DOCSLIB.ORG

Matagorda Bay Freshwater Inflow Needs Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Matagorda Bay Freshwater Inflow Needs Study MATAGORDA BAY FRESHWATER INFLOW NEEDS STUDY Lower Colorado River Authority Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Texas Parks and Wildlife Texas Water Development Board August 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Matagorda Bay Freshwater Inflow Needs Study Introduction The primary purpose of this study is to reassess the freshwater inflow needs for Matagorda Bay based on more than eight years of new data collected since the completion of the 1997 Freshwater Inflow Needs Study. The earlier study was based on five years of data collected after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) opened a diversion channel in 1991 from the Colorado River into Matagorda Bay to increase freshwater inflows entering into the bay. The current study also reviews and modifies some of the 1997 study methodologies and assumptions. The results of this study indicate that higher freshwater inflows are needed to achieve the Target and Critical inflow needs than indicated in the 1997 study. This is largely due to the availability of additional, more variable data collected over a longer period of time. Both the 1997 study and the current study represent a joint effort of the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA), the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). Each study partner was represented on the study advisory committee and guided by a joint memorandum of agreement and scope of work (See Appendix A). A representative of the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority also attended the advisory committee meetings. The advisory committee meetings were open to the public and development of the study involved public meetings and workshops, a stakeholder process and public review and comment on the draft study. Improvements in the Current Study The current study builds and improves upon several areas of the 1997 study. Flow, salinity, and biological productivity data have been extended beyond what was used in the1997 study and are ii applied here. This includes the availability and use of independent fisheries data collected by TPWD rather than the reliance on commercial harvest data. As a result, improved equations have been developed for relating flow to salinity and to productivity. Biological equations for shrimp have also been improved resulting from more careful consideration of the influence of inflows on shrimp during the juvenile life stage. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on the TXEMP optimization model to provide better insight on the influence of constraints and other factors on the model results. As a result, limits on inflow and biological constraints were revised from the 1997 study. In addition to developing Critical and Target Flows as in the 1997 study, the current study presents options for use of TXEMP model results to develop intermediate flow solutions for use as a transition between the Critical and Target inflow needs. Model calibration of the TXBLEND hydrodynamic and salinity transport model benefited from additional data, and multi-year simulations were conducted in this study and provide better confidence in the model behavior. The 1997 report identified a number of areas that would benefit from additional study. However, some areas could not be extended in this study due to lack of additional new data, including nutrients (related to primary productivity, offshore concentrations, loadings, and sediment), benthic dynamics and sedimentation needs of Lavaca Bay and East Matagorda Bay. In addition to the need to continue developing additional data and analysis, more information is needed on existing habitat conditions and their relationship to biological productivity. A comprehensive assessment of factors that may affect the overall ecological health of the bay is also being conducted as a part of the LCRA-SAWS Water Project (LSWP) Bay Health Study. The improvements and modifications to the State Methodology being done for this study in combination with the more comprehensive look at overall bay health and productivity by the LSWP Bay Health Study are expected to contribute to the development of improved methods and tools for assessing freshwater inflow needs for Matagorda Bay. iii Target Flows and Critical Flows Beginning with the 1997 study, two freshwater inflow needs (FINS) have been identified: the “Target” freshwater inflow need based on the application of the State Methodology; and the “Critical” freshwater inflow need. The “Target” freshwater inflow need seeks to optimize selected estuarine