DOCSLIB.ORG

Distribution of Sea Turtles in Lavaca And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Distribution of Sea Turtles in Lavaca And A Final Report DISTRIBUTION OF SEA TURTLES IN LAVACA AND MATAGORDA BAYS, TEXAS - A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF ECOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGY OF SEA TURTLES AS RELATED TO FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION’S WASTEWATER DISCHARGE Submitted by the Texas A&M Research Foundation Room 112, Bell Building University Drive and Wellborn Road College Station, Texas 77843-3578 to the Environmental Protection Agency Federal Activities Branch 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202 Prepared by André M. Landry, Jr., David T. Costa, F. Leonard Kenyon, Karen E. St. John, Michael S. Coyne, and Marc C. Hadler Department of Marine Biology Texas A&M University at Galveston Galveston, Texas 77551 August 1997 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Results of a study assessing sea turtle use of Lavaca and Matagorda Bays and the potential for toxicological risk to these organisms from wastewater discharged by Formosa Plastics Corporation’s Point Comfort Plant are reported herein. Objectives of this research were to: 1) document historical occurrence and distribution of sea turtles in Lavaca and Matagorda Bays; 2) execute entanglement netting operations characterizing present-day distribution, population dynamics and toxicological risks of these protected species; and 3) generate preliminary baseline data on trace metal concentration in the blood of captured turtles. Historical occurrence and distribution of sea turtles in Lavaca and Matagorda Bays were documented through a variety of survey methods including: on-line bibliographic searches of sea turtle and fisheries literature; personal interviews with a former Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) biologist and recreational fishing guide; questionnaires sent to commercial shrimp and crab fishermen, recreational fishing guides, and TPWD enforcement officers and biologists; advertisements in the Port Lavaca Wave newspaper and Sea Grant Program and Gulf Coast Conservation Association magazines targeting the marine user; and posters strategically placed at boat ramps, bait shops, stores and restaurants throughout the study area. Historical occurrence of sea turtles in the Matagorda Bay System during the last 20 years can be characterized as seasonal utilization of Matagorda Bay (south of its juncture with Lavaca Bay) by a limited assemblage of greens (Chelonia mydas), Kemp’s ridleys (Lepidochelys kempii), and loggerheads (Caretta caretta). Peak utilization of the System’s habitats typically occurred in lower reaches of Matagorda Bay and near Pass Cavallo. Historical occupation of Lavaca Bay by sea turtles appears to have been infrequent. Present-day distribution, population dynamics and toxicological risks of sea turtles were characterized through entanglement netting operations staged in the northwest corner of Matagorda Bay at its juncture with Lavaca Bay. These operations were conducted monthly from May through October 1996. Turtles taken in entanglement nets were identified to species and enumerated, meristically examined, equipped with flipper and PIT tags, and sampled for blood used in sex and trace metal assessments. Hydrographic and nekton surveys documented environmental conditions and prey availability, respectively, in the study area during entanglement netting operations. Approximately 500 entanglement net-hours (a net-hour being defined as each hour one 91.5-m entanglement net is fished at a monitoring station) of effort yielded 12 sea turtle captures comprised of 7 Kemp’s ridleys and 4 greens (one of which was captured twice). Captures occurred during 4 of 6 monitoring months, with May-July accounting for 10 of these. All turtles were netted in the northwest corner of Matagorda Bay adjacent to Magnolia and Indianola Beaches, immediately south of the mouth of Lavaca Bay. Peak CPUE (0.43 turtle/km-hr) was achieved in May, while capture rate during other months was noticeably reduced (0.0-0.25 turtle/km-hr). Kemp’s ridleys, the majority being juveniles typically ≤40 cm carapace length, were taken only May-July, All ridley constituents were wild (as opposed to captive-reared “headstarts”) whose sex was partitioned between three females and four males. Post pelagic cohorts (≤40 cm carapace length) comprised the green turtle assemblage whose capture was limited to June, July and September. Gender of three greens which could be sexed was one female and two males. A 37.5 cm green turtle originally