August 6, 2002
Mr. Robert Cook
Executive Director
Texas Parks & Wildlife Department
4200 Smith School Rd.
Austin, TX 78744

Re: Comments on Draft Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Land and Water Conservation and Recreation Plan.

Dear Mr. Cook:

The undersigned organizations appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Texas Parks & Wildlife Department Land and Water Conservation and Recreation Plan. Our joint comments are attached.

We are excited about the opportunity that the development of a Land and Water Conservation and Recreation Plan presents. The draft Plan includes some important recommendations for beginning to address Texas' rapidly growing conservation and recreation needs. However, as set out in the attached comments, we feel that the draft Plan has serious deficiencies that must be addressed in order to provide a comprehensive framework for meeting the long-term outdoor recreation and conservation needs of Texans. In addition to a few overarching observations, our comments concentrate on four substantive areas of the Plan: state parks, local parks, conservation of private lands, and water quantity. In addition, we note the critical importance of including in the Plan a discussion of options for securing a reliable funding source for the implementation of the Plan's recommendations. We strongly urge TPWD to include our recommendations in the Plan and, specifically, to expand the Goals For the Next Ten Years section of the Plan consistent with the attached comments.

The draft Plan is a good starting point but it must be significantly improved if it is to serve as an effective long-term plan for guiding the Department's efforts to meet our state's critical natural resource conservation needs and to provide sufficient public outdoor recreational opportunities for current and future Texans.

Sincerely,

American Farmland Trust
Clean Water Action
Environmental Defense
Hill Country Conservancy
Lone Star Chapter, Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Areas Protection Association
Texans for State Parks
Texas Center For Policy Studies
Texas Coalition for Conservation
Texas Committee on Natural Resources
Texas Community Project
The Conservation Fund
Texas Recreation and Park Society
Trust For Public Land

I. General Points

A ten-year planning horizon is extremely short. For example, acquiring, developing, and opening a state park will commonly take at least that long. The development of the Government Canyon State Natural Area, appropriately touted in the Plan as a prime example of future parkland development, serves to illustrate the point. Property acquisition for that project was initiated in 1993, long after planning had begun, and the facility still is not open. That amount of delay between planning for a park and actually opening one seems likely to be common. As a result, a comprehensive plan needs to take a longer view in order to provide a framework for making decisions now so that actions can be initiated in time to address future recreation and conservation needs as they develop. At minimum, if a ten-year planning horizon is used, the Plan must be updated no less frequently than once every five years in order to ensure that there will always be a plan in effect to guide decisions at least some minimal period into the future.

The potential for meeting the conservation and recreation needs of current and future Texans will only lessen with time. Although this point is given passing reference in the Conclusion section of the draft Plan, it merits further development and discussion. Time is of the essence in moving to meet conservation and recreation needs. The availability of land for acquisition will only decrease over time. The price of available land can only be expected to increase. Those trends are likely to be most pronounced in rapidly developing areas where the demand for new acquisitions will be greatest. The Plan should expressly acknowledge those factors and explain how the Department intends to address them. There is a very high cost, especially to future generations of Texans, for continued delay in addressing our State's conservation and recreation needs. The Plan should expressly acknowledge that cost (ideally, with some quantitative analysis) and explain how the Department recommends that the cost of delay should be addressed.

Certainly, we all are aware of the anticipated shortfalls in the State budget. However, this is supposed to be a long-term plan. It must establish the framework for long-term decisions. Developing a Plan that primarily reflects current budgetary constraints will largely defeat the basic purpose of preparing a Plan. The Plan must provide a framework for decision-making that can be applied in future years according to the situation as it exists then.

In order for TPWD to effectively address public outdoor recreation needs it is critical that the Plan recommends specific, measurable goals for state park and wildlife management area acquisition. The absence of such measurable goals will significantly hinder TPWD's ability to meet conservation and outdoor recreation needs over the next ten years and beyond as well as result in missed opportunities for new land acquisitions.

The goal established in the draft Plan of acquiring from 4 to 6 state parks (or combined state parks and wildlife management areas) of at least 5,000-acres each near major urban centers over the next ten years is a good starting point. However, it does not reflect projected population growth and simply does not establish an adequate basis for meeting future public outdoor recreation needs. A measurable goal for state park and wildlife management area acquistion that is tied to population growth should be recommended in the Plan.