species productivity; the “Critical” freshwater inflow need is intended to provide a fishery sanctuary habitat during drier periods from which finfish and shellfish species are expected to recover and repopulate the bay when more normal weather conditions return. The monthly Target flow needs estimated by the current study by source are summarized in Table ES.1. Monthly Target flows range from 480,100 acre-feet in May to 111,700 acre-feet in August. Compared to the 1997 study results, these results represent a maximum monthly increase of 267,600 acre-feet of freshwater inflows in the month of February to a maximum monthly decrease of 181,500 acre-feet of water in the month of May needed to deliver the Target inflow necessary to optimize selected estuarine species productivity. Table ES.1 Monthly Target Flow Needs by Source. Colorado Lavaca Other Total Monthly Month (1,000 ac-ft) (1,000 ac-ft) (1,000 ac-ft) (1,000 ac-ft) January 205.6 77.0 37.2 319.8 February 194.5 68.9 44.5 307.9 March 63.2 15.6 42.3 121.1 April 60.4 30.3 51.1 141.8 May 255.4 139.4 85.3 480.1 June 210.5 86.0 80.2 376.7 July 108.4 29.2 66.4 204.0 August 62.0 18.3 31.4 111.7 September 61.9 37.3 107.2 206.5 October 71.3 42.9 100.7 214.9 November 66.5 23.0 47.4 136.9 December 68.0 24.9 35.7 128.7 During the 1997 study, 25 parts per thousand (ppt) was established as the desired maximum salinity level during drought or extended dry periods. This criterion was based on review of species tolerances with particular attention to the Eastern Oyster and its predators. The Eastern Oyster was iv chosen not only because it is a commercially important species, but because it cannot migrate to areas with lower salinity ranges to avoid predators. The 25 ppt salinity level is also the approximate dividing line between brackish estuarine waters and more saline marine waters and, thus, an appropriate threshold to use in determining whether estuarine species may become significantly affected. Based on additional data and analysis, Critical inflow needs for the Colorado River increase from 14,260 acre-feet of water per month to 36,000 acre-feet of water per month over those calculated in the 1997 study. Lavaca-Navidad Critical inflow needs increase from 2,260 acre-feet of water per month to 4,290 acre-feet per month. Corresponding increases would also be needed from the other coastal basins that feed into West Matagorda Bay. The primary reasons for the increases in Critical and Target inflow needs from the 1997 study include the following: • More accurate statistical relationships based on additional data collected over a longer period of time since the USACE diversion channel was completed in 1991. For example, data was collected on a more continuous basis and data collection included fewer gaps and was subject to less frequent equipment failures. • More variability of wet and dry years and corresponding salinities was captured by the statistical relationships; and • Increased monthly inflow constraints were selected for use in the TXEMP modeling. Historic flows in the 70th percentile replaced the historic monthly mean used in the 1997 study or the monthly median flow (50th percentile monthly or median monthly historic flow), which has been widely used in other Texas estuaries. This constraint increase was necessary to allow the model to be solved without exceeding the selected salinity and biological productivity constraints. Consistent with the 1997 study, the 2006 update continued to use the same salinity regimes and rationale for Critical and Target inflows, measurement locations, State optimization and hydrodynamic and conservative transport models (TXEMP and TXBLEND), target species (with v one exception), and the relative weighting of species, as the 1997 study. In contrast to the 1997 study, the 2006 study also explored a range of intermediate inflow regimes that may be considered as a transition from Target to Critical inflow regimes. Both the 1997 and the 2006 studies used the State Methodology, with some modifications. The State Methodology includes the use of the TXEMP model, a general purpose optimization model to find a minimum or maximum function (e.g., biological productivity) that satisfies constraints that are imposed (hydrology, salinity, biological). TXEMP results are bounded by the constraints. The State Methodology also includes the use of the TXBLEND model, a hydrodynamic and conservative transport model specific to water bodies such as lakes or bays. The conservation transport aspect of the model looks at the movement of salt through the water body. The TXBLEND model is used to verify that the inflow regime results identified by the TXEMP model as meeting all constraints will also provide the desired salinity regime throughout the Matagorda Bay system. While the logic and equations of the optimization model itself are built on mathematical and engineering analyses, application of the model requires the inclusion of operative constraints, limits, and resource management objectives. These objectives are based more on policy than science and engineering. Other policy decisions include: the indicator species to be used, the relative weighting of the species; and the selection of inflow-response equations and inflow constraints (Longley, ed., 1994).