Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012 Page: 7,953
7533-7814 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
31 TAC 57.972
The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department proposes an amend-
ment to 57.972, concerning General Rules. The proposed
amendment would add Lake Ray Roberts and Lake Lewisville
to the list of water bodies where special regulations intended to
control the spread of zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha)
are in effect.
The zebra mussel is a small, non-native mussel originally found
in Eurasia. It has spread throughout Europe, where it is consid-
ered to be a major environmental and industrial menace. The
animal appeared in North America in the late 1980s and within
ten years had colonized in all five Great Lakes and the Missis-
sippi, Tennessee, Hudson, and Ohio river basins. Since then,
they have spread to additional lakes and river systems.
Zebra mussels live and feed in many different aquatic habitats,
breed prolifically, and cannot be controlled by natural preda-
tors. Adult zebra mussels colonize all types of living and non-liv-
ing surfaces including boats, water-intake pipes, buoys, docks,
piers, plants, and slow-moving animals such as native clams,
crayfish, and turtles. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has es-
timated the potential economic impact of zebra mussels to be in
the billions of dollars.
Zebra mussels affect natural ecosystems both directly and indi-
rectly. The greatest direct impact relates to the mussel's feeding
behavior. Zebra mussels are filter feeders and each mussel can
process up to one liter of water per day. During this process, par-
ticles in the water column are removed and either eaten by the
mussels or coated in mucus and ejected. Unfortunately, the ma-
terial removed from the water consists of other live animals and
algae that supply food for larval fish and other invertebrates. In
response to this changing food supply, indigenous populations of
some animals decline and food webs are disturbed or eliminated.
Once zebra mussels become established in a water body, they
are impossible to eradicate with the technology available today.
What makes zebra mussels particularly difficult to control is
that they have a free-floating, microscopic larval stage called a
veliger. Because young zebra mussels are so small, they are
spread easily by water currents and can drift for miles before
settling. After settling, the mussels attach to hard objects and
remain stationary as they grow. They often attach to objects
involved in human activities, such as boats and boat trailers,
and are inadvertently moved from one water body to another
by people. Any water collected from waterbodies where zebra
mussels are present could contain veligers; thus, water trans-
ported from waterbodies with known zebra mussel populations
is a vector for the spread of zebra mussels.
The department earlier this year amended 57.972 to imple-
ment special regulations to control the spread of zebra mus-
sels from the Red River and Lake Lavon. The adopted amend-
ment appeared in the May 11, 2012, issue of the Texas Register
(37 TexReg 3602). Zebra mussels were confirmed in Lake Ray
Roberts on July 17, 2012 and in the Elm Fork of the Trinity River
upstream of Lake Lewisville on July 18, 2012. On July 30, 2012,
the department filed an emergency rule to rule to address the
discovery of zebra mussels in Lake Ray Roberts and the Elm
Fork of the Trinity River. The emergency rule added those water
bodies to the applicability of existing rules to control the spread
of zebra mussels. The proposed amendment would supplant the
emergency rule on a permanent basis.Under ordinary circumstances, the department would consider
any person in possession of zebra mussels (including veligers)
to be in violation of Chapter 57, Subchapter A, which prohibits
the possession of exotic aquatic shellfish, including zebra mus-
sels. The proposed amendment would provide that the depart-
ment will not consider a person in possession of veligers to be
in violation of the exotic species rules, provided all live wells,
bilges, and other receptacles or systems capable of retaining or
holding water as a consequence of being immersed in a water-
body have been completely drained prior to the use of a public
roadway. The proposed amendment also would provide that a
person traveling on a public roadway via the most direct route to
another access point located on the same body of water would
not be required to drain or empty water.
Ken Kurzawski, Program Director for Regulations and Informa-
tion in the Inland Fisheries Division, has determined that for each
of the first five years that the proposed rule is in effect there will
be no fiscal implications for the department as a result of enforc-
ing or administering the rule.
Mr. Kurzawski also has determined that for each of the first five
years that the proposed rule is in effect, the public benefit antici-
pated as a result of enforcing or administering the proposed rule
will be the protection of an important ecosystem enjoyed by the
public.
Under the provisions of Government Code, Chapter 2006, a
state agency must prepare an economic impact statement and
a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule that may have an ad-
verse economic effect affect on small businesses and micro-
businesses. As required by Government Code, 2006.002(g),
the Office of the Attorney General has prepared guidelines to
assist state agencies in determining a proposed rule's potential
adverse economic impact on small businesses. Those guide-
lines state that an agency need only consider a proposed rule's
"direct adverse economic impacts" to small businesses and mi-
cro-businesses to determine if any further analysis is required.
For that purpose, the department considers "direct economic im-
pact" to mean a requirement that would directly impose record-
keeping or reporting requirements; impose taxes or fees; result
in lost sales or profits; adversely affect market competition; or
require the purchase or modification of equipment or services.
The department has determined that there will be no adverse
economic impacts on small businesses or micro-businesses as
a result of the proposed rule. Accordingly, the department has
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis under Government
Code, Chapter 2006.
The proposed rule will not result in negative economic impacts
to persons required to comply.
The department has not drafted a local employment impact
statement under the Administrative Procedure Act, 2001.022,
as the agency has determined that the rule as proposed will not
impact local economies.
The department has determined that Texas Government Code,
2001.0225 (Regulatory Analysis of Major Environmental
Rules), does not apply to the proposed rule.
The department has determined that there will not be a taking of
private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter
2007, as a result of the proposed rule, as the rule would not affect
private real property.
Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Ken Kurza-
wski, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith SchoolPROPOSED RULES October 5, 2012 37 TexReg 7953
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012, periodical, October 5, 2012; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth288982/m1/139/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.