DOCSLIB.ORG

Movements of Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys Kempii) and Green (Chelonia Mydas)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Movements of Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys Kempii) and Green (Chelonia Mydas) Movements of Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and Green (Chelonia mydas) Sea Turtles Using Lavaca Bay and Matagorda Bay 1996 - 1997 By Maurice L. Renaud and Jo A. Williams FINAL REPORT Submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Planning and Coordination Region 6 Dallas, Texas TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables ii List of Figures iii Executive summary v Introduction 1 Methods 2 Study Area 2 Capture and Holding of Sea Turtle 3 Radio Sonic Telemetry 3 Satellite Telemetry 4 Study Period Ranges 5 Submergence and Surface Durations 6 Environmental Data 6 Results 6 Capture and Tagging of Sea Turtles 6 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtles 7 Short Range Movements 7 Long Range Movements 8 Study Period Ranges 9 Submergence Behavior 10 Surface Behavior 10 Green Sea Turtles 11 Short Range Movements 11 Long Term Movements 11 Study Period Ranges 13 Submergence Behavior 13 Surface Behavior 14 Environmental Data 14 Discussion 15 Sea Turtle Movements 17 Seasonal Occurrence 17 Habitat Preference 19 Abundance 20 Satellite Data 21 Submergence and Surface Durations 22 Conclusion 24 Literature Cited 26 i List of Tables Table 1. Measurements and tracking information for seven Kemp's ridley and four green sea turtles tracked in Matagorda Bay, TX.................................. 31 Table 2. Home range (95% utilization distribution) and core area (percent utilization determined by Home Range Program) to the nearest square kilometer, for of Kemp's ridley and green sea turtles in Lavaca and Matagorda Bays, 28 May through 5 November 1996.................................... 32 Table 3. Submergence and surface durations (in seconds) for all turtles combined, for each species, and for individual sea turtles radio-tracked in 1996........ 33 Table 4. Frequency of submergence durations, by time category, for all turtles combined, for each species and for individual turtles radio-tracked in 1996...................................................................................................................... 34 Table 5. Time spent submerged and at the surface for all turtles combined, for each species, and for individual turtles radio-tracked in 1996...…………….......................... 36 Table 6. Frequency of surface durations by second categories for all turtles combined, for each species and for individual turtles radio-tracked in 1996...................................................................................................................... 37 Table 7. Measurements of air and water temperature, surface water salinity, cloud cover, sea state, wind speed and direction in Matagorda and Lavaca Bays from May 28 to November 5, 1996........................................... 39 ii List of Figures Figure 1. Study area encompassing Lavaca Bay and West Matagorda Bay................ 40 Figure 2. Movements of radio-tracked subadult male Kemp's ridley sea turtle 4191 (33.5 cm SCL) from 28 May - 27 June 1996......................................... 41 Figure 3. Movements of radio-tracked subadult male Kemp's ridley sea turtle 5601 (32.8 cm SCL) from 28 May - 1 August 1996. Home range (95% utilization distribution) is outlined with a dotted line and core area (58% utilization distribution) is outlined with a solid line........................... 42 Figure 4. Movements of radio-tracked subadult female Kemp's ridley sea turtle 5001 (34.3 cm SCL) from 22-28 June 1996.................................................... 43 Figure 5. Movements of radio-tracked subadult male Kemp's ridley sea turtle 4811 (31.5 cm SCL) from 24 July - 2 August 1996....................................... 44 Figure 6. Movements of radio-tracked subadult female Kemp's ridley sea turtle 5801 (43.9 cm SCL) from 30 July - 30 August............................................... 45 Figure 7. Movements of radio-tracked subadult female Kemp's ridley sea turtle 4391 (40.4 cm SCL) from 28 May - 29 September 1996. Home range (95% utilization distribution) is outlined with a dotted line and core area (54% utilization distribution) is outlined with a solid line.................. 46 Figure 8. Home range (95% utilization area) and core area (64% utilization distribution) for all Kemp's ridley sea turtles combined; 28 May to 29 September 1997............................................................................................. 47 Figure 9. Movements of radio-tracked subadult male Green sea turtle 5201 (37.5 cm SCL) from 20 June - 01 August 1996.............................................. 