DistrictCover.fm Page 1 Friday, January 9, 2004 11:14 AM

In cooperation with the National Park Service

Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, National Preserve, , 1999–2001

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4270

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Top left: Big Sandy Creek in the Big Thicket National Preserve near Livingston, Texas, 2002. Top right: Longear sunfish from biological assessment surveys in Big Thicket National Preserve, 2002. Bottom left: Adult dobsonfly from biological assessment surveys in Big Thicket National Preserve, 2002. Bottom right: USGS personnel seining fish in Big Sandy Creek as part of fish community surveys during 2002 in Big Thicket National Preserve. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

By J. Bruce Moring

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4270

In cooperation with the National Park Service

Austin, Texas 2003 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to

District Chief U.S. Geological Survey 8027 Exchange Dr. Austin, TX 78754–4733 E-mail: [email protected]

Copies of this report can be purchased from

U.S. Geological Survey Information Services Box 25286 Denver, CO 80225–0286 E-mail: [email protected] ii CONTENTS

Abstract ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Scope ...... 4 Acknowledgments ...... 4 Methods of Assessment ...... 4 Geographic Scope and Stream Reach Selection ...... 4 Fish Community Assessment ...... 6 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment ...... 6 Stream-Habitat Assessment ...... 7 Land-Use Characterization ...... 8 Data Management and Analysis ...... 8 Baseline Assessment ...... 10 Fish Communities ...... 10 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities ...... 12 Stream Habitat and Land Use ...... 16 Summary of Major Findings ...... 18 References Cited ...... 20

FIGURES

1. Map showing locations of biological assessment sites (reaches) and study area, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 2 2–13. Graphs showing: 2. Number of fish species collected relative to number of individuals collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 9 3. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of fish communities for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 11 4. Menhinick’s species richness for fish communities from 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 11 5. Relative abundance of major fish families for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 12 6. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of aquatic communities for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 13 7. Number of aquatic insect taxa collected relative to the number of individuals collected for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 14 8. Menhinick’s species richness for aquatic from 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 14 9. Relative abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT index) for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 15 10. Relative abundance of major aquatic insect trophic groups for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 16 11. Relation between (a) relative abundance of shredders and scrapers and channel size, and (b) relative abundance of filter feeders and channel size for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 17 12. Reach structure index relative to 1990s urban land use in contributing drainage area above downstream boundary of reach for 12 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 18 13. Land use by category in the 1970s and 1990s in the drainage areas upstream of the 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas ...... 19

CONTENTS iii TABLES

1. Reach ID, name, and location and sampling schedule of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and stream- habitat conditions for 15 bioassessment reaches in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 5 2. Description of stream-habitat measures and land-use variables for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 7 3. Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 22 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 25 5. Stream-habitat and land-use data for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...... 33

