Texas Register, Volume 37, Number 40, Pages 7815-8094, October 5, 2012 Page: 7,962
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:
Under the proposed rules, certain activities under a DBP in an
HRZ require, among other things, the achievement of Level C
status as defined in TAHC rules. Under current TAHC rules at 4
TAC 40.3, Level C status is achieved with "four to five" years
of herd monitoring with no confirmation of CWD. In addition, the
herd must be inspected annually by an accredited veterinarian.
If animals from a source with a lower or no herd status are added,
the herd status reverts to the level of the source herd.
Therefore, for any given DBP within an HRZ or BZ that is cur-
rently qualified to move or release deer, compliance with the pro-
posed new rules could be achieved in five years or less and at
the additional direct economic cost of CWD testing of all eligible
mortalities and the cost of the annual inventory by an accredited
veterinarian.
The department cannot predict the number of mortalities that will
occur in any given facility in a year; however, mortality data an-
nually reported to the department for the last five years indicate
that the average number of eligible mortalities per DBP facility
per year is 4.256. The cost of a CWD test administered by the
Texas Veterinary Medicine Diagnostic Lab (TVMDL) on a sam-
ple collected and submitted by the DBP holder is a minimum of
$42, consisting of a $36 test fee per prepared sample plus a $6
submission fee (which may cover multiple samples submitted at
the same time). The CWD test fee for a sample collected and
prepared by the TVMDL is $82, consisting of $36 per unprepared
sample, a $6 submission fee, a $20 fee to remove the sample
from the head, and a $20 head-disposal fee. The cost of an
annual inventory by an accredited veterinarian is estimated by
TAHC to be approximately $250.
Using the eligible mortality data (rounded up from 4.256 to
five eligible mortalities per facility per year), the department
estimates that the direct economic impact of testing in order
become "movement qualified" under the proposed new rules
would be between $460 and $660 per year for each permittee
who desires to meet to criteria for moving deer under the pro-
posed new rules. If the sample is collected, fixed, and submitted
by a private veterinarian, the cost could be higher.
For a DBP holder in an HRZ, the difference between the current
rules and the proposed new rules would be the requirement
to test all eligible mortalities (rather than 20%, as currently
required) for whatever additional time is required in order to
achieve the TAHC Level C status, and the cost of an annual
inventory conducted by an accredited veterinarian (which is
required by TAHC regulations (4 TAC 40.3)). For a DBP holder
in a BZ, the difference between the current rules and proposed
new rules would be the requirement to test 50% of all eligible
mortalities (rather than 20%, as currently required). Such costs
would be necessary only if a DBP holder wishes to engage in
activities involving movement of deer described in the proposed
rule.
The department notes that because CWD has been proven to be
transmissible by direct contact (including through fences) and via
environmental contamination, there may be adverse economic
impacts unrelated to the proposed new rules in the event that
CWD is confirmed near a DBP facility due to the possible re-
luctance of potential customers to purchase deer from a facil-
ity in an area where CWD has been confirmed. Additionally,
in the absence of the proposed new rules, if CWD is detected
within a DBP facility, there could be lost revenue to the permit-
tee since potential purchasers who are aware of the potential of
CWD would likely refrain from purchasing deer from such a fa-
cility. Therefore, the proposed new rules, by providing a mech-anism to minimize the spread of CWD, could also protect the
economic interests of the regulated community.
The department considered several alternatives to achieve the
goals of the proposed new rules while reducing potential adverse
impacts on small and micro-businesses and persons required to
comply. The department considered proposing no rules. The de-
partment recognizes that many of the restrictions imposed by the
rules could be achieved under current rules and statutes. This
alternative was rejected because a regulation that clearly sets
out the restrictions on the regulated community is more likely
to achieve the desired result of stemming the spread of CWD.
The department concluded that the need to protect the wildlife
resources that sustain the state's multi-billion-dollar hunting in-
dustry outweighs the temporary adverse impacts to small and
micro-businesses and persons required to comply.
The department also considered, in lieu of a regulatory re-
sponse, the alternative of attempting to eliminate CWD in an
area by conducting a depopulation event, that is, killing every
deer possible inside a certain perimeter in the hopes of eliminat-
ing the reservoir for the disease. This alternative was rejected at
this time because to be effective, the geographical extent of the
disease must be known. Furthermore, removing every animal
that exists within an affected area does not remove prions (the
infectious agent believed to cause CWD), which can be shed by
an infected animal and remain in the environment and which in
turn can infect susceptible animals introduced to or inhabiting
the environment. The department notes that depopulation is
believed to have been successful in rare instances; however,
in most circumstances, removal of all animals, even when the
distribution of the disease is known, has proven to be difficult or
impossible to achieve in free-ranging populations.
The department also considered imposing less stringent testing
requirements in order to allow DBP holders to continue moving
and/or releasing breeder deer. This alternative was rejected be-
cause the testing requirements in the proposed new rules re-
flect mathematical models aimed at producing high confidence
that CWD is or is not present. Less stringent testing require-
ments would reduce confidence and therefore frustrate the abil-
ity of the department to respond in the event that CWD actu-
ally is present. The department also believes that rigorous test-
ing assures the hunting public and the regulated community that
wildlife resources are safe and reliable.
Another alternative considered was a CZ, HRZ, and BZ that are
more narrowly drawn. This alternative was rejected because
the size of a CZ, HRZ, or BZ is biologically determined by using
the best science and data available correlated to the susceptible
species. If the department chose to implement a smaller CZ,
HRZ, or BZ area, it would increase the risk of spreading CWD
and introduce regulatory confusion.
The department has not drafted a local employment impact
statement under the Administrative Procedure Act, 2001.022,
as the agency has determined that the rules as proposed will
not impact local economies.
The department has determined that there will not be a taking of
private real property, as defined by Government Code, Chapter
2007, as a result of the proposed rule. Any impacts resulting
from the discovery of CWD in or near private real property would
be the result of the discovery of CWD and not the proposed rules.
Comments on the proposed rule may be submitted to Mitch
Lockwood, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith
School Road, Austin, Texas 78744; (830) 792-9677 (e-mail:37 TexReg 7962 October 5, 2012 Texas Register
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/m1/148/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.