48 Figure 10. Movements of radio-tracked subadult female Green sea turtle 4602 (29.9 cm SCL) from 20 June - 05 November 1996. Home range (95% utilization distribution) is outlined with a dotted line and core area (64% utilization distribution) is outlined with a solid line.................. 49 Figure 11. Movements of satellite-tracked subadult Green sea turtle 7299 (36.3 cm SCL - sex unknown) from 1 October 1996 - 11 June 1997. Southerly movement is shown on map A and northerly movement is depicted on map B............................................................................................ 50 iii Figure 12. Movements of satellite-tracked subadult Green sea turtle 8009 (35.0 cm SCL - sex unknown) from 2 October 1996 - 28 January 1997.................... 51 Figure 13. Home range (95% utilization distribution) and core area (53% utilization distribution) for all radio-tracked green sea turtles combined; 20 June to 2 October 1997................................................................................. 52 Figure 14. Monthly mean values for air and water temperature (Celsius), salinity (parts per thousand), and wave height (ft), in Matagorda and Lavaca Bays, from 28 May through 5 November 1996............................................... 53 Figure 15. Wind direction in Matagorda and Lavaca Bays from 28 May through 5 November 1996, by month. The percent of time the wind was blowing in a given direction for each month is summed by wind direction............................................................................................................... 54 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Understanding the habitat needs of sea turtles is recognized as an essential element in successful recovery of their stocks in the Gulf of Mexico (Thompson et al., 1990). Until recently, little research had been conducted on sea turtle populations in Texas, even though Texas inshore waters provide important habitat for Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, green, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead, Caretta caretta, sea turtles. A preliminary evaluation of the temporal and spatial distribution of Kemp's ridley, green, and loggerhead sea turtles in Lavaca and Matagorda Bays was made 1) to determine if turtles are locally restricted or part of a more extensive group of turtles, 2) to describe their association with specific habitats, (i.e., channels, oyster reefs, seagrass beds, and other areas in the bay) and with geographic areas of the bay, and 3) to address the potential risk of exposure posed to turtles by discharge water from the Formosa Plastics Plant containing potentially toxic substances. Eight sea turtles (6 Kemp's ridleys and 2 greens) equipped with radio and sonic transmitters were released in Matagorda Bay, Texas, and tracked for 3-18 days a month, from May through November 1996. Three additional turtles (1 Kemp's ridley and 2 greens) were fitted with satellite transmitters and released near Indian Point, in northwest Matagorda Bay, Texas. As of 14 May 1997, one green turtle was still being tracked by satellite telemetry. Sizes and weights of turtles ranged from 31.5-58.4 cm SCL and 4.0-21.7 kg for Kemp's ridleys and from 29.9-37.5 cm SCL and 3.3-7.6 kg for greens. Typically, radio-tracked sea turtles remained within 3 km of a 20 km stretch of coast along the west side of Matagorda Bay, from Indian Point in the north toward Port O'Connor in the south. However, one Kemp's ridley did cross Matagorda Bay and enter Carancahua Bay and Tres Palacios Bay. Two green turtles, monitored with satellite telemetry beginning in October 1996, increased the v distance of their daily their movements during November and December, after the passage of cold fronts and subsequent cooling of bay waters. Bay water temperatures decreased from monthly summer means near 30o C to less than 17o C in November and December. The turtles apparently sought warmer water when they moved into the Gulf of Mexico on 18 December 1996 and 1 January 1997, and relocated offshore where temperatures were 13-23o C. Both turtles moved to the south. One was in water depths between 10 and 20 fathoms just south of Corpus Christi Bay by 10 January 1997. On 17 January it was an additional 200 km to the south, in the same depth zone, just below the Texas- Mexico border. Its movement was monitored southward for another 70 km when before signals from its transmitter ceased on 30 January 1997. The second green turtle moved approximately 260 km by 2 February 1997; nearly 40 km south of Port Mansfield in water depths of less than 10 fm. It returned to Matagorda Bay, on 2 April 1997. Since its return to inshore waters in March 1997, it has remained in inshore waters and moved through Espiritu Santo Bay toward Corpus Christi, TX. The last recorded position of this turtle was in Aransas Bay on 11 June 1997. It is still being tracked. We disproved the hypothesis that turtles would use all parts of the bay equally. Data collected during 1996 demonstrated that Kemp's ridleys mostly utilize the shallow areas along the western perimeter of Matagorda and Lavaca Bays. Central