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Living Shorelines Workshop Bill Balboa [email protected] Living Shorelines Workshop
    Living Shorelines Workshop Bill Balboa [email protected] Living Shorelines Workshop • MBF • Need • Planning • Shoreline protection projects • Grassy Point • Mouth of Carancahua Bay • GIWW • Observations • The Matagorda Bay Foundation is dedicated to the wise stewardship of central Texas’ estuaries and the coastal watersheds that sustain them. • Created in 1995 Inflows for Whoopers– Blackburn, Hamman & Garrison • February 2019 • San Antonio Bay Partnership, Lavaca Bay Foundation and East Matagorda Bay Foundation Matagorda Bay • The unknown coast Foundation • 2nd Largest estuary in Texas • Cultural, biological, economic importance • Freshwater - Colorado and Lavaca-Navidad • Gulf passes at Mitchell’s Cut and Pass Cavallo and the Matagorda Jetties • >270,000 acres of open water and bay bottom (East and West Bays) • ~100,000 acres of wetlands • >6500 acres of oyster habitat • ~8000 acres of seagrasses Planning Shoreline Projects Grassy Point Grassy Point Mouth of Carancahua Bay Schicke Pt. Redfish Lake Mouth of Carancahua Bay Rusty Feagin, Bill Balboa, Dave Buzan, Thomas Huff, Matt Glaze, Woody Woodrow, Ray Newby Mouth of Carahcahua Bay The problem • Carancahua Bay mouth widens • Larger waves impacting Port ~122 feet per year by erosion Alto’s docks and bulkheads • Already 61 acres of marsh and • Water quality declining seagrass lost • Altered fishing prospects as • Future loss of 624 acres of marsh Carancahua and Keller Bays and seagrass under threat merge with West Matagorda Bay Schicke Point 2005 2017 Mouth of Carancahua Bay Partners •
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Rookery Islands Project
    5 Chapter 5: Texas Rookery Islands Project 5.1 Restoration and Protection of Texas Rookery Islands: Project Description ................................... 1 5.1.1 Project Summary................................................................................................................. 1 5.1.2 Background and Project Description .................................................................................. 3 5.1.3 Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................ 13 5.1.4 Performance Criteria and Monitoring .............................................................................. 14 5.1.5 Offsets ............................................................................................................................... 14 5.1.6 Estimated Cost .................................................................................................................. 15 5.2 Texas Rookery Islands Project: Environmental Assessment ......................................................... 16 5.2.1 Introduction and Background, Purpose and Need ........................................................... 16 5.2.2 Scope of the Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 17 5.2.3 Project Alternatives .......................................................................................................... 18 5.2.4 Galveston Bay Rookery Islands ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sabine Lake Galveston Bay East Matagorda Bay Matagorda Bay Corpus Christi Bay Aransas Bay San Antonio Bay Laguna Madre Planning
    River Basins Brazos River Basin Brazos-Colorado Coastal Basin TPWD Canadian River Basin Dallam Sherman Hansford Ochiltree Wolf Creek Colorado River Basin Lipscomb Gene Howe WMA-W.A. (Pat) Murphy Colorado-Lavaca Coastal Basin R i t Strategic Planning a B r ve Gene Howe WMA l i Hartley a Hutchinson R n n Cypress Creek Basin Moore ia Roberts Hemphill c ad a an C C r e Guadalupe River Basin e k Lavaca River Basin Oldham r Potter Gray ive Regions Carson ed R the R ork of Wheeler Lavaca-Guadalupe Coastal Basin North F ! Amarillo Neches River Basin Salt Fork of the Red River Deaf Smith Armstrong 10Randall Donley Collingsworth Palo Duro Canyon Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin Playa Lakes WMA-Taylor Unit Pr airie D og To Nueces River Basin wn Fo rk of t he Red River Parmer