir. Therefore, the special restrictions are no longer necessary since the high angling pressure that originally necessitated them will be greatly reduced.
The amendment to §57.974, concerning Reservoir Boundaries, adds boundary descriptions for two reservoirs, corrects an inaccurate boundary description, and removes the boundary description for one reservoir. In cases where harvest regulations on a stream are different from those on a reservoir created by impounding the stream, angler confusion can occur; therefore, boundary descriptions are necessary to specifically delineate the physical point separating the differential harvest rules. The amendment adds boundary descriptions for Choke Canyon Reservoir in Live Oak and McMullen counties and O. H. Ivie Reservoir in Concho, Coleman, and Runnels counties, corrects an erroneous roadway identification in the boundary for Lake Conroe in Montgomery and Walker counties, and eliminates the description for Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County (for reasons discussed earlier in this preamble).
The amendment to §57.981, concerning Bag, Possession, and Length Limits, consists of several actions. As indicated earlier in this preamble, one aspect of this rulemaking is the implementation of a single harvest regulation on CFLs. Under current rule, harvest regulations on CFLs consist of the statewide standards for various species and numerous special exceptions. The amendment creates new subsection (d)(2) to implement a bag limit of five fish, all species combined, to include not more than one black bass of 14 inches or greater in length. By imposing a standard bag limit, the department intends to make angling opportunity less intimidating for those who are curious or simply wish to engage in angling activity during a park visit. Because CFLs are routinely stocked by the department, fish population and population structure management are less complicated than on much larger waterbodies. In this context, the bag limit for CFLs is more a matter of equitable distribution of angling opportunity than of concrete management goals for fish populations. As mentioned earlier in this preamble, the revised definition of CFLs excludes larger waterbodies associated with state parks; therefore, various portions of current rules must be altered to address harvest management on those waterbodies, in particular, various special exceptions in current rules for largemouth bass and blue and channel catfish. Current subsection (d)(1)(G)(v) - (vii) must be eliminated to accommodate the new CFL standards, although the department notes that special exceptions for blue and channel catfish on lakes Bellwood (Smith County) and Tankersley (Titus County) are eliminated, which means the statewide standard catfish harvest rules are in effect on those waterbodies. Current special exceptions for largemouth bass are removed on Lake Bright, Cleburne State Park, Meridian State Park, Rusk State Park, Buescher State Park, and Lake Lakewood. Finally, the amendment imposes the CFL bag limits on seven waterbodies that are not CFLs by definition, but which department biologists believe, based on specific indices such as angling pressure and population data, are best managed under that standard. Lakes Abilene, Raven, and Sheldon are now subject to the exceptions for blue and channel catfish harvest rules because they are state park lakes that would no longer be managed as CFLs.
Under current rule, largemouth bass on Lake Nasworthy in Tom Green County are managed under a special exception to the statewide standard, which consists of a 14 to 18-inch slot length limit. Fisheries data at Lake Nasworthy indicate that no change in largemouth bass abundance, size structure, or growth resulted from the implementation of the slot length limit. Harvest is low and the harvest of additional largemouth bass less than 14 inches is needed to restructure the population. Therefore, the amendment removes the special exception and harvest regulations and harvest regulations on those waterbodies revert to the statewide standard.
The amendment also implements a catch-and-release restriction for harvest of largemouth bass on Lake Forest Park in Denton County. The lake has been undergoing renovation activities including dam replacement, silt removal, fish habitat improvements, and fish stocking. The catch-and-release restriction is intended to temporarily protect the initial year-classes of stocked largemouth bass to develop into a quality, self-sustaining population.
Additionally, what was previously known as the Bedford Boys Ranch Lake in Tarrant County has been renamed; therefore, the amendment reflects that fact. The new name is Generations Park.
As mentioned previously in this preamble, the amendments result in the removal of exceptions to the statewide harvest regulations specific to Gibbons Creek Reservoir in Grimes County; thus, the department notes that harvest regulations on Gibbons Creek revert to the statewide standard for all species.
Finally, the amendment alters recreational bag and possession limits for cobia and prohibits the recreational retention or landing of shortfin mako sharks, both in response to federal actions. The National Marine Fisheries Service has prohibited the retention or landing of shortfin mako sharks in response to concerns about declining populations. The amendment is intended to conform state regulations with federal regulations, which is intended to prevent angler confusion and enhance compliance, administration, and enforcement. Concerns with declining stocks of cobia in the Gulf of Mexico have resulted in federal changes that reduce the daily bag limit (from two fish to one fish) and implement a boat limit of two fish. The amendment makes Texas rules regarding personal daily bag limits consistent with federal rules with the exception of the two-fish vessel limit.
The amendment to §57.992, concerning Bag, Possession, and Length Limits, implements federal actions regarding cobia and shortfin mako sharks with respect to commercial fishing. Those actions are identical to the actions described in the discussion of the adopted amendment to §57.981 and are undertaken for the same reasons.