netted in Matagorda Bay on 19 June 1996 was recaptured 28 July, during which time (38 days) it gained 2.6 cm and 1.25 kg. A second recapture involved a Kemp’s ridley, originally taken in Matagorda Bay on 26 July 1996, which was netted off the Sabine Pass, Texas beachfront on 20 May 1997. This ridley gained 0.9 cm and 0.9 kg during 298 days of liberty. ii Sea turtle captures in Matagorda Bay during May-October 1996, when compared with those from a similar netting effort at Sabine Pass over the same period, reflected low relative abundance and catch rate. Sabine Pass yielded an overall CPUE nearly four times higher than that recorded in Matagorda Bay. However, abnormally high salinity conditions and westward expansion of a hypoxic/anoxic “dead” zone across the northwest Gulf may mean that 1996 catch statistics are conservative estimates of sea turtle occurrence in nearshore habitats such as Matagorda Bay and Sabine Pass. The 1996 catches, when combined with the aforementioned historical survey and literature on sea turtle natural history, suggest that Kemp’s ridley and green turtles taken in reduced abundances near Lavaca Bay during the present study probably represent remnants of larger assemblages that: 1) naturally occur in lower reaches of the Matagorda Bay System which possess habitats more conducive to a herbivorous life style (i.e., green turtle) or benthic feeding habits (i.e., Kemp’s ridley); and 2) prefer shallow, nearshore Gulf waters but were attracted to upper reaches of Matagorda Bay by abnormally high salinities which facilitated extended feeding opportunities in this area. These same factors suggest that long-term, wide-ranging occupation of Lavaca Bay by either species is much reduced from that expected in lower reaches of the Matagorda Bay System and nearshore Gulf. Trace metal analyses of 6 sea turtles (5 Kemp’s ridleys and 1 green) captured during the current study were compared with those conducted on 106 Kemp’s ridleys taken at Sabine Pass in 1995 and 1996. Four of five Matagorda Bay ridleys exhibited mercury concentrations exceeding both the mean and maximum levels detected in Sabine Pass conspecifics of similar size. One ridley possessed five times more mercury (181 ppb) than the maximum concentration (35.6 ppb) in Sabine Pass counterparts. Adding to this was the noticeable reduction in mercury exhibited by a ridley originally captured in Matagorda Bay and subsequently netted 298 days later at Sabine Pass. Mercury concentration in the only green turtle analyzed from Matagorda Bay was well above the mean value detected for Sabine Pass ridleys of similar size. Copper levels in Matagorda Bay ridleys never exceeded maximum concentrations exhibited by Sabine Pass counterparts but they were slightly higher than the mean value detected in the former. Lead concentrations from Matagorda Bay ridleys fell in line with those for Sabine Pass conspecifics. The most noteworthy result from silver analyses was an elevated concentration (well beyond that in all other blood samples from Matagorda Bay) in the ridley recaptured at Sabine Pass in 1997. Zinc concentrations were similar in turtles from both sites. Significance of trace metal findings generated by this study is difficult to assess due, in large part, to a research void in sea turtle toxicology and an incomplete understanding of the degree to which blood can be used as a barometer of bioaccumulation. Nevertheless, the present study provides an albeit preliminary but repeated trend for sea turtles (particularly Kemp’s ridleys) from Matagorda Bay to exhibit elevated mercury concentrations beyond those from a more “toxic free” site like the Sabine Pass beachfront. This preliminary finding is not unexpected since Lavaca and Matagorda Bay sediments containing mercury are reworked by benthic prey organisms which are eaten by shrimp, crabs and fish that serve as food for Kemp’s ridleys. Clarification of the toxicological risk potential inherent to sea turtles using areas within and adjacent to Lavaca Bay will be complete only after more information is available on: 1) sea turtle occurrence in the area of concern; and 2) significance of trace metal concentrations in blood of these protected species. Preliminary results from the present study mandate consideration be given to facilitating more detailed investigations of trace metal uptake by sea turtles occupying Lavaca-Matagorda Bay environs. iii Table of Contents P a ge Executive Summary i List of Tables iv List of Figures v List of Appendix Tables vi INTRODUCTION 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS 2 A. Historical Occurrence of Sea Turtles 2 B. Sea Turtle Capture and Related