Playa Lakes WMA-Dimmit Unit Swisher Nueces-Rio Grande Coastal Basin Castro Briscoe Hall Childress Caprock Canyons Caprock Canyons Trailway N orth P Red River Basin ease River Hardeman Lamb Rio Grande River Basin Matador WMA Pease River Bailey Copper Breaks Hale Floyd Motley Cottle Wilbarger W To Wichita hi ng ver Sabine River Basin te ue R Foard hita Ri er R ive Wic Riv i r Wic Clay ta ve er hita hi Pat Mayse WMA r a Riv Rive ic Eisenhower ichit r e W h W tl Caddo National Grassland-Bois D'arc 6a Nort Lit San Antonio River Basin Lake Arrowhead Lamar Red River Montague South Wichita River Cooke Grayson Cochran Fannin Hockley Lubbock Lubbock Dickens King Baylor Archer T ! Knox rin Bonham North Sulphur San Antonio-Nueces Coastal Basin Crosby r it River ive y R Bowie R B W iv os r es
    [Show full text]
  • PRESS RELEASE January 22, 2021
    PRESS RELEASE January 22, 2021 Contact: Steven J. Raabe, P.E., Trustee P.O. Box 1269 Poth, Texas 78147-1269 Phone: 361-200-1456 Website: www.mbmTrust.com Email: [email protected] MATAGORDA BAY MITIGATION TRUST ANNOUNCES FUNDING FOR NINE ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS On October 30, 2020 the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust published a Request for Proposals for coastal environmental projects in four categories: habitat restoration, environmental research, public education, and improving public access. The Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust received a total of 39 proposals, from 16 entities, totaling 14.5 million dollars. Today, Steven Raabe, Trustee of the Matagorda Bay Mitigation Trust, announces that nine projects, from six entities, totaling 3.2 million dollars have been approved for funding. “We were so fortunate to receive some great proposals and it was difficult for the selection committee to make their recommendation because of the limitation of available funds,” Raabe stated. “But we are extremely pleased with the quality, scope, and cost effectiveness of the proposals selected as a significant step to research, restore and improve the Matagorda and San Antonio bays area environment,” he added. The projects being funded, by category, are: Habitat Restoration (Three projects totaling $1,498,000) Protection and Restoration of the Blackjack Peninsula, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, $500,000, Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries Program 1 Protection and Restoration of Matagorda Island West Marsh, Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, $498,000, Coastal
    [Show full text]
  • GCBO AMOY Banding Data Metal Band Date Sex Age Latitude
    GCBO AMOY Banding Data Color Latitude Longitude Location Metal Band band Date Sex Age Notes 1106-18029 10 03/30/12 U ASY 29.2857 -94.87670 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18031 11 03/31/12 M ASY 29.33862 -94.89818 UTC - Swan Lake 1106-18030 12 03/30/12 U ASY 29.28472 -94.87776 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18032 13 04/06/12 U ASY 29.2715 -94.90929 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18033 14 04/06/12 M ASY 29.27054 -94.90942 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18034 15 04/07/12 F ASY 29.26871 -94.89269 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18035 16 04/07/12 M ASY 29.26871 -94.89269 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18036 17 04/09/12 M ASY 28.71102 -95.883472 CTC - East Matagorda Bay 1106-18037 18 04/24/12 M ASY 28.69111 -95.80801 CTC - East Matagorda Bay 1106-18038 19 04/27/12 M ASY 29.29744 -94.93923 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18039 20 04/28/12 M ASY 29.32525 -94.89201 UTC - Galveston Bay 1106-18040 21 04/28/12 F ASY 29.32525 -94.89201 UTC - Galveston Bay 1106-18042 22 05/04/12 M ASY 29.28323 -94.89272 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18043 23 05/04/12 F ASY 29.29048 -94.92956 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18044 24 05/06/12 M ASY 28.71203 -95.88785 CTC - East Matagorda Bay 1106-18045 25 05/06/12 F ASY 28.71203 -95.88785 CTC - East Matagorda Bay 1106-18047 26 05/09/12 F ASY 29.42962 -94.948651 UTC - Dickinson Bay 1106-18049 27 05/09/12 U ASY 29.43567 -94.92667 UTC - Moses Lake 1106-18050 28 05/10/12 M ASY 29.28986 -94.9366 UTC - West Galveston Bay 1106-18051 29 05/15/12 M ASY 29.09666 -95.17373 UTC - Bastrop Bay 1106-18052 30 05/15/12 M ASY 29.01956 -95.21854 UTC
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Fishing Guide |