The department received 22 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendments that affects community fishing lakes (CFLs) and selected state parks lakes managed under CFL regulations. Of those comments, four articulated a reason or rationale for opposition. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that pole restrictions on CFLs are unnecessary and overreaching. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that CFLs are small waterbodies stocked by the department in order to provide angling opportunities in urban areas and to introduce novice anglers to the fishing experience. As such they are quite popular. Gear restrictions are necessary to equitably distribute angling opportunity and to prevent user conflicts. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the uniform five-fish bag limit on CFLs is "nonsense." The commenter stated the bag limit will result in "unnatural over breeding of certain fish versus others" and that instead of "sweeping blanket policies" the department should leave fisheries management to lake authorities, counties or cities. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that because CFLs are regularly stocked by the department and typically experience significant angling pressure, species composition is not a significant management concern. The department also responds that by statute the department is the sole management authority for the public fisheries resources of the state, which means that lake authorities, counties, and cities are prohibited from resource regulation. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the gear restrictions for CFLs should allow no more than three, rather than two, pole-and-line taking devices per person, because gear can break and anglers should be allowed to have a back-up. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules prohibit the use of more than two devices by any person at the same time, not the possession of more than two devices. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the CFL daily bag limit of one black bass of 14 inches or greater is too restrictive and unnecessary because it limits a husband and wife to one fish. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the bag limit is a personal bag limit, meaning any person with a fishing license (if one is required) is entitled to the bag and length limits in effect on any waterbody.
The department received 668 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received six comments opposing adoption of the proposed amendment to §57.974, concerning reservoir boundaries. None of the commenters provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 318 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 77 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that eliminates exceptions to statewide harvest regulations on Gibbons Creek Reservoir. The commenters articulated a variety of reasons for opposition and the department disagrees with all of them, responding as stated in the preamble that public access by land to Gibbons Creek Reservoir is no longer possible; therefore, the only access to the waterbody is via public water upstream or downstream and the resultant decline in angling pressure makes the current harvest rules unnecessary. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 269 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 21 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that eliminates the slot length limit for largemouth bass on Lake Nasworthy. Of those comments, three provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the slot length limit should remain and the department should consider raising the lower end of the slot length limit to 15 inches. The commenter also stated that opinions of tournament anglers should not be what drives the regulatory process. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that fisheries data at Lake Nasworthy indicate that no change in largemouth bass abundance, size structure, or growth resulted from the implementation of the slot length limit. Harvest is low and the harvest of additional largemouth bass less than 14 inches is needed to restructure the population. Additionally, angler opinion survey data show that most anglers prefer a return to statewide length and bag limits for largemouth bass. The department also responds that management decisions are based on biological science and not the desires of any particular user group. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the lower end of the slot length limit should be reduced to 12 inches. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that fisheries data at Lake Nasworthy indicate that no change in largemouth bass abundance, size structure, or growth resulted from the implementation of the slot length limit. Harvest is low and the harvest of additional largemouth bass less than 14 inches is needed to restructure the population. Reducing the lower end of the slot length limit will not encourage or increase the needed harvest of largemouth bass less than 12 inches. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated the slot length limit should be broadened. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that, as noted elsewhere in this preamble, the slot length limit on Lake Nasworthy has not been effective. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 389 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 19 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that implements catch-and-release harvest regulations for Lake Forest Park in Denton County. Of those comments, four articulated a specific reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that catch-and-release provisions should not be imposed on any waterbody. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that catch-and-release restrictions are useful in situations where continued angler enjoyment can be offered while management actions are ongoing. Once a given management action is completed or discontinued, harvest regulations typically revert to either the statewide standard harvest rule for the species or an exception to the statewide standard. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the department's management goal of creating a self-sustaining quality largemouth bass fishery is impossible because the lake is only 15 acres in size. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the management goal is reasonable in light of existing examples of a similar nature. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that catch-and-release provisions should be based on fish weight. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that imposing weight restrictions would be problematic, as the efficacy of individual measurement devices would be variable and perhaps unreliable. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that harvest should be governed by a slot length limit. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that slot length limits function to protect certain age classes or stages of life history in a population, whereas catch-and-release only provisions protect all fish in the population until a viable population structure is established. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 387 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 18 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that eliminates special catfish harvest regulations on lakes Bellwood (Smith County) and Tankersley (Titus County) and replaces them with the statewide standard harvest regulation. None of the commenters provided a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. The department disagrees with the comments. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
The department received 318 comments supporting adoption of the rule.
The department received 21 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that prohibits the take of shortfin mako shark. Of those comments, 11 articulated a reason or rationale for opposition. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
Three commenters opposed adoption and stated that there is no data to suggest that recreational angling exerts any population-level impacts on shortfin mako shark populations and the rule is therefore overreaching. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that apart from the consensus of the scientific community that the data clearly indicate overfishing of shortfin mako sharks is occurring, the intent of the rule is to conform harvest regulations in state waters with those in effect in federal waters for purposes of preventing angler confusion and to enhance compliance, administration, and enforcement. No changes were made as a result of the comments.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are too many sharks in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of federal actions, that mako sharks are not being overfished, and that more sharks are unnecessary. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the purpose of the rule is to conform harvest regulations in state waters with those in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no evidence of overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that apart from the consensus of the scientific community that the data clearly indicate overfishing of shortfin mako sharks is occurring, the purpose of the rule is to conform harvest regulations in state waters with those in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are too many sharks decimating game fish populations. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is no biological evidence to suggest that there are too many sharks or that sharks exert negative population impacts on any other species of fish. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should not be a boat limit for shortfin mako sharks. The department agrees with the comment and responds that a boat limit was not proposed. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that recreational angling should not be regulated. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the department is required by statute to manage public fisheries resources and that in light of the popularity of fishing and the level of angling pressure, regulation of recreational angling is unquestionably necessary to protect those resources for the enjoyment of present and future generations. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should be a boat limit of one shortfin mako shark per day. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that in addition to the department's reluctance to employ boat limits due to the sometimes problematic nature of boat limits with respect to efficient distribution of individual angling opportunity, implementing a boat limit for shortfin mako sharks is unnecessary because take of shortfin mako sharks is prohibited by the rule. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there is no valid reason for the proposal because "the federal regulation is not stated." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that there is a valid reason for the rule, namely, and as explained earlier in this preamble as well as in the preamble of the proposed rule, to avoid angler confusion and problematic enforcement scenarios. Additionally, the department considers that verbatim reproduction of federal regulatory language is unnecessary because the proposal preamble clearly stated that federal rules prohibit the take of shortfin mako shark in federal waters. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the take of shortfin mako sharks should be prohibited for commercial anglers and allowed for recreational anglers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is intended to prevent angler confusion; therefore, allowing any harvest of shortfin mako shark - either commercial or recreational - in Texas waters would defeat the purpose of the rule. No changes were made a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule will cause anglers who catch shortfin mako sharks to cut the line and leave the hook and associated tackle in the shark. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule does not prohibit the catch of shortfin mako sharks, just the retention of shortfin mako sharks, and that the ethical angler will take the necessary steps to maximize the survival potential of all fish that must be released. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 128 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 15 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that imposed requirements to possess and use descending devices and venting tools. Of those comments, five offered a reason or rationale for opposing adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
Two commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rule is unnecessary in state waters because those waters are too shallow. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that a recreational saltwater license entitles the holder to fish in federal waters in addition to state waters, and notes that the rule requires the use of descending devices only on fish that exhibit signs of barotrauma. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule is stupid because there are too many snapper in the Gulf. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is intended to reduce hooking mortalities in general and applies to all species of fish showing signs of barotrauma. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the real problem is "foreign commercial fishing boats overfishing the international waters off the Texas Coast" and that international limits should be established that are enforced by all countries. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that international fishing agreements are not within the authority of the commission to negotiate. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that compliance will be low. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that ethical anglers will do their part by complying with the rules. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 147 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
The department received 17 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that affect the personal daily bag limit for cobia.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the ability to harvest wildlife resources is becoming more difficult every day. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that the rule is intended to comport rules in Texas waters with those in federal waters in order to reduce confusion. The department also responds that direct and indirect effects of human population growth over the last century have created circumstances that preclude the exploitation of natural resources without restraint or limitation, which is unsustainable. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there are plenty of cobia. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that apart from scientific data indicating that overfishing of cobia is occurring, the intent of the rule is to comport rules in Texas waters with those in federal waters in order to reduce confusion to the most practicable extent without compromising individual angling opportunity for all persons aboard a vessel. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that recreational fishing is not responsible for cobia declines. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the rule is to comport rules in Texas waters with those in federal waters in order to reduce confusion. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules should apply to "the Houston area" in order "to meet quotas." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that absent extraordinary situations, uniform harvest regulations are preferable because they are easy to understand and comply with, and that there are no "quotas" the department is aware of with respect to cobia harvest. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rules should allow the harvest of one cobia per person per day. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the rule allows the harvest of one cobia per person per day. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the rule is a knee-jerk reaction and a waste of time. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that apart from scientific data indicating that overfishing of cobia is occurring, the intent of the rule is to comport rules in Texas waters with those in federal waters in order to reduce confusion. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the daily personal bag limit should be three because "there's enough to go around." The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the data do not support a three-fish daily personal bag limit, which would result in rapid population declines. No changes were made as a result of the comment.
The department received 150 comments supporting adoption of the proposed amendment.
The department received 31 comments opposing adoption of the portion of the proposed amendment to §57.981 that would have imposed a vessel limit for the take of cobia. Of those comments, seven provided a specific reason or rationale for opposition. Those comments, accompanied by the department's response to each, follow.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that to remove the opportunity for everyone aboard a vessel to catch a cobia is overbearing and unreasonable. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that after extensive deliberation, the commission was reluctant to employ boat limits due to the sometimes problematic nature of boat limits with respect to efficient distribution of individual angling opportunity; therefore, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that there should not be a vessel limit for recreational anglers. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that after extensive deliberation, the commission was reluctant to employ boat limits due to the sometimes problematic nature of boat limits with respect to efficient distribution of individual angling opportunity; therefore, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that a vessel limit would cause problems on charter vessels. The department agrees with the comment and responds that the vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that imposing a boat limit will only confuse the fishermen without having an impact on the species. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that after extensive deliberation, the commission was reluctant to employ boat limits due to the sometimes problematic nature of boat limits with respect to efficient distribution of individual angling opportunity; therefore, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the cobia limit per vessel per day should be four. The department neither agrees nor disagrees with the comment and responds that after extensive deliberation, the commission was reluctant to employ boat limits due to the sometimes problematic nature of boat limits with respect to efficient distribution of individual angling opportunity; therefore, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that the vessel limit should not apply to recreational anglers, which does not include party boats. The department disagrees with the comment to the extent that anyone fishing under a recreational license is engaged in recreational angling, including persons on chartered vessels, and, for reasons discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
One commenter opposed adoption and stated that vessel limit should only apply to commercial anglers. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the intent of the proposed rule was to standardize harvest regulation with those in effect in federal waters, which would affect all harvest, both recreational and commercial, but that in any case, the proposed vessel limit was not adopted.
The department received 125 comments supporting adoption of the rule as proposed.
DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
The amendments are adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 21, 2023.
TRD-202302237
James Murphy
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2023
Proposal publication date: February 17, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.
§57.981.Bag, Possession, and Length Limits.
(a) For all wildlife resources taken for personal consumption and for which there is a possession limit, the possession limit shall not apply after the wildlife resource has reached the possessor's residence and is finally processed.
(b) The possession limit does not apply to fish in the possession of or stored by a person who has an invoice or sales ticket showing the name and address of the seller, number of fish by species, date of the sale, and other information required on a sales ticket or invoice.
(c) There are no bag, possession, or length limits on game or non-game fish, except as provided in this subchapter.
