Texas Register, Volume 42, Number 43, Pages 5913-6056, October 27, 2017 Page: 6,020
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas Register and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
are considerably higher on intertidal oyster habitat compared to
open-water subtidal oyster habitat (Robillard et al. 2010; Nevins
et al. 2014; Froeschke et al. 2016). Over 300 different species
have been documented using oyster reefs as habitat in North
Carolina (Wells 1961).
Until recently, oyster resources located in these minor bays and
shoreline areas have been rarely exploited, as commercial fish-
ing has typically been directed towards the more-profitable and
efficiently harvested reef complexes in larger and deeper wa-
ters; thus, the minor bays have functioned as de facto spawn-
ing reserves because harvest pressure has been minimal and
oyster larvae produced from these areas are available to pop-
ulate oyster habitat on adjacent reefs and bays. As oyster re-
sources have become depleted on deep-water reefs, however,
commercial fishermen have redirected their efforts to shallow-
water reefs. In 2017, the department received a number of re-
ports of oyster harvest in minor bays, including Christmas Bay,
and received a petition requesting closing of oyster harvest in
Christmas Bay.
With respect to recreational harvest, current rules allow recre-
ational fishermen to retain up to two sacks of oysters per day
during the public season; however, the biological impact of this
harvest is minimal. Over the last 10 years the department has
issued an average number of 36 sport oyster boat licenses per
year (a sport oyster boat license is required to recreationally
harvest oysters by use of tongs or dredge; otherwise, recre-
ational harvest must be manual). The department conducts in-
tercept surveys at boat access sites (boat ramps and marinas)
throughout the year and records catch composition and effort
for all species landed. The 33-year summary (1983-2016) of
department data indicates 296 intercepts with anglers possess-
ing oysters (an average of 9 intercepts per year). During the
2016 low-use season (covering the time period of the public oys-
ter season, November through April) the department estimates
that recreational fisherman spent 704 hours harvesting oysters,
which resulted in a harvest of approximately 10.6 sacks (68.1
pounds estimated meat weight) over the six-month season.
The amendment to 58.22, concerning Commercial Fishing, re-
duces the commercial possession limit for oysters from 40 sacks
per day to 30 and closes Saturday to commercial oyster harvest
during the public season (November 1 of one year through April
30 of the following year). The combined effect of these two pro-
visions is expected to be a reduction in the total number of sacks
harvested during the early portion of the season, offset by an in-
crease in the total number of sacks harvested during the later
months, which is expected to provide a more stable and con-
sistent price structure as well as a lengthening of the productive
part of the season, both in terms of sacks per vessel landed and
effective days fished.
A sack-limit analysis of the amendments found that the proposed
measures could result in a total harvest reduction if there is no
change in fishing behavior. Additional analysis of the 2015-16
season data shows thatathe average length of the season for a
single vessel was 73 days and within that period the average
commercial vessel made only 34 trips, averaging 24 sacks per
day. The total number of days available during the 2015-16 was
182 days. From the first trip to the last trip the total number of
days that elapsed was an average of 72 days. With the ability
to expand the number of trips within the 72 days or extend trips
further towards the end of the season, no significant reduction
in total landings over the season is expected. The combination
of the proposed daily sack limit reduction and Saturday closurecould extend the effective harvest season during a time when
oyster yield (meat-weight to shell-weight) is highest and more
valuable to the commercial industry.
Literature Cited
Beseres Pollack, Jennifer, Hae-Cheol Kim, Elani K. Morgan, and
Paul A. Montagna. 2011. Role of Flood Disturbance in Nat-
ural Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Population Maintenance in
an Estuary in South Texas, USA. Estuaries and Coasts (2011)
34:187-197.
Chapman, C.R. 1959. Oyster drill (Thais haemastoma) pre-
dation in Mississippi Sound. Proc. NatI. Shellfish. Assoc.
49:87-97.
Christian, J., K. Christian, and J. Basara. 2015. Drought and
Pluvial Dipole Events within the Great Plains of the United
States. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 54,
1886-1898.
Froeschke, B.F., M.M. Reese Robillard, and G.W. Stunz. 2016.
Spatial biodiversity patterns of fish within the Aransas Bay com-
plex, Texas. Gulf Caribb Res 27: 21-32.
Gain, I.E., R.A. Brewton, M.M.R. Robillard, K.D. Johnson, D.L.
Smee and G.W. Stunz. 2017. Macrofauna using intertidal oyster
reef varies in relation to position within the estuarine habitat mo-
saic. Marine Biology 164:8. doi: 10.1007/s00227-016-3033-5.
Grabowski, J.H., A.R. Hughes, D.L. Kimbro, and M.A. Dolan.
2005. How habitat setting influences restored oyster reef com-
munities. Ecology 86: 1926-1935.
Hoffstetter, R.P. 1977. Trends in population levels of the Ameri-
can oyster Crassostrea virginica Gmelin on public reefs in Galve-
ston Bay, Texas. Technical Series Number 10. Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department, Coastal Fisheries Branch. Austin, TX.
La Peyre, Megan K., B. S. Eberline, T. M. Soniat, J. F. La Peyre.
2013. Differences in extreme low salinity timing and duration dif-
ferentially affect eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) size class
growth and mortality in Breton Sound, LA. Estuarine, Coastal
and Shelf Science 135, p.146-157.
May, E.B. and D.G. Bland. 1970. Survival of young oysters in
areas of different salinity in Mobile Bay. Proc. S.E. Assoc. Game
Fish Comm. 23:519-521.
Nevins, J.A., J.B. Pollack, and G.W. Stunz. 2014. Characteriz-
ing nekton use of the largest unfished oyster reef in the United
States compared with adjacent estuarine habitats. J. Shellfish
Res. 33: 227-238.
Pattillo, M.E., T.E. Czapla, D.M. Nelson, and M.E. Monaco.
1997. Distribution and abundance of fishes and invertebrates
in the Gulf of Mexico estuaries, Volume II: Species life history
summaries. ELMR Rep. No. 11. NOAA/NOS Strategic Envi-
ronmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, MD. 377 p.
Robillard, M.M.R., G.W. Stunz and J. Simmons. 2010. Rela-
tive value of deep subtidal oyster reefs to other estuarineshabi-
tat types using a novel sampling method. J. Shellfish Res. 29:
291-302.
Thompson, R.J., R.L.E. Newell, V.S. Kennedy and R. Mann.
1996. Reproductive processes and early development. In:
Kennedy, V.S., Newell, R.I.E, and Eble, A.F (eds) The Eastern
Oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Maryland Sea Grant College,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, pages 335-370.42 TexReg 6020 October 27, 2017 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 42, Number 43, Pages 5913-6056, October 27, 2017, periodical, October 27, 2017; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth897027/m1/108/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.