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 125Th Anniversary of the Battle of Sabine Pass.” Texas Gulf Historical & Biographical Record 24, No
    “125th Anniversary of the Battle of Sabine Pass.” Texas Gulf Historical & Biographical Record 24, no. 1 (November 1988): 71–78. doi:Article. Ahlstrom, Richard Mather. Texas Civil War Artifacts: A Photographic Guide to the Physical Culture of Texas Civil War Soldiers. Denton, Tex: University of North Texas Press, 2008. Ashcraft, Allan C. “Fort Brown, Texas, in 1861.” Texas Military History 3 (1963). ———. “Texas in the Confederacy: Military Installations, Economy and People.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 83, no. 4 (April 1980): 427–28. doi:Book Review. ———. “The Union Occupation of the Lower Rio Grande Valley in the Civil War.” Texas Military History 8, no. 4 (1970). Bell, Andrew Mcllwaine. “Trans-Mississippi Miasmas: How Malaria & Yellow Fever Shaped the Course of the Civil War in the Confederacy’s Western Theater.” East Texas Historical Journal 48, no. 2 (2009): 3–13. doi:Article. Bell, Walter F. “Civil War Texas: A Review of the Historical Literature.” Southwestern Historical Quarterly 109, no. 2 (October 2005): 205–32. doi:Article. Case, Robert. “La Frontera Texana Y Los Movimientos De Insurreccion En Mexico - 1850- 1900.” Historia Mexicana 30, no. 3 (January 1981): 415–52. doi:Article. Cerutti, Marío, and Miguel González Quiroga. “Guerra Y Comercio En Torno Al Rio Bravo (1855-1867). Linea Fronteriza, Espacio Economico Comun. (spanish).” Historia Mexicana 40, no. 2 (October 1990): 217–97. doi:Article. Clendenen, Clarence C. Blood on the Border; the United States Army and the Mexican Irregulars. New York: Macmillan, 1969. ———. “Mexican Unionists: A Forgotten Incident of the War Between States.” New Mexico Historical Review 39, no. 1 (Winter1964 1964): 32–39.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch
    Consumer Plannlng Section Comprehensive Plannlng Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Texans Outdoors: An Analysis of 1985 Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By Kathryn N. Nichols and Andrew P. Goldbloom Under the Direction of James A. Deloney November, 1989 Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, Texas 78744 (512) 389-4900 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Conducting a mail survey requires accuracy and timeliness in every single task. Each individualized survey had to be accounted for, both going out and coming back. Each mailing had to meet a strict deadline. The authors are indebted to all the people who worked on this project. The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Branch, Parks Division, deserve special thanks. This dedicated crew signed letters, mailed, remailed, coded, and entered the data of a twenty-page questionnaire that was sent to over twenty-five thousand Texans with over twelve thousand returned completed. Many other Parks Division staff outside the branch volunteered to assist with stuffing and labeling thousands of envelopes as deadlines drew near. We thank the staff of the Information Services Section for their cooperation in providing individualized letters and labels for survey mailings. We also appreciate the dedication of the staff in the mailroom for processing up­ wards of seventy-five thousand pieces of mail. Lastly, we thank the staff in the print shop for their courteous assistance in reproducing the various documents. Although the above are gratefully acknowledged, they are absolved from any responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have occurred. ii TEXANS OUTDOORS: AN ANALYSIS OF 1985 PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FISHING Bucks Astir Hunters Keep Anglers After Crappie Have to Change Their Strategy in Winter
    Pheasant season opens * December 8, 2006 Texas’ Premier Outdoor Newspaper Volume 3, Issue 8 * Page 7 www.lonestaroutdoornews.com INSIDE FISHING Bucks astir Hunters keep Anglers after crappie have to change their strategy in winter. The fish often go to deep waters watchful eye to escape the cold and fluctuating temperatures. Crappie also turn more lethargic, on rut activity so pursuing anglers must slow down their actions and try to put By Bill Miller their bait on the money. Page 8 As a fierce arctic front barreled over Texas last week, some deer hunters willing to brave HUNTING frigid temperatures may have hoped the chill would stir bucks into breeding. The fabled rut is the one time hunters can be assured the wily buck of their dreams will