DOCSLIB.ORG

Galveston Bay Status and Trends Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Galveston Bay Status and Trends Final Report Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project Final Report 2007-2008 Prepared For: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Galveston Bay Estuary Program 17041 El Camino Real, Ste. 210 Houston, Texas 77058 Project Coordinator Steven R. Johnston [email protected] Prepared By: Geotechnology Research Institute (GTRI) Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) 4800 Research Forest Drive The Woodlands, Texas 77381 Principal Investigator Lisa A. Gonzalez [email protected] L. James Lester [email protected] Prepared in Cooperation with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The preparation of this report was financed through grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality www.galvbaydata.org 2008 Status and Trends Final Report Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 4 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8 The Project Goal .......................................................................................................................... 8 Project Background ..................................................................................................................... 9 Project Methodology ................................................................................................................... 10 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 10 Database Maintenance and Storage ........................................................................................... 13 Quality Assurance ..................................................................................................................... 14 Project Results: Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 15 Water & Sediment Quality ........................................................................................................ 15 Update of Water Quality Indicators ....................................................................................... 17 Update of Sediment Quality INDICATORS .......................................................................... 20 Trends in Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 25 Oil Spills .................................................................................................................................... 40 Coastal Fisheries ........................................................................................................................ 53 Coastal Fisheries Indicator ..................................................................................................... 54 Habitat ....................................................................................................................................... 56 Assessment of Wetland Loss and Gain Projections ............................................................... 56 Other Indicators of Bay Health .................................................................................................. 64 Colonial Waterbirds ............................................................................................................... 64 Seafood Safety ....................................................................................................................... 69 Benthic Diversity ................................................................................................................... 73 Data Dissemination ..................................................................................................................... 75 Project Website .......................................................................................................................... 75 Project Conclusions and Lessons Learned ............................................................................... 76 Appendix A. List of all databases updated by the Status and Trends Project in FY 2007 ........ 78 Appendix B. contributing Agencies and organizations ............................................................. 79 Appendix C. Marine Probable Effect Levels for contaminants in sediment. ............................ 80 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Tributaries and subbays of Galveston Bay per the Galveston Bay Segmentation Scheme as modified by the Status and Trends Project in 2003. ................................................................................. 12 Figure 2. Data acquisition and processing methodology for data acquired by the Galveston Bay Status and Trends Project. ................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 3. Bacterial pathogen indicator and rating system. ........................................................................ 18 Figure 4. Indicator describing the state of nutrients (ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus) and chlorophyll-a from the 1970s through 2000s. ........................................................................................... 20 Figure 5. Heavy metals in sediment 1970s vs. 2000s as a proportion of Marine Probable Effects Levels (PELs) published by the TCEQ (2004). Empty circle = Insufficient sample size (< 12 samples). .......... 22 Figure 6. Annual average concentrations of lead in sediments of the Houston Ship Channel, 1973-2008. ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 7. Annual average concentrations of mercury in sediments of the Houston Ship Channel, 1973- 2008........................................................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 8. Organic pollutants in sediment 1970s vs. 2000s as a proportion of Marine Probable Effects Levels (PELs) published by the TCEQ (2004). Empty circle = Insufficient sample size (< 12 samples). ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 9. Annual average water temperature (°Celsius) in Galveston Bay from 1972 to 2007; includes all stations; depth ≤ 0.3 meters. ..................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 10. Annual average water temperature (°Celsius) in Galveston Bay from 1972 to 2007; includes all stations; depth > 0.3 meters. ................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 11. Annual average water temperature (°Celsius) in Galveston Bay from 1972 to 2007; subbays only; depth ≤ 0.3 meters. ........................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12. Annual average water temperature (°Celsius) in Galveston Bay from 1972 to 2007; tributaries only; depth ≤ 0.3 meters. ........................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 13. Trend graph of annual average salinity in Clear Creek/Clear Lake, sample depths ≤ 0.3 m, sample years 1988-2007. .......................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 14. Trend graph of annual average pH in Trinity Bay, sample depths ≤ 0.3 m, sample years 1973- 2007 (1983,1984,1994 omitted; < 10 samples). ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 15. Trend graph of annual average pH in Upper and Lower Galveston Bay, sample depths ≤ 0.3 m, sample years 1973-2007. ..................................................................................................................... 33 2008 Status and Trends Final Report Page 4 Figure 16. Trend graph of annual average pH in West Bay, sample depths ≤ 0.3 m, sample years 1973- 2007 (1973 omitted; < 10 samples). ......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 17. Trend graph of annual average dissolved oxygen in Galveston Bay tributaries, samples collected from 5:00 - 10:00 AM, depths ≤ 0.3 m, 1979-2007 (1969-1978 omitted; < 10 samples). ........ 36 Figure 18. Trend graph of annual average dissolved oxygen in Galveston Bay subbays, samples collected from 5:00 - 10:00 AM, depths ≤ 0.3 m, 1979-2007 (1969-1978 omitted; < 10 samples). ........ 37 Figure 19. Trend graph of annual average dissolved oxygen in East Bay, samples collected from 5:00 - 10:00 AM, depths ≤ 0.3 m, 1979-2007 (1969-1978 omitted; < 10 samples). ................................ 38 Figure 20. Trend graph of annual average dissolved oxygen in Trinity Bay, samples collected from 5:00 - 10:00 AM, depths ≤ 0.3 m, 1979-2007 (1969-1978 omitted; < 10 samples). ................................ 38 Figure 21. Trend graph of annual average dissolved
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Jacinto Battleground and State Historical Park: a Historical Synthesis and Archaeological Management Plan
    Volume 2002 Article 3 2002 San Jacinto Battleground and State Historical Park: A Historical Synthesis and Archaeological Management Plan I. Waynne Cox Steve A. Tomka Raba Kistner, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita Part of the American Material Culture Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Environmental Studies Commons, Other American Studies Commons, Other Arts and Humanities Commons, Other History of Art, Architecture, and Archaeology Commons, and the United States History Commons Tell us how this article helped you. Cite this Record Cox, I. Waynne and Tomka, Steve A. (2002) "San Jacinto Battleground and State Historical Park: A Historical Synthesis and Archaeological Management Plan," Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: Vol. 2002, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.21112/ita.2002.1.3 ISSN: 2475-9333 Available at: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2002/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Regional Heritage Research at SFA ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State by an authorized editor of SFA ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. San Jacinto Battleground and State Historical Park: A Historical Synthesis and Archaeological Management Plan Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License This article is available in Index of Texas Archaeology: Open Access Gray Literature from the Lone Star State: https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/ita/vol2002/iss1/3 San Jacinto Battleground State Historical Park A Historical Synthesis and Archaeological Management Plan by I.
    [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]
  • Improving Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou One TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen
    Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Total Maximum Daily Load Program Improving Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou One TMDL for Dissolved Oxygen Water Quality in Dickinson Bayou Impaired Segment Stream Segment The state of Texas requires that water quality in Project Watershed Houston Seabrook Dickinson Bayou Tidal (Segment 1103) be suitable for Galveston swimming, wading, fishing, and a healthy aquatic HARRIS Bay ecosystem. However, water quality testing found that Webster Kemah dissolved oxygen levels in the water are occasionally low. Oxygen, which dissolves in water, is essential for the survival of aquatic life. While the amount of Friendswood Dickinson dissolved oxygen in water fluctuates naturally, various League City human activities can cause unusually or chronically low 1104 1103 dissolved oxygen levels which may harm fish and other Dickinson Bayou aquatic organisms. Alvin Texas City Santa Fe GALVESTON In response to these conditions, a total maximum daily La Marque load (TMDL) project has been initiated to evaluate the effects of low dissolved oxygen on aquatic life and to BRAZORIA determine the actions necessary to maintain water Hitchcock quality in the tidal portion of Dickinson Bayou. The goal of a TMDL is to determine the amount (or load) of a 012345 pollutant that a body of water can receive and still Miles K support its designated uses. This allowable load is then allocated among all the potential sources of pollution traffic. Rice fields in the upper watershed receive within the watershed. Measures to reduce pollutant irrigation water via canals from beyond the watershed. loads are then developed as necessary. The irrigation water returns to Dickinson Bayou in the form of irrigation return flows.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LYNCHBURG VOLUNTEERS 1 2 3 by Trevia Wooster Beverly, Bernice Mistrot, and Mike Vance ©Baytown Historical Preservation Association4
    An Application for a Texas Historical Marker Presented to the Harris County Historical Commission – September 12, 2016 THE LYNCHBURG VOLUNTEERS 1 2 3 by Trevia Wooster Beverly, Bernice Mistrot, and Mike Vance ©Baytown Historical Preservation Association4 “The people of Texas do now constitute a free, sovereign and independent republic.”5 PREFACE6 From the colonial era until today, America has depended upon citizen soldiers in times of crisis requiring a military response. These men—and now women—set aside their personal and professional affairs to join or form military organizations. And, once the crisis was resolved, resumed their civilian occupations until they were again needed as soldiers. This was especially a characteristic of frontiersmen, one which they carried with them In the 1820’s and 1830’s as their line of settlement moved beyond the western border of the United States of America into the Spanish and then Mexican territory of Texas. I. CONTEXT 7 The area now known as Baytown was home to many who, arriving as early as 1822, would 8 9 become active in the struggle for Texas independence that culminated in 1836. Nathaniel Lynch, for whom the town of Lynchburg is named, arrived in Texas in the summer of 1822 with his wife and three children. On his one-league Mexican land grant, he established a trading post and a sawmill. 10 Together with Arthur McCormick, he operated the Lynchburg Ferry, which has been in continuous 11 12 operation since 1822. David Gouverneur Burnet brought a steam sawmill to the area in 1831. Midway Landing was not a town speculation, but the dock area on Black Duck Bay at the plantation 13 14 of William Scott, who had purchased the land from John D.