TPWD should adopt the goal recommended in the Texas Parks & Wildlife for the 21^st Century study of providing 55 acres of state parkland per 1000 people. This goal is based upon population growth and would allow TPWD to take action during the next ten years to meet the state's growing conservation and recreation needs. This would avoid placing the state in a position of facing unrealistically daunting challenges at the end of the ten-year period. Land prices continue to increase and availability of suitable park sites, particularly in urban areas, continues to decrease. Delaying needed acquisition even longer will only make the situation more difficult.

According to official state demographic projections from the State Data Center, the state's population will grow by about 3,336,687 people from 2000 to 2010. In order to accommodate that population growth, while simply maintaining the current level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would have to acquire an additional 173,000 acres of parkland by 2010. Thus, even meeting the proposed goal of acquiring up to 6 state parks at 5000 acres each (a total of 30,000 acres), would still result in the state losing significant ground, dropping to approximately 46 acres of state parkland per 1000 people by 2010. At a minimum, the plan should recommend that TPWD acquire 173,000 acres of state parkland over the next ten years. That acquisition should be primarily targeted at sites near urban areas. The 173,000 acre figure represents the minimum amount of parkland acquisition that would be needed to avoid falling dangerously far behind the goal of providing adequate access to public land for an increasingly urban population.

In the Austin area (Travis, Hays, Williamson, and Bastrop counties), population is projected to increase by 297,709 people from 2000 to 2010. This area already is far behind the state average in acres of state parkland per 1000 people. In order to keep pace with the current state level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would need to acquire 15,480 acres near the Austin area.

In the Houston area (Harris, Ft. Bend, Galveston, Brazoria counties), population is projected to increase by 709,102 people from 2000 to 2010. In order to keep pace with the current state level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would need to acquire 36,873 acres near the Houston area.

In the Rio Grande Valley (Hidalgo, Cameron counties), population is projected to increase by 254,704 people from 2000 to 2010. This area already is far behind the state average in acres of state parkland per 1000 people. To keep pace with the current state level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would need to acquire 13, 245 acres near the Rio Grande Valley area.

In the Dallas/Ft. Worth area (Dallas, Tarrant, Denton, Collin counties), population is projected to increase by 891,315 people from 2000 to 2010. This area already is far behind the state average in acres of state parkland per 1000 people. To keep pace with the current state level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would need to acquire 46,348 acres near the Dallas area.

In the San Antonio area (Bexar and Guadalupe counties), population is projected to increase by 175,466 people from 2000 to 2010. This area already is far behind the state average in acres of state parkland per 1000 people. To keep pace with the current level of 52 acres of state parkland per 1000 people, TPWD would need to acquire 9,124 acres near the San Antonio area.

If TPWD continues to express need for state parkland in terms of numbers of new state parks instead of a goal based on population growth such as numbers of acres per 1000 people, TPWD should, at an absolute minimum, establish a goal of acquiring, over the next ten years, 15 state parks of at least 5,000-acres each, with these new parks concentrated near the 5 major urban centers listed above. Based on projected population growth four parks should be acquired in the north Texas area near Dallas/Fort Worth, four parks acquired near the Houston area, three acquired in the central Texas area near Austin, two acquired in the Rio Grande Valley, and two in the San Antonio area. In some cases expansion of existing state parks in combination with acquisition of new state parks could be used to address need for additional parkland. However, the criteria in the Plan should be broad enough to support acquisition or expansion of parks in other areas if unique opportunities are presented through the availability of land of particularly high resource or recreational value, particularly if a failure to acquire the property now would make future availability unlikely.

A minimum of 15 state parks near the 5 major urban areas would allow TPWD to better meet public outdoor recreation and conservation needs than 4 to 6 new state parks. As it is currently written, the plan will fail to sufficiently meet conservation and recreation needs by 2010 because the recommendation for 4 to 6 new state parks are not tied to, and will not come close to keeping pace with, projected population growth. It is not acceptable to adopt a Plan that fails to provide for meeting the recreation and conservation needs of the people of Texas. In the past, we have failed to plan. We should not now settle for planning to fail.