(1) Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit on game and non-game fish except as otherwise provided in this subchapter.
(2) For flounder, the possession limit is the daily bag limit.
(3) The bag limit for a guided fishing party is equal to the total number of persons in the boat licensed to fish or otherwise exempt from holding a license minus each fishing guide and fishing guide deckhand multiplied by the bag limit for each species harvested.
(4) A person may give, leave, receive, or possess any species of legally taken wildlife resource, or a part of the resource, that is required to have a tag or permit attached or is protected by a bag or possession limit, if the wildlife resource is accompanied by a wildlife resource document (WRD) from the person who took the wildlife resource, provided the person is in compliance with all other applicable provisions of this subchapter and the Parks and Wildlife Code. The properly executed WRD document shall accompany the wildlife resource until it reaches the possessor's residence and is finally processed. The WRD must contain the following information:
(A) the name, signature, address, and fishing license number, as required of the person who killed or caught the wildlife resource;
(B) the name of the person receiving the wildlife resource;
(C) a description of the wildlife resource (number and type of species or parts); and
(D) the location where the wildlife resource was killed or caught (name of ranch; area; lake, bay or stream; and county).
(5) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section, the statewide daily bag and length limits shall be as follows.
(A) Amberjack, greater.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 38 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: No limit.
(B) Bass:
(i) The daily bag limit for largemouth, smallmouth, spotted, Alabama, and Guadalupe is 5, in any combination.
(ii) Alabama, Guadalupe, and spotted.
(I) No minimum length limit.
(II) No maximum length limit.
(iii) Largemouth and smallmouth.
(I) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(II) No maximum length limit.
(iv) Striped and their hybrids.
(I) Daily bag limit: 5 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(v) White.
(I) Daily bag limit: 25.
(II) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(C) Catfish:
(i) channel and blue (including hybrids and subspecies).
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) No minimum length limit.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(IV) It is unlawful to retain more than 10 channel and blue catfish, in the aggregate, of 20 inches or greater in length.
(ii) flathead.
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iii) gafftopsail.
(I) No daily bag limit.
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(D) Cobia.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 40 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(E) Crappie, black and white (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) Daily bag limit: 25.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(F) Drum, black.
(i) Daily bag limit: 5.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: 30 inches.
(iv) One black drum over 52 inches may be retained per day as part of the five-fish bag limit.
(G) Drum, red.
(i) Daily bag limit: 3.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 20 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: 28 inches.
(iv) During a license year, one red drum exceeding the maximum length limit established by this subparagraph may be retained when affixed with a properly executed Red Drum Tag, a properly executed Exempt Angler Red Drum Tag, or with a properly executed Duplicate Exempt Red Drum Tag, and one red drum over the stated maximum length limit may be retained when affixed with a properly executed Bonus Red Drum Tag. Any fish retained under authority of a Red Drum Tag, an Exempt Angler Red Drum Tag, a Duplicate Exempt Red Drum Tag, or a Bonus Red Drum Tag may be retained in addition to the daily bag and possession limit as provided in this section.
(v) A person who lawfully takes a red drum under a digital license issued under the provisions of §53.3(a)(12) this title (relating to Super Combination Hunting and Fishing License Packages) or under a lifetime license with the digital tagging option provided by §53.4(a)(1) of this title (relating to Lifetime Licenses) that exceeds the maximum length limit established by this subparagraph is exempt from any requirement of Parks and Wildlife Code or this subchapter regarding the use of license tags for that species; however, that person shall immediately upon take ensure that a harvest report is created and submitted via a mobile or web application provided by the department for that purpose. If the absence of data connectivity prevents the receipt of a confirmation number from the department following the report required by this subparagraph, the person who took the red drum is responsible for ensuring that the report required by this subparagraph is uploaded to the department immediately upon the availability of network connectivity.
(vi) It is an offense for any person to possess a red drum exceeding the maximum length established by this subparagraph under a digital license or digital tagging option without being in immediate physical possession of an electronic device that is:
(I) loaded with the mobile or web application designated by the department for harvest reporting under this subsection; and
(II) capable of uploading the harvest report required by this subsection.
(vii) A person who is fishing under a license identified in §53.4(a)(1) of this title and selected the fulfilment of physical tags must comply with the tagging requirements of this chapter that are applicable to the tagging of red drum under a license that is not a digital license.
(H) Flounder: all species (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) Daily bag limit: 5.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(iv) During November, lawful means are restricted to pole-and-line only and the bag and possession limit for flounder is two. For the first 14 days in December, the bag and possession limit is two, and flounder may be taken by any legal means. On September 1, 2021, the provisions of this clause cease effect.
(v) Beginning September 1, 2021, the season for flounder is closed from November 1 through December 14 every year.
(I) Gar, alligator.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(iv) During May, no person shall take alligator gar from, or possess alligator gar while on, the Red River (including Lake Texoma) and all tributaries that drain directly or indirectly to the Red River on the Texas/Oklahoma border in Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, and Bowie counties.
(v) Any person who takes an alligator gar in the public waters of this state other than Falcon International Reservoir shall report the harvest via the department's website or mobile application within 24 hours of take.
(vi) Between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise, any lawful means other than lawful archery equipment and crossbow may be used to take an alligator gar in the portion of the Trinity River described in subsection (d)(1)(L)(ii) of this section, except for persons selected for opportunity as provided in §57.972(j) of this title (relating to General Provisions).
(vii) Except for persons selected for opportunity as provided in §57.972(j) of this title, no person in the portion of the Trinity River described in subsection (d)(1)(L)(ii) of this section may take an alligator gar by means of lawful archery equipment or crossbow between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise, or possess an alligator gar taken by means of lawful archery equipment or crossbow between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise.