    Texas Commercial Fishing regulations summary 2021 2022 SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 – AUGUST 31, 2022 Subject to updates by Texas Legislature or Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission TEXAS COMMERCIAL FISHING REGULATIONS SUMMARY This publication is a summary of current regulations that govern commercial fishing, meaning any activity involving taking or handling fresh or saltwater aquatic products for pay or for barter, sale or exchange. Recreational fishing regulations can be found at OutdoorAnnual.com or on the mobile app (download available at OutdoorAnnual.com). LIMITED-ENTRY AND BUYBACK PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 3 COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN LICENSE TYPES ........................................................................... 3 COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT LICENSE TYPES ........................................................................ 6 BAIT DEALER LICENSE TYPES LICENCIAS PARA VENDER CARNADA .................................................................................... 7 WHOLESALE, RETAIL AND OTHER BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS LICENCIAS Y PERMISOS COMERCIALES PARA NEGOCIOS MAYORISTAS Y MINORISTAS .......... 8 NONGAME FRESHWATER FISH (PERMIT) PERMISO PARA PESCADOS NO DEPORTIVOS EN AGUA DULCE ................................................ 12 BUYING AND SELLING AQUATIC PRODUCTS TAKEN FROM PUBLIC WATERS ............................. 13 FRESHWATER FISH ................................................................................................... 13 SALTWATER FISH .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Estuaries Human Recreational Activities
    bays in peril bays in peril WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT GLOSSARY OF KEY CONCEPTS A Water is the lifeblood of our Texas landscape. Texas Naturalized Conditions: rivers provide water and habitat for fi sh and wildlife A computer model scenario showing freshwater infl ow throughout the state and provide the freshwater that amounts that would have occurred during about a 50- forecast for freshwater keeps coastal estuaries functioning and healthy. Unfor- year period if there had not been water withdrawals, dams, or other human alterations of infl ow patterns. tunately, we haven’t done a very good job of protecting Used as a baseline for comparison. fl ows to our rivers. Most water use permits were issued without Future Use: any consideration of how much fl ow should be left in A computer model scenario showing freshwater the river to protect water quality, fi sh and wildlife, and infl ow amounts during the same period as for natu- Texas estuaries human recreational activities. ralized conditions if all existing water withdrawal permits were fully used and levels of wastewater reuse Even today, the state hasn’t come to grips with how to were increased to about 50%. protect river fl ows and freshwater infl ows to the coast. Periods Below Drought The state and 16 regional water planning groups are Tolerance Levels: Sabine Lake developing plans to meet water demands for the next 50 A determination of the number of periods of six con- years, but so far that process does not include freshwater secutive months of very low freshwater infl ows, with- report summary infl ows as a water demand to be met.
    [Show full text]
  • Estuaries & Bays
    Estuaries & Bays 67 HOUSTON ATLAS OF BIODIVERSITY ESTUARIES & BAYS A GULF OF MEXICO ESTUARY has a definite geometry, a pairing of one river or several with a pass or passes con- necting the bay to the Gulf. Within the last few thousand years—just the other day, geologically speaking—the sea level was about two hundred feet lower than it is today. In places the coastline was dozens or hundreds of miles far- ther out into the Gulf than it is now. As frozen water was unlocked when the last ice age retreated, the Gulf began to rise to its current level, flooding river val- leys that had cut into the shelf. Three of these flooded river valleys became the three great estuaries of the upper Texas coast: the Sabine Lake system that we share with Louisiana; the Galveston Bay system south and east of Houston; and the Matagorda Bay sys- tem to the southwest. Over time, river and Gulf The Black-crowned night sediments formed barrier islands paralleling the heron, Nycticorax nyc- coast and almost blocking the mouths of flooded ticorax, a resident of our valleys, so that only one or two openings allow estuaries, stalks its prey at the energy from the uplands to flow through the night, hence its name. bays and into the Gulf. We have been slow to appreciate what tremendous natural resources these water bodies are. Sabine Lake receives its fresh water from the Houston Bays Sabine and Neches rivers and Taylor Bayou and State Parks, WMA’s and <100 National Wildlife Refuges is connected to the Gulf by Sabine Pass.