Activities 7 Netting areas 7 Entanglement netting 9 Turtle work-up 9 Tagging protocol 11 Blood sampling - sex and trace metal analysis 11 Habitat characterization 12 RESULTS 13 A. Historical Occurrence of Sea Turtles 13 Literature survey 13 Questionnaires and related surveys 13 TPWD field surveys 15 B. Sea Turtle Capture and Population Dynamics 17 Sea turtle capture effort 17 Sea turtle population dynamics 17 Tag-recapture and tracking 26 Trace metal analysis 28 Habitat characterization 34 Hydrographics 36 DISCUSSION 36 Historical Occurrence of Sea Turtles in Lavaca Bay 36 Present Occurrence of Sea Turtles in Matagorda Bay 38 Toxicological Risks to Sea Turtles 41 REFERENCES 44 iv List of Tables T a ble P a ge 1 Sea turtles captured by the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department during seasonal 16 fishery surveys of the Matagorda Bay System from 1979-94. 2 Sea turtle species abundance and status across Matagorda Bay netting stations 21 during 1996. 3 Sea turtle species captured by entanglement netting operations in Matagorda Bay 22 during 1996. 4 Mercury concentration (ppb, wet weight) in whole blood of sea turtles captured 29 from Matagorda Bay and Sabine Pass during 1994-97.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sedimentary Environments and Processes in a Shallow
    SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENTS AND PROCESSES IN A SHALLOW, GULF COAST ESTUARY-LAVACA BAY, TEXAS A Thesis by JASON LEE BRONIKOWSKI Submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2004 Major Subject: Oceanography SEDIMENTARY ENVIRONMENTS AND PROCESSES IN A SHALLOW, GULF COAST ESTUARY-LAVACA BAY, TEXAS A Thesis by JASON LEE BRONIKOWSKI Submitted to Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Approved as to style and content by: ___________________________ __________________________ Timothy Dellapenna Jay Rooker (Chair of Committee) (Member) ___________________________ __________________________ William Sager Wilford Gardner (Member) (Head of Department) August 2004 Major Subject: Oceanography iii ABSTRACT Sedimentary Environments and Processes in a Shallow, Gulf Coast Estuary-Lavaca Bay, Texas. (August 2004) Jason Lee Bronikowski, B.S., Lake Superior State University Chair of Advisory Committee: Dr. Timothy Dellapenna Sedimentation rates in sediment cores from Lavaca Bay have been high within the last 1-2 decays within the central portion of the bay, with small fluctuations from river input. Lavaca Bay is a broad, flat, and shallow (<3 m) microtidal estuary within the upper Matagorda Bay system. Marine derived sediment enters the system from Matagorda Bay, while two major rivers (Lavaca & Navidad) supply the majority of terrestrially derived sediment. With continuous sediment supply the bay showed no bathymetric change until the introduction of the shipping channel. Processes that potentially lead to sediment transport and resuspension within the bay include wind driven wave resuspension, storm surges, wind driven blowouts, and river flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • Comanche Peak, Units 3 & 4, Update Regarding Proprietary Information
    M. L. Lucas Luminant Power Vice President, Nuclear Engineering P 0 Box 1002 & Support 6322 North FM 56 Luminant [email protected] Glen Rose, TX 76043 T 254 897 6731 C 254 258 2867 F 254 897 6652 CP-200900278 Ref. # 10 CFR 52 Log # TXNB-09002 February 13, 2009 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: David B. Matthews, Director Division of New Reactor Licensing SUBJECT: COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 3 AND 4 DOCKET NUMBERS 52-034 AND 52-035 UPDATE REGARDING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND SUBMITTAL OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITING REPORT REFERENCES: 1. Letter logged TXNB-08024 from M. L. Lucas of Luminant Power to the NRC, dated September 19, 2008, entitled "Combined License Application for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4" 2. Letter logged TXNB-08032 from M. L. Lucas of Luminant Power to the NRC, dated December 18, 2008, entitled "Reassessment of Proprietary Information" Dear Sir: Luminant Generation Company LLC (Luminant Power) submits this letter to update the proprietary status of information in the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP) Units 3 and 4 combined license (COL) application and submits the plant siting report. Reference 1 submitted the COL application in which Luminant stated that certain information regarding the location of alternate sites was proprietary, confidential, and sensitive. In Reference 2, Luminant reassessed the alternate site location information and determined.that descriptions based upon the two closest Texas counties could be used publicly by the NRC without compromising the proprietary nature of the alternate site locations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Great Comanche Raid of 1840