abandon caution for the pursuit of a doe in estrus. But it’s a misconception that breeding is spurred by weather. Clayton Wolf, big game director for Texas Parks and Wildlife, said the decreasing length of days is what triggers breeding activity. “When you hear people talking about see- Goose hunters had their share of ing more deer when it’s colder, and that it success as reinforcements correlates with the rut, we find ourselves cor- arrived to bulk up the state’s recting them,’’ Wolf said. Much of the breeding in Texas happens winter goose population. during November, Wolf said, although Page 6 South Texas is famous for its rut in NATIONAL December. Wolf added that some areas experience a A new Coast Guard study IN A RUT: During breeding season, the necks of white-tailed deer swell signaling dominance and readiness to mate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region
    The Role of Freshwater Inflows in Sustaining Estuarine Ecosystem Health in the San Antonio Bay Region Contract Number 05-018 September 15, 2006 1. Introduction Estuaries are vital aquatic habitats for supporting marine life, and they confer a multitude of benefits to humans in numerous ways. These benefits include the provision of natural resources used for a variety of market activities, recreational opportunities, transportation and aesthetics, as well as ecological functions such as storing and cycling nutrients, absorbing and detoxifying pollutants, maintaining the hydrological cycle, and moderating the local climate. The wide array of beneficial processes, functions and resources provided by the ecosystem are referred to collectively as “ecosystem services.” From this perspective, an estuary can be viewed as a valuable natural asset, or natural capital, from which these multiple goods and services flow.1 The quantity, quality and temporal variance of freshwater inflows are essential to the living and non-living components of bays and estuaries. Freshwater inflows to sustain ecosystem functions affect estuaries at all basic physical, chemical, and biological levels of interaction. The functional role of freshwater in the ecology of estuarine environments has been scientifically reviewed and is relatively well understood. This role is summarized in section 3, after a brief overview of the geographical context of the San Antonio Bay Region in the next section. Section 4 follows with discussion of the impacts of reduced freshwater inflow to the San Antonio Bay. Section 5 concludes with some general observations. 2. Geographical Context The San Antonio Bay Region, formed where the Guadalupe River meets the Guadalupe Estuary, teems with life.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction the Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute Is To
    Texas Water Resources Institute Annual Technical Report FY 2003 Introduction The Mission of the Texas Water Resources Institute is to: (1) Provide leadership for Experiment Station and Extension research and education water programs statewide, coordinating with scientists, specialists, county agents, administrative personnel and other agencies and water groups. (2) Serve as the designated Water Resources Research Institute for the State of Texas, as part of the National Institutes for Water Research Program and established by the Texas Legislature. (3) Obtain and manage external funds for research, academic programs, outreach, and education projects. (4) Establish TWRI as the focal point for water research and outreach efforts within the Texas A&M University System. (5) Develop relationships with policymakers, elected officials and water resources leaders throughout Texas. (6) Identify emerging water resources issues that may be significant funding sources, and communicate these issues to researchers, stakeholders, and the public. (7) Communicate TWRI projects, research opportunities, research results, resource materials, and water resources news to the public. (8) Support and help faciliatate water related academic programs and administer scholarship programs for students involved in water related studies. Research Program During 2003-04, the Texas Water Resources Institute funded 12 research projects to graduate students at universities throughout Texas. Students were supported at Texas A&M University (9 projects); the University of Texas at Austin (2); and the University of Texas at El Paso (1). These studies covered several broad subjects, including the following: brush control to improve water yields (3 projects); the development and application of computer models (3); hydrology (3); water conservation (1); groundwater (3); surface water (3); water use (3); bays and estuaries (1); aquatic ecosystems (2); water policies (1); the economics of water use (1); water treatment (1); non-point pollution (1); and water quality (5).
