Texas Register, Volume 42, Number 43, Pages 5913-6056, October 27, 2017 Page: 6,021
5913-6056 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:
Wang, Hongqing, W. Huangb, M. A. Harwell, L. Edmistonc, E.
Johnsona, P. Hsiehd, K. Millad, J. Christensene , J. Stewart, X.
Liub. 2008. Modeling oyster growth rate by coupling oyster pop-
ulation and hydrodynamic models for Apalachicola Bay, Florida,
USA. Ecological Modelling 211, p. 77-89.
Wells, H.W. 1961. The fauna of oyster beds with special refer-
ence to the salinity factor. Ecological Monographs 31(3): 239-
266.
White, M.E. and E. A. Wilson. 1996. Predators, pests, and com-
petition. In The Eastern Oyster Crassostrea virginica, eds. V.S.
Kennedy, R.I.E. Newell, and A.F. Eble, 559-580. College Park,
Maryland: Maryland Sea Grant College, University of Maryland.
The department received 277 comments opposing the adoption
of all or part of the proposed rules. Of the comments oppos-
ing adoption, 172 articulated a reason or rationale for opposing
adoption. Those comments, accompanied by the department's
response to each, follow.
Eighty-eight commenters opposed adoption and stated support
for an alternative proposal contained in a form letter. The pro-
posal consisted of five elements: 1) an increase or no change
to the current 40-sack daily limit, along with a mechanism allow-
ing the department to alter daily sack limits during the season,
based on landings and sampling; 2) retention of six days per
week of oyster harvest opportunity 3) retention of currentrules
governing possession of undersize oysters; the elimination of
Carancahua, Hynes and Keller bays from the list of bays pro-
posed for closure to oyster harvest; and 5) replacement of the
proposed closure to oyster harvest within 300-feet of the shore-
line with a 300-foot closure zone around maintained piers and
structures such as boat houses or boat lifts. The department dis-
agrees with the comments and responds that implicit in the suc-
cessful management of fisheries is the scientifically valid anal-
ysis of various meaningful data (population dynamics, geospa-
tial distribution, fishing effort, and other factors) to inform and
guide management strategies. With respect to daily sack lim-
its, the department disagrees with the comment and responds
that an analysis of the fishery since 2007 found that, in gen-
eral, harvests of 50 sacks per day (which was lawful until the
2016-17 season) was greatest in November (when the season
opens) and represented about 30% of trips. Since the 2014-15
season the percentage of trips reporting harvest of 50 sacks per
day during November declined to less than 5% (2015-16 season
data). Mean catch per day generally declined across the season,
reaching the lowest values in April. Over the last ten years the
average number of sacks harvested per day has been approxi-
mately 30. Based on these data, the department concludes that
a reduction in the daily sack limit should result in the availabil-
ity of oysters for harvest over a longer period of time, which in
turn should result in higher yields of larger oysters for shucking,
and accordingly higher sale prices. However, it is not imperative
that the proposed 25-sack limit be implemented. The proposed
25-sack limit was intended to provide the most expedient avenue
to stock replenishment, but a slightly higher sack limit is believed
to be capable of achieving the intended goal, albeit over a longer
time period; therefore the department has adopted a 30-sack
limit. The department also responds that "in-season" modifica-
tions to sack limits on a bay-by-bay basis would be problematic
because of the difficulties inherent in communicating these sorts
of changes to the regulated community in real time (especially if
done on a bay-by-bay basis) and the resultant misunderstand-
ings and confusion that could negatively impact compliance and
enforcement efforts.With respect to opportunity, the department disagrees with the
comment and responds that fishermen are not fully utilizing the
available fishing opportunities the current regulations establish
for this fishery. Since 2007, any given vessel fished 90 to 130
days each year on average, which is much less than the maxi-
mum possible season length of 182-183 days (155 days during
2016-17 season). Therefore, closing harvest for an additional
day (in concert with a daily sack limit reduction) is not expected
to lower the overall harvest during a season but should delay
some harvest to later in the season when oysters will yield higher
meat weights and be more valuable to the fishery. With respect
to the proposed rules governing possession of undersized oys-
ters, the department disagrees with the comment and responds
that the 5% tolerance imposed by the rules is necessary if oyster
populations are to recover and thrive. The rule as adopted will
result in more undersize oysters being returned to the reef and
contribute to recruitment. The department also notes again that
the harvest of undersize oysters at the current tolerance (15%)
will result in further negative economic impacts to the oyster in-
dustry because when the department is forced to close an area
to allow for repopulation and recovery, those areas must remain
closed for as long as it takes for the remaining oysters to reach
a legal size.
With respect to the bay closures imposed by the rules as
adopted, the department disagrees with the comment and
responds that failing to substantially reduce harvest in these
systems will result in negative biological impacts not only to
oyster populations (because these bays are in effect nursery
areas that populate the larger bay systems), but to other com-
munities of great ecological importance as well (because of
the physical effects of oyster harvest in these shallow water
communities). The rules as adopted will provide protection
to shallow water and intertidal oyster habitat and associated
ecological webs while also providing a source of oyster larvae
that disperse throughout these and adjacent bay systems. As
previously noted in this preamble, Keller Bay in Calhoun County
was removed from the list of affected bays. No other changes
were madeas a result of the comments.
Sixty-three commenters opposed the portion of the proposed
amendments that effect closures of minor bays and shoreline
areas to recreational harvest (with one comment suggesting a
five-year "sunset" provision). The department disagrees with
the comments and responds that these areas are unique in
that they are relatively shallow systems containing intertidal and
shallow-water oyster habitat. The proximity of shallow water
and intertidal oyster habitat to other estuarine habitat types (e.g.
seagrasses and marshes) is a major factor affecting macrofau-
nal (invertebrates that live on or in sediment or attached to hard
substrates) density and community composition (Grabowski
et al. 2005; Gain et al. 2017). Research has demonstrated
that densities of macrofaunal organisms and species diversity
are higher within oyster habitat compared to seagrass beds
or marsh-edge interfaces (Gain et al. 2017). Further, nekton
and benthic crustacean densities are considerably higher on
intertidal oyster habitat compared to open-water subtidal oyster
habitat (Robillard et al. 2010; Nevin et al. 2014; Froeschke et
al. 2016). Over 300 different species have been documented
using oyster reefs as habitat in North Carolina (Wells 1961).
The shallow-water and intertidal oyster reefs occurring in the
areas to be closed function as de facto spawning reserves
because harvest pressure has been minimal and oyster larvae
produced from these areas are available to populate oyster
habitat on adjacent reefs and bays. Protecting these valuableADOPTED RULES October 27, 2017 42 TexReg 6021
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/m1/109/: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.