basis. Because of the refining and chemical production facilities at the head of the bay, ships must 
transit the productive center of the estuary moving to and from the sea. This is a voyage of more than 
50 miles. As ship size increases because of a deeper and wider channel, or as the number of transits 
by smaller vessels increase, an accident is likely to occur. Should, or perhaps when, this happens it 
is likely to be devastating to the estuaries' resources as low tidal velocities and the configuration of 
the system assures a high potential for damage. 
Other demands upon the bay's resources have already begun to have an effect. The 251 miles of 
deep draft and intracoastal channels that crisscross the bay have come at the cost of almost 40 square 
miles of the bay impaired by channel creation and spoil disposal. This is nearly 6 percent of the bay's 
bottom. If proposed channel projects are completed, some 9 to 10 percent of the bay bottom, or one 
of every 10 acres, will have been dredged or have been impacted by dredge material disposal. 
The estuary accounts for more than 40 percent of Texas shrimp landings, about $64 million in 
annual ex-vessel value. These organisms, along with juveniles of many important finfishes, depend 
on marsh habitat surrounding the bay for both forage and protection from predation. Because of this, 
fisheries production depends in great part on the amount of this habitat that we are able to maintain. 
Subsidence has contributed significantly to marsh loss. Sea level rise has probably played some role 
and may be more significant in the future. The impacts of these types of losses are compounded by 
the lack of expansion room for the creation of new marsh. Typically, as the water level rises existing 
marsh drowns and new marsh evolves further inland, if water depth and tidal flux are favorable, and 
if soil type is appropriate. The problem in Galveston Bay is that much of this productive habitat is 
surrounded by development, both housing and industrial. Bulkheads and filled (elevated) areas will 
not allow for the development of new marsh. Thus, the loss of marsh to open water proceeds without 
compensatory marsh creation. A significant contributing factor to these losses, and perhaps the most 
significant factor because of successful subsidence control efforts, is the wetlands losses due to 
development. Nearly 25 percent of Texas' permitted (Corps of Engineers 404/10 program) coastal 
development occurs within this estuary. For example, in 1987,171 public notices for 404/10 permits 
were issued that requested permission to dredge or fill wetlands. These accounted for 24 percent of 
the annual total. If all requested permits were issued, a total of 219 acres would have been impacted 
(80 percent shallow open water and 20 percent marsh). Some 3.9 million cubic yards of spoil would 
also have been generated. Additionally, 12.7 miles of pipeline, 3.2 miles of bulkhead and 1.6 miles of 
piers would have been constructed. 
Some of the demands on the bay's resources have already necessitated some difficult manage¬ 
ment decisions. In 1981 the Texas legislature banned the commercial fishery for red drum, or redfish 
as it is better known, as well as spotted sea trout in favor of a restricted recreational fishery. Basically, 
there were not enough fish to support both activities. Because recreational fishing is a $443 million 
per year industry in the estuary (based on 1986 dollars), the choice was simple. The decision, 
however, was a hard one because it essentially ended an industry on a statewide basis. The 
commercial ban continues today and through the foreseeable future. Recreational fishermen did not 
escape entirely. There currently is a five-fish-per-person daily limit and a "slot" or size range of 18 
to 30 inches for redfish that can be retained. Above or below that slot, redfish must be released. 
However, there is a 10-fish-per-day limit for spotted seatrout. 
A Corollary Management Question: When? 
Despite these continuing pressures, Galveston Bay has remained a productive system. Conse¬ 
quently, both resource managers and developers have essentially gone their own way, managing 
their own particular piece of the pie. The system seems to have been able to absorb the competing 
demands and has shown remarkable resilience in responding to our use. This may no longer be the 
case as evidenced by the increasingly vocal disagreements between resource and development 
interests. The scale and number of projects proposed for the system, and the early signs of a degrading 
trend in key resources, have brought concerns forward and have made managers realize that 
important decisions are being forced on them now rather than in the future. Two important resource 
issues are illustrative of these concerns — the oyster fishery and freshwater inflows. 
Oyster Fishery 
Texas' chief oyster fishery is concentrated in Galveston Bay (60 to 70 percent). More than 90 
80 