    [Show full text]
  • Deep-Water Bottom Dropping Page 6 FISHING
    Doves usher in a new season * September 12, 2008 Texas’ Premier Outdoor Newspaper Volume 5, Issue 2 * Report on Page 6 www.lonestaroutdoornews.com INSIDE Flyway rivalry prompts HUNTING Texas’ dove research Timing of hunt causes stir among hunters BY CRAIG NYHUS on doves. A team was out two days prior to the hunting season to collect Dove hunters in Texas have long bird specimens for a study compar- feared a federal requirement for the ing the effectiveness of lead and non- use of nonlead shot to pursue their lead shot. But some outfitters and hunters were taken aback by the early Grayson County has become quarry. The state holds the same con- cerns, especially after other states in shooting. famous for its big bucks in the the Central Flyway tried to force Texas Parks and Wildlife biologists state’s lone archery-only Texas to require nonlead shot based are in the first year of a multi-year county. A petition to modify on their waterfowl studies, according study to determine the effectiveness the archery-only rule has many GUNNING FOR RESEARCH: Using volunteer hunters, TPW biologists are to officials. of different load types on wild hunters up in arms. conducting a three-year study of shot effectiveness on dove, but the early That was the genesis of Texas’ own mourning doves using trained Page 7 hunt caused a PR nightmare for officials. Photo by TPW. study on the effect of nonlead shot See DOVE, Page 16 Teal are arriving on schedule along the Texas coast in time for the early season.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Map 3138, Sheet 15
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR In cooperation with the SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3138 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY HARRIS-GALVESTON SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT, Location of borehole extensometer sites—SHEET 15 OF 16 CITY OF HOUSTON, Kasmarek, M.C., Johnson, M.R., and Ramage, J.K., 2010, Water-level altitudes 2010 and FORT BEND SUBSIDENCE DISTRICT, AND water-level changes in the Chicot, Evangeline, and Jasper aquifers and compaction LONE STAR GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1973–2009 in the Chicot and Evangeline aquifers, Houston-Galveston region, Texas 95°30' 95°15' TEXAS 19 Study area 95°45' WALKER 45 COUNTY 30°45' 75 30°45' 190 WEST FORK LOCATION MAP SAN HUNTSVILLE 30 96° JACINTO 156 LAKE LIVINGSTON Lake 45 MONTGOMERY COUNTY 30 RIVER 95° GRIMES COUNTY 150 FM 1375 30°30' Creek SAN JACINTO COUNTY B R 30°30' A Z O 90 S C O 59 U LAKE N CONROE T Y Caney 787 105 FM 105 CONROE 1774 6 3 3 94°45' WEST op 105 State Lo 30°15' Lake 1488 Creek Creek FORK 146 30°15' 59 321 6 COUNTY SAN B JACINTO R A Z O S WALLER COUNTY HARRIS RIVER SPRING FM 1960 Creek 30° 290 249 45 HUMBLE 30° Spring LAKE TRINITY A U 146 E E HOUSTON S Sam Houston Pky T W N 94°30' I N LAKE HOUSTON R o N 61 I ALDINE r 90 V C t E h O R U BLJ-65-07-909 LIBERTY COUNTY N e T lt Y SHELDON CHAMBERS COUNTY 548 C RESERVOIR ed ar KATY 10 RIVER ADDICKS 610 90 Addicks Satsuma Rd NORTHEAST 10 LJ-65-12-726 CHANNELVIEW 10 LJ-65-14-746GALENA LJ-65-16-930(C-1) 65 29°45' PARK Buffalo BAYTOWN 99 BAYTOWN FORT BEND HOUSTON SOUTHWEST Bayou LJ-65-16-931(C-2) 29°45' COUNTY WEST UNIVERSITY B a LJ-65-21-226 LJ-65-23-322
    [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]
  • Trinity Bay-Upper Galveston Bay RC 2006
    Characterization of Potential Adverse Health Effects Associated with Consuming Fish or Blue Crab from Trinity Bay and Upper Galveston Bay Chambers, Galveston, and Harris Counties, Texas April 2008 Department of State Health Services Division for Regulatory Services Policy, Standards, and Quality Assurance Unit Seafood and Aquatic Life Group Trinity Bay-Upper Galveston Bay RC 2006 INTRODUCTION Description of the Galveston Bay System Galveston Bay, the largest estuary on the Texas coast (600 square miles or 384,000 acres; 232 miles of shoreline) and the seventh largest in the United States, is a shallow bar-built estuary in a drowned river delta.1 The average depth of the bay is 7 feet, the maximum non-dredged depth approximately 10 feet.2 Galveston Bay is composed of four major sub-bays: Galveston Bay, Trinity Bay, East Bay, and West Bay. 3 The Galveston Bay watershed encompasses approximately 33,000 square miles comprised of three main drainages: the Trinity River watershed, the San Jacinto River watershed, and the coastal bayou watershed. The Trinity River basin provides about 51% of the freshwater inflow into Galveston Bay.3 The Galveston Bay watershed includes all or portions of 44 Texas counties; five counties surround the estuary: Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Harris, and Liberty. The watershed also includes the two largest metropolitan areas in Texas: Houston and Dallas–Fort Worth.2 To lend perspective to the size of this watershed, note that the city of Houston lies approximately 250 miles south-southeast of Dallas-Fort Worth. Galveston Bay, Texas’ largest fishery resource, contributes approximately one third of the state=s commercial fishing income.4 Commercial and recreational fishing on Galveston Bay generates over one billion dollars per year; over one-half of the state=s expenditures for recreational fishing go directly or indirectly to Galveston Bay.4 The areas around the Galveston Bay system are also home to one of the nation’s largest petrochemical and industrial complexes5.