iv Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

By J. Bruce Moring

Abstract Trophic structure of the aquatic insect communities is consistent with the river continuum concept with The Big Thicket National Preserve com- shredder and scraper insect taxa more abundant in prises 39,300 hectares in the form of nine preserve reaches with smaller stream channels and filter units connected by four stream corridor units (with feeders more abundant in reaches with larger chan- two more corridor units proposed) distributed over nels. Aquatic insect community metrics were not the lower Neches and Trinity River Basins of significantly correlated to any of the stream-habitat southeastern Texas. or land-use explanatory variables. The percentage Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate data of 1990s urban land use in the drainage areas were collected at 15 stream sites (reaches) in the upstream from 12 bioassessment reaches were neg- preserve during 1999–2001 for a baseline assess- atively correlated to the reach structure index, ment and a comparison of communities among which indicates less stable habitat for aquatic biota. stream reaches. The fish communities in the preserve were INTRODUCTION dominated by minnows (family Cyprinidae) and sunfishes (family Centrarchidae). Reaches with Often described as the “biological crossroads” of smaller channel sizes generally had higher fish spe- North America, the Big Thicket National Preserve is an cies richness than the larger reaches in the Neches important holding of the National Park Service (NPS) River and Pine Island Bayou units of the preserve. because of its biological diversity and unique geo- Fish communities in geographically adjacent graphic distribution. The preserve’s 39,300 hectares reaches were most similar in overall community (97,000 acres) are a highly fragmented land base of nine structure. The blue sucker, listed by the State as a preserve units connected by four established and two threatened species, was collected in only one proposed stream corridor units (fig. 1). The riparian reach—a reach a few miles down- corridor units consist of black-water streams that pro- stream from the Steinhagen Lake Dam. vide critical ecological linkages to the otherwise iso- Riffle beetles (family Elmidae) and lated units of the preserve. These waters represent the (family ) dominated the aquatic western distributional limit for several aquatic inverte- brates (Abbot and others, 1997) and contain a diverse insect communities at the 14 reaches sampled for assemblage of rare aquatic fauna. The preserve contains aquatic insects in the preserve. The Ephemerop- many Federal listed “Species of Concern,” including tera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) Index, an the paddlefish (a large planktonic-feeding fish), Texas index sensitive to water-quality degradation, was heelsplitter (a freshwater mussel), and two species of smallest at the Little Pine Island Bayou near aquatic insects, Somatochlora margarita (a dragonfly), Beaumont reach that is in a State 303(d)-listed and Phylocentropus harrisi (a caddisfly). The State of stream segment on Little Pine Island Bayou. Texas lists several more species as “threatened” or

Abstract 1 94o30' 94o

US 287 US 69 B.A. STEINHAGEN LAKE NECHESUS 190 Woodville Beech Creek NR1 Unit TRINITY Camp Ruby NECHES BSC2 FM 1013 Big Sandy Creek Unit Upper Neches FM River Corridor Unit Big 1276 TC1

Warren Tur Turkey Creek FM 943 Sandy FM 1943 FM 92 key Unit BSC5Creek Hickory Creek Segno Savannah Unit RIVER MC1 TC2 Menard Creek Village Jack Gore Creek Corridor Unit Mills Baygall Unit 30o30' Menar d Big Sandy Creek VC1 Creek VC3 MC4 Corridor Unit TRINIT Neches Rye US 287 NR2 Y Bottom VC10 Unit FM 418 Village Kountze Village Creek Corridor Unit Lower Lance Rosier Creek Neches

RIVER Unit River Loblolly US 69 Corridor FM 770 Unit Unit

VC11 Beaumont Little State 326 PineLittle Pine Island Bayou Unit Island Corridor Unit LPIB6 State 105 Bayou Pine LPIB1 NR3 Lakeview Island

Bayou

State 146 Beaumont Big Thicket National Preserve US 90 TAYLOR Headquarters 30o BAYOU I-10 Digital base from U.S. Geological Survey Scale 1:2,000,000 Albers equal-area projection based on Standard parallels 45.5 and 29.5 degrees

0 25 50 KILOMETERS TRINIT

NECHES Y Study area TEXAS EXPLANATION

Established Big Thicket National Preserve unit TAYLOR BAYOU SAN JACINTO Established corridor unit

Proposed corridor unit

River basin boundary

MC1 Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites LOCATION MAP and National Park Service site number (reach ID)— Number referenced in table 1

Figure 1. Locations of biological assessment sites (reaches) and study area, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