(J) Grouper.
(i) Black.
(I) Daily bag limit: 4.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Gag.
(I) Daily bag limit: 2.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iii) Goliath. The take of Goliath grouper is prohibited.
(iv) Nassau. The take of Nassau grouper is prohibited.
(K) Mackerel.
(i) King.
(I) Daily bag limit: 3.
(II) Minimum length limit: 27 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Spanish.
(I) Daily bag limit: 15.
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(L) Marlin.
(i) Blue.
(I) No daily bag limit.
(II) Minimum length limit: 131 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) White.
(I) No daily bag limit.
(II) Minimum length limit: 86 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(M) Mullet: all species (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) No daily bag limit.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) From October through January, no mullet more than 12 inches in length may be taken from public waters or possessed on board a vessel.
(N) Sailfish.
(i) No daily bag limit.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 84 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(O) Seatrout, spotted.
(i) Daily bag limit: 5.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: 25 inches.
(iv) Only one spotted seatrout greater than 25 inches may be retained per day. A spotted seatrout retained under this subclause counts as part of the daily bag and possession limit.
(P) Shark: all species (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) all species other than the species listed in clauses (ii) - (iv) of this subparagraph:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 64 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Atlantic sharpnose, blacktip, and bonnethead:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iii) great, scalloped, and smooth hammerhead:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 99 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iv) The take of the following species of sharks from the waters of this state is prohibited and they may not be possessed on board a vessel at any time:
(I) Atlantic angel;
(II) Basking;
(III) Bigeye sand tiger;
(IV) Bigeye sixgill;
(V) Bigeye thresher;
(VI) Bignose;
(VII) Caribbean reef;
(VIII) Caribbean sharpnose;
(IX) Dusky;
(X) Galapagos;
(XI) Longfin mako;
(XII) Narrowtooth;
(XIII) Night;
(XIV) Sandbar;
(XV) Sand tiger;
(XVI) Sevengill;
(XVII) Shortfin mako;
(XVIII) Silky;
(XIX) Sixgill;
(XX) Smalltail;
(XXI) Whale; and
(XXII) White.
(v) Except for the species listed in clauses (ii) - (iv) of this subparagraph, sharks may be taken using pole and line, but must be taken by non-offset, non-stainless-steel circle hook when using natural bait.
(Q) Sheepshead.
(i) Daily bag limit: 5.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(R) Snapper.
(i) Lane.
(I) Daily bag limit: None.
(II) Minimum length limit: 8 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Red.
(I) Daily bag limit: 4.
(II) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(IV) Red snapper may be taken using pole and line, but it is unlawful to use any kind of hook other than a circle hook baited with natural bait.
(V) During the period of time when the federal waters in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are open for the recreational take of red snapper:
(-a-) the bag limit for red snapper caught in the EEZ is two, and the minimum length limit is 16 inches; and
(-b-) red snapper caught in the EEZ shall count as part of the bag limit established in subclause (I) of this clause.
(iii) Vermilion.
(I) Daily bag limit: None.
(II) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(S) Snook.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: 28 inches.
(T) Tarpon.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 85 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(U) Triggerfish, gray.
(i) Daily bag limit: 20.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 16 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(V) Tripletail.
(i) Daily bag limit: 3.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 17 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(W) Trout (rainbow and brown trout, including their hybrids and subspecies).
(i) Daily bag limit: 5 (in any combination).
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(X) Walleye and Saugeye.
(i) Daily bag limit: 5.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(iv) Two walleye or saugeye of less than 16 inches may be retained.
(d) Exceptions to statewide daily bag, possession, and length limits shall be as follows:
(1) Freshwater species.
(A) Bass: largemouth, smallmouth, spotted, and Guadalupe (including their hybrids and subspecies). Devils River (Val Verde County) from State Highway 163 bridge crossing (Bakers Crossing) to the confluence with Big Satan Creek including all tributaries within these boundaries and all waters in the Lost Maples State Natural Area (Bandera County).
(i) Daily bag limit: 0.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) Catch and release only.
(B) Bass: largemouth and spotted.
(i) Caddo Lake (Marion and Harrison counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 8 (in any combination with spotted bass).
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 - 18 inch slot limit (largemouth bass); no limit for spotted bass.
(III) It is unlawful to retain largemouth bass between 14 and 18 inches. No more than 4 largemouth bass 18 inches or longer may be retained. Possession limit is 10.
(ii) Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton, Sabine, and Shelby counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 8 (in any combination with spotted bass).
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches (largemouth bass); no limit for spotted bass. Possession limit is 10.
(iii) Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to a line across Sabine Pass between Texas Point and Louisiana Point.
(I) Daily bag limit: 8 (in any combination with spotted bass).
(II) Minimum length limit: 12 inches (largemouth bass); no limit for spotted bass. Possession limit is 10.
(C) Bass: largemouth
(i) Chambers, Hardin, Galveston, Jefferson, Liberty (south of U.S. Highway 90), Newton (excluding Toledo Bend Reservoir), and Orange counties including any public waters that form boundaries with adjacent counties.
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 12 inches.
(ii) Lake Conroe (Montgomery and Walker counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 16 inches.
(iii) Lakes Bellwood (Smith County), Bois d'Arc (Fannin County), Davy Crockett (Fannin County), Kurth (Angelina County), Mill Creek (Van Zandt County), Moss (Cooke), Nacogdoches (Nacogdoches County), Naconiche (Nacogdoches County), Purtis Creek State Park (Henderson and Van Zandt counties), and Raven (Walker).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Maximum length limit: 16 inches.