Local parks are a critical component of the comprehensive system of parks that provide public recreation opportunities in Texas. Local parks play a significant role in juvenile crime prevention, public health, education, historic and natural resources conservation, economic development, and a higher quality of life. Unfortunately, funding for local parks is inadequate to meet current and future demands for public recreation opportunities in cities and towns. The extent of that inadequacy is made clear by the fact that TPWD has only funded 375 out of 975 local park grants applied for since 1993. Moreover, Texas averages only 12.2 acres of local parks per 1,000 people compared to the national goal of 25 acres of per 1,000 established by the National Recreation and Park Association. Given the tremendous importance of local parks for meeting public recreation needs and the inadequacy of funding levels, local parks should be addressed more substantively in the draft Plan.

The portions of the Plan addressing local parks are too vague to provide clear guidance on how TPWD will help to meet local park needs over the next ten years. Significantly, the plan fails to recommend any specific goals for local parks over the next ten years. The plan simply states that TPWD will continue to support local park needs through competitive grants. That statement is so broad that it has only marginal meaning. Given the vast amount of unmet local park needs, specific recommendations for using the TPWD grants program to solve these problems must be included in the final Plan.

The Plan should offer recommendations for addressing the overall inadequacy of local parks funding. Those recommendations should acknowledge and address the increased local parks needs that will accompany projected population growth. The Plan should include specific recommendations for developing priorities for local parks funding, such as a tiered program based on population size. Funding for local park grants has not increased since 1993. Given the extent of projected population growth, the Plan must acknowledge the need for an increase in the funding dollars available through the Texas Recreation and Parks Account.

Local parkland issues are not even acknowledged in the "goals for the next ten years" portion of the Plan. That is a serious oversight. There are tremendous unmet local parks needs and the Plan must include a specific timeline for steps to begin addressing those needs. The Plan also should establish a clear mechanism for reassessing local parkland needs on an ongoing basis in order to ensure that the most effective and efficient strategies are pursued on an ongoing basis.

In general, the Plan is much too vague regarding private lands.  The suggested planning steps need more detail and measures of success need to be included.

The Plan should include a discussion of how private lands efforts will be coordinated with public land management so as to encourage landscape-scale efforts at habitat restoration, wildlife management, and maintenance of ecosystem processes.

A significant omission is a discussion of how TPWD will better integrate its private landowner efforts with those of other agencies and organizations.  TPWD should take a lead role in coordination and communication among all of these different groups so as to leverage and complement efforts.

Expanding the development of Wildlife Management Plans (WMPs) by the amounts specified in the Plan is a noble endeavor, but quantity does not necessarily equal quality.  The Plan should identify priority species and habitats for WMPs and delineate the focus of WMPs in each ecoregions. Given the inherently limited amount of resources that will be available for these programs, the Plan must establish criteria for prioritizing where those resources will be directed. Consistent with landowner interest, the Plan should ensure that the general public will achieve the maximum possible benefit by prioritizing activities in areas near publicly-owned conservation properties, areas with significant resource threats, and areas with unique natural resources. These criteria should be used in targeting resources within ecoregions and habitat types.

The plan uses terms such as "enhance efforts", "encourage",and "emphasize" when referring to planning and conservation efforts.  The plan needs to establish measurable outcomes.

Since native Blackland prairies were named as an important conservation priority, we have included an example plan for effectively conserving and restoring this nearly extinct habitat:

TPWD will work with (or simply assist) partner agencies and organizations (such as Native Prairie Association of Texas and The Nature Conservancy) to purchase the remaining intact Blackland prairie fragments from willing sellers. Easements and Purchase of Development Rights (PDRs) will be offered to owners that do not wish to sell.  Wildlife Management Planning efforts, technical assistance, and Landowner Incentive Program will all focus on maintaining the integrity of intact prairies, expanding these prairies, and restoring prairies.  Intact prairies will be used as seed sources for restoration and expansion efforts and also for educational field trips.  Within the ten-year period of this plan it is expected that all of the remaining tracts of intact Blackland prairie will be purchased, put under easement or PDR, or supported through TPWD and partner assistance.  Restoration efforts will be focused on 10,000 acres at 15 sites over this same period.