2 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 “endangered” (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, biocides, oil, and brine. Historically, oil and gas opera- 2003). These include two fish, the blue sucker and creek tions have been the most important nonpoint-source chubsucker, and the world’s largest freshwater turtle, influence on water quality in the preserve. In 1981, the alligator snapping turtle. an oil spill adjacent to the Turkey Creek Unit flowed The preserve land base includes 1,030 kilometers into a nearby tributary and eventually into the preserve. of boundary, more than Yellowstone National Park. The Although the spill was quickly contained, it almost water resources of the preserve are sensitive to land uses extirpated the benthic macroinvertebrate community in those areas outside of the preserve that drain into the along a large section of stream (Harrel, 1985). More streams and wetlands of the preserve. Most of the land recently, innovations in three-dimensional seismic sur- surrounding the preserve is owned by private timber veying technology and the economic incentives of companies, and timber-harvesting practices on these increased gas prices have spawned an expansion of oil lands have the potential to influence water quality and gas exploration throughout the preserve. When the through sedimentation, increased stream temperature, Big Thicket National Preserve was established, the U.S. and the runoff of fertilizers and herbicides (Harcombe, Congress mandated that oil and gas operations would 1996). continue. Today (2001) there are 27 active oil and gas Although timber production is the dominant land operations and 43 trans-park pipelines in the preserve use adjacent to the preserve, a trend of increased urban- (Roy Zipp, National Park Service, written commun., ization and industrialization is emerging. Regional 2000). decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations has been To help guide management of running waters in documented (Hall and Bruce, 1996). Two stream seg- the preserve, a variety of efforts related to collecting ments in the preserve, Little Pine Island Bayou (Seg- baseline water-quality information have been done ment 0607B) and Pine Island Bayou (Segment 0607) 1 since the inception of the preserve. The National Park have been listed on the State 303(d) list for not meeting Service sponsored several studies by outside research- aquatic-life use criteria because of low dissolved oxy- ers to collect baseline water-quality data at fixed moni- gen concentrations (Texas Commission on Environ- toring stations (Harrel, 1976; Harrel and Darville, 1977, mental Quality, 2002). 1978; Harrel and Bass, 1979; Harrel and Commander, Industrial point-source contaminants also influ- 1980, 1981). In 1984, preserve staff began monitoring ence water quality in the preserve. In 1986 and 1987, the water quality at fixed locations throughout the preserve U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documented (Flora, 1984). Baseline water-quality monitoring con- toxic levels of dioxin in fish-tissue samples from the tinues today (2001). However, missing in this water- Lower Neches River Corridor Unit in the Big Thicket quality-monitoring approach is an assessment of the sta- National Preserve (fig. 1). The dioxin source was traced tus of aquatic biota that includes fish and benthic mac- to a pulp mill that discharges into the Neches River. The roinvertebrates. The management of water resources Texas Department of Health (TDH) issued a fish con- can be improved if biological indexes that incorporate sumption advisory, which remained in effect until 1996. easily quantified and understood results of biological TDH continues to monitor this section of the Neches monitoring are used as a direct measure of water quality River, but sampling is infrequent (Harcombe, 1996). (Karr and others, 1986). Another source of contaminants is from active and abandoned oil and gas operations in and adjacent In recognition of the value and importance of to the preserve. Oil and gas operations produce a variety baseline data on aquatic biota in the preserve to supple- of potential contaminants including excess sediments, ment traditional water-quality monitoring, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the NPS formed a 1 The State of Texas Clean Water Act 303(d) list comprises water-quality-monitoring partnership in 1999. As a surface-water bodies in Texas identified by the Texas Commission result, the USGS, in cooperation with the NPS, con- on Environmental Quality as impaired (do not meet applicable ducted a study to establish benchmark biological moni- water-quality standards) or threatened (are not expected to meet toring stations at 15 sites throughout the preserve applicable water-quality standards in the near future). Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (together with related regula- from which to assess baseline biological conditions tions) requires each State to assess the quality of its surface waters in streams and to supplement historical and ongoing and to develop water-quality improvement strategies for impaired water-quality monitoring at these sites. Fish community and threatened waters. data were collected once in 1999 at 15 sites and again