    [Show full text]
  • Stormwater Management Program 2013-2018 Appendix A
    Appendix A 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) 2012 Texas Integrated Report - Texas 303(d) List (Category 5) As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the federal Clean Water Act, this list identifies the water bodies in or bordering Texas for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement by maximum daily load. In addition, the TCEQ also develops a schedule identifying Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (January 2003, RG-194). Impairments are limited to the geographic area described by the Assessment Unit and identified with a six or seven-digit AU_ID. A TMDL for each impaired parameter will be developed to allocate pollutant loads from contributing sources that affect the parameter of concern in each Assessment Unit. The TMDL will be identified and counted using a six or seven-digit AU_ID. Water Quality permits that are issued before a TMDL is approved will not increase pollutant loading that would contribute to the impairment identified for the Assessment Unit. Explanation of Column Headings SegID and Name: The unique identifier (SegID), segment name, and location of the water body. The SegID may be one of two types of numbers. The first type is a classified segment number (4 digits, e.g., 0218), as defined in Appendix A of the Texas Surface Water Quality Standards (TSWQS).
    [Show full text]
  • National Coastal Condition Assessment 2010
    You may use the information and images contained in this document for non-commercial, personal, or educational purposes only, provided that you (1) do not modify such information and (2) include proper citation. If material is used for other purposes, you must obtain written permission from the author(s) to use the copyrighted material prior to its use. Reviewed: 7/27/2021 Jenny Wrast Environmental Institute of Houston FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 Lakes Field Lab, Data Report Research Design Field Lab, Data Rivers Design Field Lab, Data Report Research Design Field Streams Research Design Field Lab, Data Report Research Design Coastal Report Research Design Field Lab, Data Report Research Wetlands Research Research Research Design Field Lab, Data Report 11 sites in: • Sabine Lake • Galveston Bay • Trinity Bay • West Bay • East Bay • Christmas Bay 26 sites in: • East Matagorda Bay • Tres Palacios Bay • Lavaca Bay • Matagorda Bay • Carancahua Bay • Espiritu Santu Bay • San Antonio Bay • Ayres Bay • Mesquite Bay • Copano Bay • Aransas Bay 16 sites in: • Corpus Christi Bay • Nueces Bay • Upper Laguna Madre • Baffin Bay • East Bay • Alazan Bay •Lower Laguna Madre Finding Boat Launches Tracking Forms Locating the “X” Site Pathogen Indicator Enterococcus Habitat Assessment Water Field Measurements Light Attenuation Basic Water Chemistry Chlorophyll Nutrients Sediment Chemistry and Composition •Grain Size • TOC • Metals Sediment boat and equipment cleaned • PCBs after every site. • Organics Benthic Macroinvertebrates Sediment Toxicity Minimum of 3-Liters of sediment required at each site. Croaker Spot Catfish Whole Fish Sand Trout Contaminants Pinfish •Metals •PCBs •Organics Upper Laguna Madre Hurricanes Hermine & Igor Wind & Rain Upper Laguna Madre Copano Bay San Antonio Bay—August Trinity Bay—July Copano Bay—September Jenny Kristen UHCL-EIH Lynne TCEQ Misty Art Crowe Robin Cypher Anne Rogers Other UHCL-EIH Michele Blair Staff Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP
    Texas Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program Texas ACTRP • Senate Bill 1410 - Passed during 77th Legislative session (2001) – Mandated 10-day closure period in February • Conducted annually since 2002 – ~ 12,000 voluntary hours (> 3,000 volunteers) – > 1,000 vessels –> 35,000 traps! Commercial Crab Trap Tags in Texas 100000 90000 80000 70000 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 92 94 96 98 178 Licenses, 200 traps per license Condition Assessment • From 2002-2003, we performed an assessment study of retrieved traps looking at location, condition, bycatch, etc. Condition Assessment of Traps • 1,703 traps studied • 12% located on seagrass beds • 46% had ID present • 63% in fishable condition • 42% degradable panel present • 33% open • Oldest confirmed trap dated 1991 • 3 Diamondback terrapins Number % of Species Observed Scientific Name Observed Total Blue crab Callinectes sapidus 314 49 Stone crab Menippe adina 179 28 Sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus 48 7 Thinstripe hermit crab Clibanarius vittatus 30 5 Gulf toadfish Opsanus beta 28 4 Black drum Pogonias cromis 12 2 Hardhead catfish Arius felis 6 1 Striped mullet Mugil cephalus 6 1 Red drum Sciaenops ocellatus 4 1 Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides 3 <0.01 Bay whiff Citharichthys spilopterus 3 <0.01 Diamondback terrapin Malaclemys terrapin littoralis 3 <0.01 Longnose spider crab Libinia dubia 2 <0.01 Southern flounder Paralichthys lethostigma 2 <0.01 Spotted scorpionfish Scorpaena plumieri 2 <0.01 Pelecypoda Rangia spp. 1 <0.01 Musk turtle Family Kinosternidae 1 <0.01 Spotted seatrout Cynoscion