Similar plans with measurable outcomes could be developed for bottomland hardwoods, prairie potholes, playa lakes and other important habitats. Considerable information is currently available to develop detailed, results-based plans for these habitats.

The Plan should recommend the Landowner Incentive Program establish a priority list of rare and endangered species for funding and work more closely with partners on endangered species recovery efforts.

The fact that, beginning in FY03, there will be no funding support from the State of Texas for the Landowner Incentive Program (relying solely on federal dollars) is a serious mistake. This shows a lack of commitment to the stewardship efforts of private landowners and a retreat from the former leadership role that TPWD and the State of Texas had taken with this program. TPWD should work to re-establish state-based funding so as to leverage (and not rely exclusively on) federal dollars and show "local" support to the efforts of private landowners in protecting and restoring rare and unique wildlife habitats.

For the past 25 years, Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs nationwide have slowed the conversion of agricultural and natural resources to urban uses by providing landowners with an alternative to selling for development. The time has come for Texas to offer its landowners the same tools that 21 other states offer to help keep land in families and conserve natural resources for all citizens.

In 2003, the Texas Legislature will consider a bill to establish and fund a PDR program. Given Texas’ strong private property climate, the purchase of development rights concept has gained wide support (see witness list for House Land and Resource Management’s Urban Sprawl subcommittee public hearings at www.capitol.state.tx.us). TPWD’s active support of this program is a natural fit as this bill moves through the legislature, for the following reasons:

· Funding for a PDR program would have no negative impact on TPWD’s existing programs nor would TPWD be asked to pay for purchasing development rights.

· PDR helps landowners conserve water, wildlife, agricultural land and cultural and historical resources by providing financial incentives for limiting development on private land.

· PDR makes conservation possible for landowners who want to keep their land in the family but who cannot afford to donate a conservation easement.

· PDR permanently conserves wildlife habitat at a significantly lower cost than fee simple acquisition, and operation and management costs remain the responsibility of the private landowner.

· Funds received by landowners in exchange for permanent land protection can be used to enhance property to provide recreation opportunities for the public.

· PDR slows habitat fragmentation and protects habitat for game and nongame species including TPWD priority wildlife species quail, mule and white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, desert bighorn sheep and lesser prairie chicken and important community types like native prairie and riparian systems.

· PDR augments the tools, such as fee simple acquisition and conservation easements, which have been so successfully used by Texas land trusts to permanently protect more than a quarter of a million acres of Texas.

While wildlife management plans promote positive relationships with landowners and temporarily conserve habitat, they provide no assurance that time and funds spent by the Department today to develop a plan will ensure that habitat remains for wildlife tomorrow.

TPWD should enhance its commitment to a private lands program that provides quantifiable and substantial benefits to landowners, wildlife habitat, water quantity protection and the public. The draft Plan recommendation on PDR does not reflect this commitment. The draft Plan should recommend that TPWD advocate for a funded statewide private lands conservation program, such as a Purchase of Development Rights program, that would buy development rights from willing landowners and compensate them for foregoing development income in favor of conserving wildlife, water, open landscapes and Texas' traditional way of life rather than selling family lands for development.

The strong support that PDR is receiving from a variety of organizations and the tremendous positive impact that it would have on Texas’ private landowners, water resources and wildlife suggest that the recommendation as stated above should be placed among TPWD’s Private Land Goals for the Next Ten Years.

The Plan provides a much-needed focus on the threats to freshwater and saltwater habitats in Texas that are posed by water pollution and reductions in stream flows. Generally the Plan presents a concise but thorough summary of the specific impacts of these threats in a manner that is understandable to the general public. Moreover, the discussion of instream flow study needs in different river basins and the overview of priority bay and estuary systems help to convey the relevance of water resources problems to Texans living in these areas of the state. The Plan also conveys the importance of water-based recreation in Texas and helps to demonstrate the critical linkage between recreation and the protection of aquatic habit and water quality.