    SPECIAL EDITION AAGGAARRIITTAA GGAAZZEETTTTEE October 2011 A Chronicle of the Plum Creek Shooting Society Agarita Ranch Lockhart, Texas Marshals Range Marshal - Delta Raider TThhee BBaattttllee ooff PPlluumm CCrreeeekk Territorial Governor - Jake Paladin Safety Marshal - Elroy Rogers LONG JUAN Here!! Protest Marshal – Schuetzum Phast There will be no Plum Creek Shooting Society match the first Stage Marshal - Boon Doggle weekend in October. On the third weekend of October 2011 Long-Range Marshal - Wild Hog Administrative Marshal – Long Juan (10/14-16), we will host The Battle of Plum Creek, a cowboy Medical Marshal - Jake Paladin action shooting match at the Agarita Ranch near Lockhart, Texas. I Raffle Marshal – True Blue Cachoo had heard of the Battle of Plum Creek and read about it some in Costume Marshal - Lorelei Longshot the past, but did not know many details. I decided to investigate. Entertainment Marshal - Old Bill Dick What appears below is the result of what I found. I have noted Special Events Marshal - Belle Fire Side Match Marshal - Texas Sarge approximately where each stage of the match occurs and hope the Editor, Agarita Gazette – Long Juan story will make the match more fun for everyone. THE STORY BEHIND THE BATTLE OF PLUM CREEK INTRODUCTION In early August of 1840, under the light of a bright full moon, referred to by early Texas settlers as a Comanche moon, a war party of more than 600 Comanche and Kiowa warriors swept out of the Comancheria and rode for the heart of the Republic of Texas. The massive raid was launched in retaliation for what the Comanche perceived to be the unprovoked killing of twelve Penateka Comanche war chiefs and many Comanche women and children at the Council House peace talks in San Antonio the preceding March.
    [Show full text]
  • Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Point Comfort/Lavaca Bay Npl Site Recreational Fishing Service Losses
    DRAFT DAMAGE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORATION PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE POINT COMFORT/LAVACA BAY NPL SITE RECREATIONAL FISHING SERVICE LOSSES PREPARED BY TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, AND THE U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR September 28, 1999 Public Review Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS………………………………………………………….. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY………………………………….. 2 1.1 Overview of the Site……………………………………………… 2 1.2 Staged Approach to Restoration………………………………… 3 1.3 Restoration under CERCLA…………………………………….. 4 1.4 Plan of this Document……………………………………………. 5 1.5 Literature Cited…………………………………………………... 5 2.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR RESTORATION…………………… 6 2.1 The Alcoa Point Comfort/Lavaca Bay NPL Site – Summary of Release History……………………………………. 6 2.2 Authority and Legal Requirements…………………………….. 7 2.2.1 Overview of CERCLA Assessment Procedures……….. 8 2.2.2 NEPA Compliance……………………………………….. 9 2.3 Coordination with Responsible Parties………………………… 10 2.4 Public Participation……………………………………………… 10 2.4.1 Review of Draft Assessment and Restoration Plan……. 10 2.4.2 Availability of Administrative Record…………………. 11 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT…………………………………………. 12 3.1 Physical Environment………………………………………….… 12 3.2 Biological Environment………………………………………….. 12 3.3 Cultural Environment…………………………………………… 13 3.4 Literature Cited………………………………………………….. 14 4.0 RECREATIONAL FISHING ASSESSMENT………………………… 16 4.1 Evidence of Injury……………………………………………….. 17 4.2 Methodology for Estimating Service Losses and Restoration Benefits……………………………………………… 17 4.3 Model Selection…………………………………………………… 22 4.4 Losses Due to the Closure and Benefits of Restoration…………24 4.5 Literature Cited…………………………………………………... 25 5.0 RESTORATION PLAN…………………………………………………. 27 5.1 Restoration Strategy……………………………………………… 27 5.2 General Restoration Alternatives……………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • CURRENTS October / November 2020