(III) It is unlawful to retain largemouth bass of greater than 16 inches in length. Largemouth bass 24 inches or greater in length may be retained in a live well or other aerated holding device for purposes of weighing but may not be removed from the immediate vicinity of the lake. After weighing the bass must be released immediately back into the lake unless the department has instructed that the bass be kept for donation to the ShareLunker Program.
(iv) Lakes Casa Blanca (Webb County), Fairfield (Freestone County), Gilmer (Upshur County), Marine Creek Reservoir (Tarrant County), Pflugerville (Travis County), and Welsh (Titus County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(v) Generations Park (Tarrant County), Buck Lake (Kimble County), Lake Forest Park (Denton County), Lake Kyle (Hays County), and Nelson Park Lake (Taylor County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 0.
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) Catch and release only.
(vi) Lakes Alan Henry (Garza County), Grapevine (Denton and Tarrant counties), Jacksonville (Cherokee County), and O.H. Ivie Reservoir (Coleman, Concho, and Runnels counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) It is unlawful to retain more than two bass of less than 18 inches in length.
(vii) Lakes Athens (Henderson County), Bastrop (Bastrop County), Houston County (Houston County), Joe Pool (Dallas, Ellis, and Tarrant counties), Lady Bird (Travis County), Murvaul (Panola County), Pinkston (Shelby County), Timpson (Shelby County), Walter E. Long (Travis County), and Wheeler Branch (Somervell County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 - 21 inch slot limit.
(III) It is unlawful to retain largemouth bass between 14 and 21 inches in length. No more than 1 bass 21 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(viii) Lakes Fayette County (Fayette County), Fork (Wood Rains and Hopkins counties), and Monticello (Titus County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 16 - 24 inch slot limit.
(III) It is unlawful to retain largemouth bass between 16 and 24 inches in length. No more than 1 bass 24 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(D) Bass: striped and their hybrids.
(i) Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to I.H. 10 bridge and Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton, Sabine, and Shelby counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) No more than 2 striped bass 30 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(ii) Lake Texoma (Cooke and Grayson counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 10 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) No more than 2 striped or hybrid striped bass 20 inches or greater in length may be retained each day. Striped or hybrid striped bass caught and placed on a stringer in a live well or any other holding device become part of the daily bag limit and may not be released. Possession limit is 20.
(iii) Red River (Grayson County) from Denison Dam downstream to and including Shawnee Creek (Grayson County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) Striped bass caught and placed on a stringer in a live well or any other holding device become part of the daily bag limit and may not be released.
(iv) Trinity River (Polk and San Jacinto counties) from the Lake Livingston dam downstream to the F.M. 3278 bridge.
(I) Daily bag limit: 2 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(E) Bass: white. Lakes Caddo (Harrison and Marion counties), Texoma (Cooke and Grayson counties), and Toledo Bend (Newton Sabine and Shelby counties) and Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to I.H. 10 bridge.
(i) Daily bag limit: 25.
(ii) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(F) Carp: common. Lady Bird Lake (Travis County).
(i) Daily bag limit: No limit.
(ii) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(iii) It is unlawful to retain more than one common carp of 33 inches or longer per day.
(G) Catfish: channel and blue catfish, their hybrids and subspecies.
(i) Lake Kyle (Hays County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 0.
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) Catch and release and only.
(ii) Trinity River (Polk and San Jacinto counties) from the Lake Livingston dam downstream to the F.M. 3278 bridge.
(I) Daily bag limit: 10 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 12 inches.
(III) No more than 2 channel or blue catfish 24 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(iii) Lakes Caddo (Harrison and Marion counties), Livingston (Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker counties), Sam Rayburn (Angelina, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Sabine, and San Augustine counties), and Toledo Bend (Newton, Sabine and Shelby counties) and the Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to the I.H. 10 bridge.
(I) Daily bag limit: 50 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) No more than five catfish 30 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(IV) Possession limit is 50.
(iv) Lake Texoma (Cooke and Grayson counties) and the Red River (Grayson County) from Denison Dam to and including Shawnee Creek (Grayson County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 15 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) No more than one blue catfish 30 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(v) Lakes Belton (Bell and Coryell counties), Bob Sandlin (Camp, Franklin, and Titus counties), Conroe (Montgomery and Walker counties), Hubbard Creek (Stephens County), Kirby (Taylor County), Lavon (Collin County), Lewisville (Denton County), Palestine (Cherokee, Anderson, Henderson, and Smith counties), Ray Hubbard (Collin, Dallas, Kaufman, and Rockwall counties), Richland-Chambers (Freestone and Navarro counties), Tawakoni (Hunt, Rains, and Van Zandt counties), and Waco (McClennan).
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) No more than five blue or channel catfish 20 inches or greater may be retained each day, and of these, no more than one can be 30 inches or greater in length.
(vi) Lakes Abilene (Taylor County), Braunig (Bexar County), Calaveras (Bexar County), Choke Canyon (Live Oak and McMullen counties), Fayette County (Fayette County), Proctor (Comanche County), Raven (Walker County), and Sheldon (Harris County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 15 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(H) Catfish: flathead.
(i) Lake Texoma (Cooke and Grayson counties) and the Red River (Grayson County) from Denison Dam to and including Shawnee Creek (Grayson County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(ii) Lakes Caddo (Harrison and Marion counties) and Toledo Bend (Newton, Sabine, and Shelby) and the Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to the I.H. 10 bridge.
(I) Daily bag limit: 10.
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(III) Possession limit: 10.
(I) Crappie: black and white crappie their hybrids and subspecies.