    [Show full text]
  • U N S U U S E U R a C S
    WALLER MONTGOMERY Prairie S 6 2 1 t DISTRICT 8 H 3 MONTGOMERY 4 View w 6 y Tomball y Waller DISTRICT East Fork San w H Jacinto River t StLp 494 Dayton LEE Spring 8 S S China tH Pine Island w Liberty Ames y Nome 7 DISTRICT y S Devers 1 7 w t 3 H H 2 59 w S 1 y y 10 w t LIBERTY H H 9 2 Smithville t 5 4 w 1 S y Hempstead 9 Eastex y w Fwy 3 H 6 Hwy Atascocita DISTRICT S S S t H wy 159 DISTRICT t tH 9 Industry S 5 Lake Houston H 2 w 1 y 110th Congress of the United States w t y S Hw y w 7 tH y w Humble H y 1 w 15 t H 18 1 y 159 9 t on 4 4 S m u 6 JEFFERSON 0 a 3 e 1 y 71 Bellville B 6 w StHwy N y o w tH DISTRICT rt h H S we S t s t S Cedar Creek Reservoir t F Jersey L w p 10 y Village 8 Old River- 6 ( Crosby N Winfree y Aldine La Grange o w Fayetteville r H t t h S y B Hw e nt 4 StHwy 36 o r l eaum 2 WALLER t B e ) 1 v Sheldon i y Lake Charlotte Hw Lost R t Barrett S Lake y t C i e n 5 DISTRICT HARRIS d Mont a ri 9 r B Belvieu T y San Jacinto yu w 7 StHwy 73 H River t Beaumont S Hwy Cloverleaf 1 Winnie Pattison Hilshire 6 Highlands Lake Katy Village y Spring Cove Cotton Lake Anahuac w H StHwy 65 S Channelview t t Valley H S w San Hwy Jacinto Stowell BASTROP y Brookshire 7 1 Felipe Katy Blvd City Hedwig Village Hunters Old Alligator Sealy Fwy Creek River Bayou Anahuac Village Baytown CALDWELL Houston Piney Beach Bunker Hill e Scott Bay Point d Galena i 6 City Village Village West University s 4 Cinco y Park DISTRICT 1 a Dr Bessies Cr ) Place y AUSTIN Ranch y W w w H FAYETTE k 29 t P S Ma Columbus FM n adena Fwy CHAMBERS in o as S P Weimar FM
    [Show full text]
  • Commercial Fishing Full Final Report Document Printed: 11/1/2018 Document Date: January 21, 2005 2
    1 ECONOMIC ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL FISHING ALONG THE TEXAS GULF COAST Joni S. Charles, PhD Contracted through the River Systems Institute Texas State University – San Marcos For the National Wildlife Federation February 2005 Commercial Fishing Full Final Report Document Printed: 11/1/2018 Document Date: January 21, 2005 2 Introduction This report focuses on estimating the economic activity specifically associated with commercial fishing in Sabine Lake/Sabine-Neches Estuary, Galveston Bay/Trinity-San Jacinto Estuary, Matagorda Bay/Lavaca-Colorado Estuary, San Antonio Bay/Guadalupe Estuary, Aransas Bay/Mission-Aransas Estuary, Corpus Christi Bay/Nueces Estuary, Baffin Bay/Upper Laguna Madre Estuary, and South Bay/Lower Laguna Madre Estuary. Each bay/estuary area will define a separate geographic region of study comprised of one or more counties. Commercial fishing, therefore, refers to bay (inshore) fishing only. The results show the ex-vessel value of finfish, shellfish and shrimp landings in each of these regions, and the impact this spending had on the economy in terms of earnings, employment and sales output. Estimates of the direct impacts associated with ex-vessel values were produced using IMPLAN, an input-output of the Texas economy developed by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group. The input data was obtained from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) (Culbertson 2004). Commercial fishing impacts are provided in terms of direct expenditure, sales output, income, and employment. These estimates are reported by category of expenditure. A description of IMPLAN is included in Appendix C. Indirect and Induced (Secondary) impacts are generated from the direct impacts calculated by IMPLAN. Indirect impacts represent purchases made by industries from their suppliers.