    [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]
  • Beach and Bay Access Guide
    Texas Beach & Bay Access Guide Second Edition Texas General Land Office Jerry Patterson, Commissioner The Texas Gulf Coast The Texas Gulf Coast consists of cordgrass marshes, which support a rich array of marine life and provide wintering grounds for birds, and scattered coastal tallgrass and mid-grass prairies. The annual rainfall for the Texas Coast ranges from 25 to 55 inches and supports morning glories, sea ox-eyes, and beach evening primroses. Click on a region of the Texas coast The Texas General Land Office makes no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information depicted on these maps, or the data from which it was produced. These maps are NOT suitable for navigational purposes and do not purport to depict or establish boundaries between private and public land. Contents I. Introduction 1 II. How to Use This Guide 3 III. Beach and Bay Public Access Sites A. Southeast Texas 7 (Jefferson and Orange Counties) 1. Map 2. Area information 3. Activities/Facilities B. Houston-Galveston (Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, and Matagorda Counties) 21 1. Map 2. Area Information 3. Activities/Facilities C. Golden Crescent (Calhoun, Jackson and Victoria Counties) 1. Map 79 2. Area Information 3. Activities/Facilities D. Coastal Bend (Aransas, Kenedy, Kleberg, Nueces, Refugio and San Patricio Counties) 1. Map 96 2. Area Information 3. Activities/Facilities E. Lower Rio Grande Valley (Cameron and Willacy Counties) 1. Map 2. Area Information 128 3. Activities/Facilities IV. National Wildlife Refuges V. Wildlife Management Areas VI. Chambers of Commerce and Visitor Centers 139 143 147 Introduction It’s no wonder that coastal communities are the most densely populated and fastest growing areas in the country.
    [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]
  • Sabine Pass State Park Archeological Investigations
    SABINI PASS BATTLEGROD STATE HISTORIC PARI ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT 8 ANTIQUITIES PERMIT *21 41 TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT PARKS DIVISION HISTORIC SITES AND RESTORATION BRANCH AUSTIN, TEXAS SABINE PASS BATTLEGROUND STATE HISTORICAL PARK JEFFERSON CO., TEXAS ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS T. Holtzapple and Wayne Roberson ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT #8 ANTIQUITIES PERMIT #21 TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT HISTORIC SITES AND RESTORATION BRANCH AUSTIN, TEXAS SEPT. 1976 00000b TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ............. ........ V ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.... ........ .. V LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .... vi HISTORICAL BACKGROUND . .. .. .. .3 ARCHEOLOGICAL NARRATIVE .. .. .. 6 ANALYSISOF MAPS......... .. ., . 42 REFERENCES..... ....... .. .. .. 45 iv ABSTRACT Archeological investigations began in July, 1972 at Sabine Pass Battleground State Historical Park to determine the location of the Confederate earthwork fort. A reconnaissance trip took place in 1973 with further investigations following in February, 1974. The investigations did not reveal the location of the original fort site. Lack of Confederate fort period evidence may be attributed to a series of disturbances beginning as early as 1875 with the U. S. Corps of Engineers channel dredging activities. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Dessamae Lorrain, Robert Burnett, Douglas Comstock, David Ing, and Ron Ralph for contributing to the archeological investigations at Sabine Pass Battleground State Historical Park. Thanks go to Lillie Arnold who managed to type the report despite her busy schedule. Also, we appreciate the time David Ing spent to do special editing. v ERRATA p. 5 last paragraph, 6th line should read "...Confederate ordnance..." p. 9 Figure 3 A, B-South Section Profile, D. Lorrain 1972 C-North Section Profile, D. Lorrain 1972 p. 11 Figure 4 p. 18 3rd paragraph, 2nd line should read "...just after expulsion of..." - * e -- "s & - a * r.
    [Show full text]