(i) Caddo Lake (Harrison and Marion counties), Toledo Bend Reservoir (Newton Sabine and Shelby counties), and the Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to the I.H. 10 bridge.
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(ii) Lake Fork (Wood, Rains, and Hopkins counties) and Lake O' The Pines (Camp, Harrison, Marion, Morris, and Upshur counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(III) From December 1 through the last day in February there is no minimum length limit. All crappie caught during this period must be retained.
(iii) Lake Texoma (Cooke and Grayson counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 37 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(III) Possession limit is 50.
(iv) Lake Nasworthy (Tom Green County).
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(III) Possession limit is 50.
(J) Drum, red. Lakes Braunig and Calaveras (Bexar County).
(i) Daily bag limit: 3.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 20.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(K) Gar, alligator.
(i) Falcon International Reservoir (Starr and Zapata counties).
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) No minimum length limit.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) On the Trinity River and all tributary waters from the I-30 bridge in Dallas County downstream through Anderson, Ellis, Freestone, Henderson, Houston, Kaufman, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Navarro, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker counties to the I-10 bridge in Chambers County, including the East Fork of the Trinity River and all tributaries upstream to the Lake Ray Hubbard dam, the maximum length limit is 48 inches, except for persons selected by a department-administered drawing authorizing the take of a gar in excess of 48 inches in length.
(iii) During May, no person shall take alligator gar from, or possess alligator gar while on, the Red River (including Lake Texoma) and all tributaries that drain directly or indirectly to the Red River on the Texas/Oklahoma border in Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, and Bowie counties.
(L) Shad gizzard and threadfin. Trinity River below Lake Livingston (Polk and San Jacinto counties).
(i) Daily bag limit: 500 (in any combination).
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) Possession limit: 1000 (in any combination).
(M) Sunfish: all species. Lake Kyle (Hays County).
(i) Daily bag limit: 0.
(ii) Minimum length limit: No limit.
(iii) Catch and release and only.
(N) Trout: rainbow and brown trout (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) Guadalupe River (Comal County) from the second bridge crossing on the River Road upstream to the easternmost bridge crossing on F.M. 306.
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 18 inches.
(ii) Guadalupe River (Comal County) from the easternmost bridge crossing on F.M. 306 upstream to 800 yards below the Canyon Lake dam.
(I) Daily bag limit: 5.
(II) Minimum length limit: 12 - 18 inch slot limit.
(III) It is unlawful to retain trout between 12 and 18 inches in length. No more than one trout 18 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(2) Except as specifically provided elsewhere in this subchapter, the daily bag limit on the waterbodies enumerated in this paragraph is 5 fish (all species combined), to include not more than 1 black bass (Micropterus spp.) of 14 inches or greater in length.
(A) All CFLs;
(B) Brushy Creek (Williamson County) from the Brushy Creek Reservoir dam downstream to the Williamson/Milam county line;
(C) Canyon Lake Project #6 (Lubbock County);
(D) Deputy Darren Goforth Park Lake (Harris County);
(E) Elm (Brazos Bend State Park in Fort Bend County);
(F) Pilant (Brazos Bend State Park in Fort Bend County);
(G) Tucker Lake (Stephens and Palo Pinto counties);
(H) North Concho River (Tom Green County) from O.C. Fisher Dam to Bell Street Dam; and
(I) South Concho River (Tom Green County) from Lone Wolf Dam to Bell Street Dam.
(3) Saltwater species. There are no exceptions to the provisions established in subsection (c)(5) of this section.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 21, 2023.
TRD-202302238
James Murphy
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2023
Proposal publication date: February 17, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The repeal is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 21, 2023.
TRD-202302240
James Murphy
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2023
Proposal publication date: February 17, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775
The amendment is adopted under the authority of Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 61, which requires the commission to regulate the periods of time when it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the means, methods, and places in which it is lawful to hunt, take, or possess game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life in this state; the species, quantity, age or size, and, to the extent possible, the sex of the game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life authorized to be hunted, taken, or possessed; and the region, county, area, body of water, or portion of a county where game animals, game birds, or aquatic animal life may be hunted, taken, or possessed.
§57.992.Bag, Possession, and Length Limits.
(a) The possession limit applies to all aquatic animal life in the possession of or stored by any person, but does not apply to aquatic animal life that has been lawfully obtained and for which a person possesses an invoice or sales ticket showing the name and address of the seller or person from whom the aquatic animal life was obtained, the amount of aquatic animal life by number and species, date of the sale, and any other information required on a sales ticket or invoice.
(b) There are no bag, possession, or length limits on game fish, non-game fish, or shellfish, except as otherwise provided in this subchapter.
(1) Possession limits are twice the daily bag limit on game fish, non-game fish, and shellfish, except as provided in this subchapter.
(2) For flounder, the possession limit is the daily bag limit.
(3) The bag limit for a guided fishing party is equal to the total number of persons in the boat licensed to fish or otherwise exempt from holding a license minus each fishing guide and fishing guide deckhand multiplied by the bag limit for each species harvested.
(4) The statewide daily bag and length limits for commercial fishing shall be as follows.
(A) Amberjack, greater.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length: 34 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: No limit.
(B) Catfish.
(i) channel and blue (including hybrids and subspecies). The provisions of subclauses (I) - (III) of this clause apply on all waters for which an exception is not provided under subclause (IV) of this clause.
(I) Daily bag limit: 25 (in any combination).
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(IV) Exceptions.
(-a-) Lakes Caddo (Harrison and Marion counties), Livingston (Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker counties), Sam Rayburn (Angelina, Jasper, Nacogdoches, Sabine, and San Augustine counties), and Toledo Bend (Newton Sabine, and Shelby counties), and the Sabine River (Newton and Orange counties) from Toledo Bend dam to the I.H. 10 bridge.