    CURRENTS October / November 2020 Quantum Leap for Texas Flounder Production ~1~ Texas Leads the Way in Hatchery Production of Southern Flounder By Lydia Saldaña ishing for flounder on the Texas coast is a time-honored tradition “CCA has been there for Texas an- Ffor many coastal anglers. But like glers since the ‘Redfish Wars’ of the other beloved game species that have 1970s. That resulted in the comeback been threatened in years past, flounder of redfish to Texas waters through are experiencing a crisis, that if not a stock enhancement program that addressed, may imperil their long-term is still going strong. We are hopeful fate. Thanks to a public-private partner- that we’ll be telling a similar success ship, a new southern flounder building story about flounder in the years to at Sea Center Texas will be online soon, come.”—David Abrego which will significantly increase hatch- ery production of flounder for stocking Texas bays. are making it into the bays after adults Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) researchers spawn offshore.” have documented an alarming decline in flounder populations. CCA's Shane Bonnot discusses construc- That trend tion of the new Sea Center flounder facil- TPWD’s marine monitoring program has been sampling Texas prompted fishery ity with Paul Cason and David Abrego. coastal waters for decades. That sampling program has docu- biologists to begin ex- mented trends in fish populations and has also documented ploring how flounder could be propagated in a hatchery increasing water temperatures. Researchers believe those in- to enhance wild populations. TPWD’s Coastal Fisheries creasing temperatures are one factor in the reduction of floun- Division has collaborated with der numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • E,Stuarinc Areas,Tex'asguifcpasl' Liter At'
    I I ,'SedimentationinFluv,ial~Oeltaic \}1. E~tlands ',:'~nd~ E,stuarinc Areas,Tex'asGuIfCpasl' Liter at' . e [ynthesis I Cover illustration depicts the decline of marshes in the Neches River alluvial valley between 1956 and 1978. Loss of emergent vegetation is apparently due to several interactive factors including a reduction of fluvial sediments delivered to the marsh, as well as faulting and subsidence, channelization, and spoil disposal. (From White and others, 1987). SEDIMENTATION IN FLUVIAL-DELTAIC WETLANDS AND ESTUARINE AREAS, TEXAS GULF COAST Uterature Synthesis by William A. White and Thomas R. Calnan Prepared for Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Resource Protection Division in accordance with Interagency Contracts (88-89) 0820 and 1423 Bureau of Economic Geology W. L. Fisher, Director The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78713 1990 CONTENTS Introduction . Background and Scope of Study . Texas Bay-Estuary-lagoon Systems................................................................................................. 2 Origin of Texas Estuaries........................................................................................................ 4 General Setting.............................................................................. 6 Climate 10 Salinity 20 Bathymetry..................................... 22 Tides 22 Relative Sea-level Rise.......................................................................................................... 23 Eustatic Sea-level Rise....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Mid-Coast Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program 2021 Operational Procedures V3.1 February 14, 2021
    Texas Mid-Coast Abandoned Crab Trap Removal Program 2021 Operational Procedures v3.1 February 14, 2021 Texas Parks and Wildlife closes the Bay to crab fishing for 10 days each February and encourages volunteers to pick up abandoned/derelict traps in the Bays. SABP/MBF/LBF/MANERR will organize volunteer activities to make the cleanup as comprehensive and systematic as practical. This document describes the event and procedures for volunteers who participate the in coordinated activities. Funding Provided by a NOAA Marine Debris Removal Grant Page 1 of 14 Contacts San Antonio Bay System Allan Berger 713-829-2852 [email protected] Aransas Bay System Katie Swanson 716-397-8294 [email protected] Matagorda Bay Bill Balboa 361-781-2171 [email protected] Lavaca Bay Janet Weaver 361-920-0818 [email protected] TPWD ACTRP Coordinator Holly Grand 361-825-3993 [email protected] Calhoun County Marine Agent RJ Shelly 361-746-0771 [email protected] Table of Contents 1. Closure Period p. 3 2. Rules for the Day p. 3 3. Data collection and protocols p. 4 4. Routes and search areas p. 5 5. Volunteer’s report form p. 11 6. Safety Plan p. 12 7. Environmental Compliance p. 13 8. TPWD Liability Release p. 14 Page 2 of 14 Thank you for volunteering to cleanup of our bay systems! What you need to know: 1. Closure Period – Friday Feb 19- Sunday Feb 28, 2021 a. Friday Feb 19 – Aerial reconnaissance. Data will be available for volunteers Saturday morning via Collector App described below.