    [Show full text]
  • Audubon Texas Annual Report 2011
    Bird’s Eye View 2011 ANNUAL REPORT Photo: Black Skimmer (Alan D. Wilson) Dear Friends, I am thrilled to celebrate with you our achievements from the past year. Top among them was the grand opening of the Dogwood Canyon Audubon Center at Cedar Hill in September. We hosted 3,500 visitors over the weekend and paid tribute to our many donors and partners. (See next page for story on other Audubon Center accomplishments.) A new partnership between Audubon and the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department at Sheldon Lake State Park near Houston continues to gain momentum. We are in the early stages of a capital campaign to raise funds to build a world-class Audubon Center at the park. Once built, the Sheldon Lake State Park & Audubon Center will reach more than 10,000 school children a year. We’ll work in concert with the Houston Audubon chapter and other key partners to make the center an essential community resource for both birds and people. Visit audubontexas.org for more information on this project-in-progress. Our conservation collaboration with the Gorgas Science Foundation at the Sabal Palm Audubon Sanctuary in Brownsville continues to blossom. This special place featuring rare Sabal Palm forest and unique species has been reopened for more than a year, welcoming visitors to enjoy the Sanctuary’s 500 acres. Our Coastal Stewardship Program will soon welcome a new manager whose role will be to grow our coast-wide conservation work. The coastal manager will work to restore island rookeries, increase our volunteer workforce, garner new partnerships, and reach out to the public about our work with colonial waterbirds.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1990 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops Truncatus) Mass Die-Off in East Matagorda Bay, Texas—New Insight Into a Cold Case
    1 1 The 1990 Common Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) Mass Die-Off in East 2 Matagorda Bay, Texas—New Insight into a Cold Case 3 Errol I. Ronje1*, Heidi R. Whitehead2, Keith D. Mullin1 4 1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, 5 Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Mississippi Laboratories, Pascagoula, MS, USA, 6 *Corresponding author email: [email protected] 7 2Texas Marine Mammal Stranding Network, Galveston, TX, USA 8 9 Abstract 10 On 20 January 1990, 23 Tursiops truncatus (Montagu) (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) 11 carcasses were found scattered around the interior shoreline of East Matagorda Bay, Texas. Few 12 accounts exist to document the presence of live or dead bottlenose dolphins inside the boundaries 13 of East Matagorda Bay before or after the die-off. A review of areal East Matagorda Bay and the 14 original investigation of the January 1990 mass die-off was conducted, including the history of 15 natural and anthropogenic changes to the area, dolphin stranding records, small boat visual 16 surveys, and dolphin dorsal fin photographic identification. Natural events preceding the 17 discovery of the dolphin carcasses were likely factors in the animal’s demise, however, the 18 timing of engineering projects that modified the bay’s access points to the Gulf of Mexico may 19 be additional factors for consideration in this unusual mortality event. 20 1 2 21 Introduction 22 In the northern Gulf of Mexico (southern Texas to southern Florida), from January to May 23 1990, 344 Tursiops truncatus (Montagu) (Common Bottlenose Dolphin) died in a Gulf of 24 Mexico (GoMx) wide Unusual Mortality Event (UME) (Litz et al.
    [Show full text]