(-1-) 50 (in any combination).
(-2-) No more than five catfish 30 inches or greater in length may be retained each day.
(-b-) Any lake lying totally within a state park and community fishing lakes: 5 (in any combination).
(-c-) Counties where sale and purchase of catfish taken from public fresh water is allowed under the provisions of Parks and Wildlife Code, §66.111(b)(5): 25 (in any combination).
(ii) Gaffstopsail.
(I) No daily bag limit.
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(C) Cobia.
(i) Daily bag limit: 1.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 40 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(D) Drum, black.
(i) Daily bag limit: None.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(iii) Maximum length limit: 30 inches.
(E) Flounder: all species (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) Daily bag limit: 30. Possession limit is equal to the daily bag limit.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(iv) During November, lawful means are restricted to pole-and-line only and the bag and possession limit for flounder is two. For the first 14 days in December, the bag and possession limit is two, and flounder may be taken by any legal means. On September 1, 2021, the provisions of this clause cease effect.
(v) Beginning September 1, 2021, the season for flounder is closed from November 1 through December 14 every year.
(F) Gar, alligator.
(i) Daily bag limit:
(I) On Falcon International Reservoir: 5.
(II) Remainder of the state: 1.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) No maximum length limit except that on the Trinity River and all tributary waters from the I-30 bridge in Dallas County downstream through Anderson, Ellis, Freestone, Henderson, Houston, Kaufman, Leon, Liberty, Madison, Navarro, Polk, San Jacinto, Trinity, and Walker counties to the I-10 bridge in Chambers County, including the East Fork of the Trinity River and all tributaries upstream to the Lake Ray Hubbard dam, the maximum length limit is 48 inches.
(iv) During May, no person shall take alligator gar from, or possess alligator gar while on, the Red River (including Lake Texoma) and all tributaries that drain directly or indirectly to the Red River on the Texas/Oklahoma boundary in Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, Lamar, Red River, and Bowie counties.
(v) any person who takes an alligator gar in the public waters of this state other than Falcon International Reservoir shall report the harvest via the department's website or mobile application within 24 hours of take.
(vi) Between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise, any lawful means other than lawful archery equipment and crossbow may be used to take an alligator gar in the portion of the Trinity River described in subsection (d)(1)(L)(ii) of this section. In the portion of the Trinity River described in §57.981(d)(1)(L)(ii) of this title (relating to Bag, Possession and Length Limits), no person may take an alligator gar by means of lawful archery equipment or crossbow between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise, or possess an alligator gar taken by means of lawful archery equipment or crossbow between one half-hour after sunset and one half-hour before sunrise.
(G) Grouper.
(i) Black.
(I) Daily bag limit: 4.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Gag.
(I) Daily bag limit: 2.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iii) Goliath. The take of Goliath grouper is prohibited.
(iv) Nassau. The take of Nassau grouper is prohibited.
(H) Mackerel.
(i) King.
(I) Daily bag limit: 3.
(II) Minimum length limit: 27 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Spanish.
(I) Daily bag limit: 15.
(II) Minimum length limit: 14 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(I) Mullet: all species (including hybrids, and subspecies).
(i) No daily bag limit.
(ii) No minimum length limit.
(iii) From October through January, no mullet more than 12 inches in length may be taken from public waters or possessed on board a vessel.
(J) Shark: all species (including hybrids and subspecies).
(i) all species other than the species listed in clauses (ii) - (iv) of this subparagraph:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 64 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Atlantic sharpnose, blacktip, and bonnethead:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 24 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iii) great, scalloped, and smooth hammerhead:
(I) Daily bag limit: 1.
(II) Minimum length limit: 99 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(iv) The take of the following species of sharks from the waters of this state is prohibited and they may not be possessed on board a vessel at any time:
(I) Atlantic angel;
(II) Basking;
(III) Bigeye sand tiger;
(IV) Bigeye sixgill;
(V) Bigeye thresher;
(VI) Bignose;
(VII) Caribbean reef;
(VIII) Caribbean sharpnose;
(IX) Dusky;
(X) Galapagos;
(XI) Longfin mako;
(XII) Narrowtooth;
(XIII) Night;
(XIV) Sandbar;
(XV) Sand tiger;
(XVI) Sevengill;
(XVII) Shortfin mako;
(XVIII) Silky;
(XIX) Sixgill;
(XX) Smalltail;
(XXI) Whale; and
(XXII) White.
(v) Except for the species listed in clause (ii) - (iv) of this subparagraph, sharks may be taken using pole and line, but must be taken by non-offset, non-stainless-steel circle hook when using natural bait.
(K) Sheepshead.
(i) Daily bag limit: No limit.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(L) Snapper.
(i) Lane.
(I) Daily bag limit: None.
(II) Minimum length limit: 8 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(ii) Red.
(I) Daily bag limit: 4.
(II) Minimum length limit: 15 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(IV) Red snapper may be taken using pole and line, but it is unlawful to use any kind of hook other than a circle hook baited with natural bait.
(iii) Vermilion.
(I) Daily bag limit: None.
(II) Minimum length limit: 10 inches.
(III) No maximum length limit.
(M) Triggerfish, gray.
(i) Daily bag limit: 20.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 16 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
(N) Tripletail.
(i) Daily bag limit: 3.
(ii) Minimum length limit: 17 inches.
(iii) No maximum length limit.
The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the adoption and found it to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on June 21, 2023.
TRD-202302239
James Murphy
General Counsel
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Effective date: July 11, 2023
Proposal publication date: February 17, 2023
For further information, please call: (512) 389-4775