    [Show full text]
  • Contaminants Investigation of the Aransas Bay Complex, Texas, 1985-1986
    CONTAMINANTS INVESTIGATION OF THE ARANSAS BAY COMPLEX, TEXAS, 1985-1986 Prepared By U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Corpus Christi, Texas Authors Lawrence R. Gamble Gerry Jackson Thomas C. Maurer Reviewed By Rogelio Perez Field Supervisor November 1989 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. iv .~ INTRODUCTION..................................................... 1 METHODS AND MATERIALS ............................................ 5 Sediment . 5 Biota . ~- 5 - - Data Analysis . 11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . 12 Organochlorines . 12 Trace Elements ................................................ 15 Petroleum Hydrocarbons ........................................ 24 . Oil or Hazardous Substance Spills............................. 28 SUMMARY .......................................................... 30 RECOHMENDED STUDIES .............................................. 32 LITERATURE CITED ................................................. 33 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Compounds and elements analyzed in sediment and biota from the Aransas Bay Complex, Texas, 1985-1986................. 7 2. Nominal detection limits of analytical methods used in the analysis of sediment and biota samples collected from the Aransas Bay Complex, Texas, 1985-1986................. 8 3. Geometric means and ranges (ppb wet weight) of organo- f- chlorines in biota from the Aransas Bay Complex, Texas, _-. _ 1985-1986 . 13 4. Geometric
    [Show full text]
  • Bookletchart™ Matagorda Bay NOAA Chart 11317 A
    BookletChart™ Matagorda Bay NOAA Chart 11317 A reduced-scale NOAA nautical chart for small boaters When possible, use the full-size NOAA chart for navigation. Included Area Published by the feet through the Sea Bar Channel and Jetty Channel, thence 36 feet through the land cut and Matagorda and Lavaca Bays to a turning basin National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the same depth at Point Comfort. Caution should be used when National Ocean Service transiting near the channel limits due to abandoned structures Office of Coast Survey immediately outside the channel limits that may or may not be visible above the waterline. www.NauticalCharts.NOAA.gov Matagorda Ship Channel Entrance Light (28°25'18"N., 96°19'06"W.), 57 888-990-NOAA feet above the water, is shown from a skeleton tower on a concrete block with a red and white diamond-shaped daymark on the E jetty at What are Nautical Charts? the entrance to Matagorda Bay. The usual storm anchorages for small boats in Matagorda Bay area are: Nautical charts are a fundamental tool of marine navigation. They show the Harbor of Refuge S of Port Lavaca, in depths of about 12 feet; water depths, obstructions, buoys, other aids to navigation, and much Chocolate Bay, with depths of 3 feet; Lavaca Bay, on the E side to the N more. The information is shown in a way that promotes safe and of the causeway, with depths of 4 to 5 feet; Lavaca River with depths of efficient navigation. Chart carriage is mandatory on the commercial about 5 feet across the bar; Carancahua Bay with depths of 3 feet across ships that carry America’s commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Education Program for Improved Water Quality in Copano Bay Task Two Report
    COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND LIFE SCIENCES TR-347 2009 Education Program for Improved Water Quality in Copano Bay Task Two Report Prepared for: Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board By: Kevin Wagner Texas Water Resources Institute and Emily Moench Texas AgriLife Extension Service Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 347 Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-2118 March 2009 Education Program for Improved Water Quality in Copano Bay Task Two Report Prepared for: Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board By: Kevin Wagner Texas Water Resources Institute and Emily Moench Texas AgriLife Extension Service Texas Water Resources Institute TR-347 A publication of Texas Water Resources Institute, a part of Texas AgriLife Research, Texas AgriLife Extension Service and Texas A&M University College of Agriculture and Life Sciences March 2009 Funded through a Clean Water Act §319(h) Nonpoint Source Grant from the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the following people for taking time to point us in the right direction and assist us in gathering the needed information. Will Blackwell .................... USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service Terry Blankenship ............. Welder Wildlife Foundation Clyde Bohmfalk ................. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Tyler Campbell .................. National Wildlife Research Center, USDA APHIS Duane Campion ................. Texas AgriLife Extension Service Mitch Conine ..................... Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board Monty Dozier ..................... Texas AgriLife Extension Service Lynn Drawe ....................... Welder Wildlife Foundation Jim Gallagher .................... Texas AgriLife Extension Service Jerry Gray II ...................... Texas AgriLife Extension Service Wayne Hanselka ................ Texas AgriLife Extension Service Stephanie Johnson ...........