The Plan is not as strong, however, in its discussion of the strategies required for meeting the conservation and recreation needs on water. Commendably TPWD makes it clear that the agency has "responsibility for maintaining healthy bays, adequate fish populations, productive commercial fisheries and excellent recreational fisheries." In addition TPWD has pledged to "continue to work with the public, stakeholder groups and regulatory agencies to ensure…adequate quantity and quality of water to support land and water ecosystems and public outdoor recreation." Clearly the agency understands the important mission that it has under state law to protect the fish and wildlife resources of the state and the significance of those resources to the economy as well as the ecology of Texas.

Although TPWD in the Plan enumerates a number of strategies to carry out this mission, most of them are too general to provide clear direction to TPWD staff. Specific guidance is needed to allow staff to concentrate limited resources on priority activities, identify additional resources needed to accomplish their mission, and provide a meaningful way of assessing progress toward achieving necessary goals for protection of fish and wildlife habitat. For example, rather than setting specific goals for the acquisition of water rights to maintain instream flows for fish and wildlife, and establishing milestones and time frames for making those acquisitions, the Plan simply calls for TPWD to "continue to study the feasibility of water right purchase" and to "encourage the conversion or transfer of existing unused water rights to the Texas Water Trust to protect instream uses." These "strategies" are too general to be meaningful. Basically they are activities that TPWD has been undertaking for years, but they have not resulted in water rights being acquired for the maintenance of instream flows and freshwater inflows to bays and estuaries. In order for this aspect of the Plan to have value, it must be specific enough to guide the agency to meaningful action.

The Plan also needs to set specific goals for limiting new diversions of water in areas of the state where necessary instream flows and freshwater inflows are most threatened. Although TPWD has been fairly active, particularly in the past, in a number of water rights permit proceedings in order to establish special permit conditions to maintain stream flows, the agency does not appear to have a clear game plan to guide its participation and measure the effectiveness of its efforts to protect water for fish and wildlife by limiting new diversions.

Realistically, the "Goals for the Next Ten Years" section of the Plan is the portion most likely to guide Department action. It is a serious oversight that there is no mention in this section of any action actually to protect water resources. The river studies listed in that section are critically important for achieving a better understanding of flows needed to protect instream uses. Until such intensive studies are done, the Department should continue to rely on generalized criteria in making its recommendations for permit conditions. Although we support the inclusion of the goal of conducting studies, studies alone do not protect environmental flows. Accordingly, additional goals specifically addressing actions to be taken that will result in direct protection of flows critical for protection of fish and wildlife resources should be added to the Plan.

The following two specific goals should be included in the Water category of the Goals section:

TPWD will recommend the inclusion of conditions in all water rights permits, both new and amended, that are sufficient to avoid impairment of flows needed to support instream uses, including freshwater inflows.

TPWD will prioritize watersheds in which acquisition of existing water rights is most critical for protecting fish and wildlife resources and, for those areas, will identify water rights potentially available for acquisition. To the extent that donations can be arranged or funds are available for purchase, the Department will pursue acquisition of water rights in priority areas in an amount of not less than 50,000 acre-feet of water rights with relatively high seniority.

Regardless of the category recommendation or time frame (tens years or longer) enumerated, there will be new and additional cost -- short term and long term. Private land initiatives such as Purchase of Development Rights will carry significant cost. Additional public lands, even for the minimum four to six 5,000 acre tracts will be substantial, even at today's prices. The same is true for parklands in our cities and rural communities respectively and for additional wildlife management areas, all the more so when each is coupled to recommendations that they be in or near our major population centers. Yet the total cost for all of the above may pale in the face of water development projects proposed in the recent state water plan.

It is critical that financing for land conservation and parkland acquisition is addressed before population growth and urban expansion drive up land prices to the point that it becomes cost prohibitive to conserve wildlife habitat and provide additional parkland. In addition TPWD's ability to qualify for federal matching funds through programs such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Farm Bill should also be addressed. TPWD's ability to qualify for federal matching funds in the future will significantly affect the capacity to which the Department will be able to address conservation and parkland needs.

Therefore, it is urged that the Plan include a recognition that there are several financing tools readily available, such as bond authorization, lifting the sporting goods sales tax cap, a combination of the two, as well as other possibilities which together can be fashioned into a meaningful conservation financing package by the Texas Legislature with full support of TPWD, conservation groups and the public who have consistently demonstrated their support through public opinion surveys and at the ballot box.