    [Show full text]
  • 07-77817-02 Final Report Dickinson Bayou
    Dickinson Bayou Watershed Protection Plan February 2009 Dickinson Bayou Watershed Partnership 1 PREPARED IN COOPERATION WITH TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY The preparation of this report was financed though grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................. 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 10 SUMMARY OF MILESTONES ........................................................................................................................ 13 FORWARD ................................................................................................................................................... 17 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 18 The Dickinson Bayou Watershed ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coastal Planning in Texas
    Coastal Planning in Texas Ray Newby Coastal Resources Division Texas General Land Office e The Texas General Land Office (GLO) and the Texas Coast • Since 1836: Manager of Tidally-Influenced State-Owned Submerged Lands. • Lead Agency Responsible for: - Coastal Management Program; - Beach and Dune Protection; - State Coastal Erosion Program; - Debris Removal; - Coastal Oil Spill Response; and - Disaster Recovery Program. The Single Deadliest and Three of the Ten Costliest U.S. Hurricanes Impacted Texas #2: $125 Billion – Hurricane Harvey (2017) #7: $34.8 Billion – Hurricane Ike (2008) GLO Coastal Plans • Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan provides a framework for community, socio-economic, ecological and infrastructure protection from coastal hazards. The plan is presented to the state legislature. • Coastal Texas Protection & Restoration Feasibility Study, also known as the Coastal Texas Study, is an engineering, environmental and economic analysis to protect the Texas coast. In partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the study will present coastal storm risk management and ecosystem restoration alternatives to Congress for funding. 4 Planning Team for Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan • GLO contracted with AECOM for engineering services, the Harte Research Institute for data analysis, and Crouch Environmental for education and outreach. • The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is made up of more than 100 coastal experts. 2017 Texas Coastal Resiliency Master Plan • Described the State of the Coast and a Path Forward toward
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan
    Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan Prepared for the Cedar Bayou Watershed Partnership by the Houston-Galveston Area Council 6/17/2016 The Development of a Watershed Protection Plan for Cedar Bayou project is partially funded by the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board through a Clean Water Act §319(h) grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Additional funding was provided by the Galveston Bay Estuary Program. Acknowledgements The Cedar Bayou Watershed Protection Plan is the culmination of the efforts of a diverse and committed group of stakeholders and local partners. This collaborative, community-based approach to protecting the public health, economy, and ecology of the Cedar Bayou area would not have been possible without their dedication and persistence. The Cedar Bayou Watershed Partnership wishes to sincerely thank the members of the project’s Steering Committee, past and present. These leaders from different backgrounds share a common commitment to their community. Steering Committee Members Mr. Andrew Allemand Mr. Jonathan Holley Commissioner Gary Nelson Ms. Charlene Bohanon Ms. Diane Jones Mr. Guido Persiani Mr. Royal D. Burnside Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Jones Mr. Joe Presnall Mr. Lewis Odell Casey Ms. Sharon Kamas Mr. Ladd Puskus Mr. Gil Chambers Ms. Wilyne Laughlin Mr. Glenn Sabadosa Ms. Danielle Cioce Mr. Jim Lard Commissioner Rusty Senac Mr. Bill Cobabe Ms. Alisa Max Mr. John Schrader Ms. Cindy Coker Councilman David McCartney Ms. Adele Warren Mr. Joshua Donaldson Ms. Jean McCloud Mr. David Fowler Mr. Lindy Murff Mr. Ryan Granata The support of an engaged group of local organizations is the backbone of this watershed effort.
    [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]