    [Show full text]
  • (Point Comfort)/Lavaca
    Five-Year Review Report Alcoa (Point Comfort) / Lavaca Bay Superfund Site Point Comfort, Calhoun County, Texas Region 6 United States Environmental Protection Agency Dallas, Texas June 2011 637475 ALCOA (POINT COMFORT) / UWACA BAY SUPERFUND SITE FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FIRST FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Alcoa (Point Comfort) / Lavaca Bay Superfund Site EPA ID# TXD 008123168 Point Comfort, Calhoun County, Texas This memorandum documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) perfomiance ofthe Alcoa (Point Comfort) / Lavaca Bay Superfund Site First Five-Year Review Report under Section 121(c) ofthe Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9621(c). Summarv of Five-Year Review Findings The assessment ofthe Alcoa (Point Comfort) / Lavaca Bay Superfund Site during this First Five-Year Review is that the completed and ongoing remedial activities and natural recovery processes have resulted in downward trends of mercury concentrations in open water sediment and marsh sediment. Overall, a significant amount of sediment recovery has occurred since sampling conducted during the Remedial Investigation (RI) in 1996. Small localized areas of open water sediment are not recovering as quickly as predicted in the Feasibility Study. Average mercury concentrations of red drum tissue measured in the Closed Area of Lavaca Bay continue to exhibit positive and negative inter-annual fluctuations. The fluctuations appear to be related in part to remediation and in part to physical, chemical and biological conditions not influenced by remedial activities. Based on the data review, document review, and site inspection, the following issues have been identified: • Empirical sediment recovery rates indicate that natural recovery of open-water sediment mercury concentrations is occurring, but at a somewhat slower rate than predicted in the Feasibility Study.
    [Show full text]
  • I FINAL REPORT POINT SOURCE LOADING CHARACTERIZATION of CORPUS CHRISTI BAY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY by Neal E. Armstrong Department Of
    FINAL REPORT POINT SOURCE LOADING CHARACTERIZATION OF CORPUS CHRISTI BAY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY By Neal E. Armstrong Department of Civil Engineering and Center for Research in Water Resources George H. Ward, Jr. Center for Research in Water Resources The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712 NEED FOR PROJECT The Corpus Christi region can be characterized as geographically and culturally transitional, lying between the chaparral brush country to the south and the coastal-plain grassland prairies to the north, and influenced by the vast coastal-plain ranches of south Texas, the planters from the east, and Spanish traditions from the south. The region is also transitional from a perspective of hydroclimatology, being tropical much of the time, but still far enough north to be influenced by the midlatitude westerlies. It is also usually arid, but the exceptions are extreme: freshets on the Nueces and diluvial tropical storms, either of which can result in flooding and render much of the bay fresh. These extremes in hydroclimatology are also the primary external forcings of Corpus Christi bay that ultimately govern its quality. Urbanization and industry are relative latecomers to the area. The boom of prosperity in Texas in the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century expressed itself in the Corpus Christi area as expansions in ranching, agriculture, and commercial fishing, in synergism with incursions of railroads and shipping, and, of course, tourism. But the population increase attending this expansion was modest in comparison to that of the upper coast. By 1900, Houston and its port had become a major industrial center, while Corpus Christi was regarded as primarily a tourist resort.
    [Show full text]