INTRODUCTION 3 in 2001 at eight sites. Benthic macroinvertebrate data marily aquatic insect) taxonomic data collected in the also were collected in 1999 at 14 sites and again in reaches are tabulated. Statistical and graphical tech- 2001 at seven of the same eight sites. Stream-habitat niques are used to compare fish and benthic macroinver- conditions at each site and 1970s and 1990s land-use tebrate communities among the reaches. In addition, the characterizations in the drainage area upstream from relation of the community structure of aquatic biota to each site were assessed with regard to their effect on stream-habitat conditions and changes in land use in the biological variables. preserve is briefly addressed. The USGS and the NPS expanded on the initial biological assessments of 1999. Continued biological Acknowledgments monitoring was needed to account for the inherent The author thanks the NPS staff of the Big spatial, seasonal, and life cycle variability of aquatic Thicket National Preserve. In particular, Roy Zipp, communities. An expanded assessment was needed Natural Resource Specialist with the preserve from for several reasons, which include the (1) proposed 1997 to 2001, assisted with many phases of the addition of two new stream corridor units in the pre- project—proposal, project planning and logistics, and serve (fig. 1) and a lack of baseline information for field activities. these units; (2) regional decline in water quality noted previously; (3) increased population growth and urban- METHODS OF ASSESSMENT ization in the surrounding watersheds; (4) intensive for- estry practices and documented noncompliance with Geographic Scope and Stream Reach forestry best management practices (Roy Zipp, National Selection Park Service, written commun., 2000); (5) increased levels of oil and gas exploration and anticipated devel- The study area comprises four preserve units and opment throughout the preserve and adjacent areas; and five corridor units in the Big Thicket National Preserve. (6) unknown status and trends of many rare, threatened, Five of the 15 assessment sites are in preserve units, and and endangered aquatic species. 10 are in corridor units (fig. 1, table 1). Thirteen of the 15 sites are in the lower Neches River Basin, and two Specific objectives of this study were to are in the Trinity River Basin (fig. 1). Assessment sites 1. Provide the preserve with detailed baseline data were selected using 7.5-minute USGS topographic and information on the status of aquatic biota maps, digital orthophoto quadrangles, and on-site including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates reconnaissance. Selection was based on the collocation (primarily aquatic insects) and information on of assessment sites with existing preserve water-quality stream habitat and land use at the network of 15 monitoring sites. For corridor units, emphasis was on USGS benchmark bioassessment sites. the upstream-to-downstream pairing of sites within a 2. Complete seasonal fish and benthic macroinverte- corridor unit and the need to provide spatial coverage to brate community assessment at eight primary sample the majority of preserve and corridor units. sites to improve the accuracy of data on taxa Stream size or above-site drainage area was not used as composition and relative abundance for these a site selection criterion. communities. At each assessment site, a sampling reach was 3. Determine land uses in the drainage area upstream selected. The selection criteria for a reach were: (1) the from each of the 15 benchmark sites for the reach could not be within 100 meters downstream from 1970s and 1990s and the percentage changes a highway bridge or other in-channel structure; (2) the during the intervening years. reach had to be entirely within the Big Thicket National Preserve; (3) the reach had to be at least one full mean- Purpose and Scope der in channel length or a minimum of 20 times the wet- ted channel width; and (4) if the reach was one full me- The purpose of this report is to present the meth- ander in channel length, it had to contain at least two of ods of and findings from the biological assessment at 15 three types of geomorphic channel units—riffles, runs, benchmark bioassessment sites (stream reaches) in the or pools (Meador and others, 1993). The upstream and Big Thicket National Preserve during 1999–2001. downstream boundaries of each reach were marked with Comprehensive fish and benthic macroinvertebrate (pri- permanent monuments and georeferenced by recording

4 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Table 1. Reach ID, name, and location and sampling schedule of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and stream- habitat conditions for 15 bioassessment reaches in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

[NS, not sampled]

Fish and Fish and Coordinates benthic Stream- benthic macro- Reach ID for down- macro- habitat invertebrates (preserve or Reach name stream invertebrates assessment collected corridor boundary collected spring spring and unit; fig. 1) monument summer 1999 summer 1999 2001 BSC2 Big Sandy Creek at Hwy. 1276 near N 30°40'17" ++ NS (preserve) Camp Ruby, Texas W 94°41'12" BSC5 Big Sandy Creek at Hwy. 1276 near N 30°34'36" ++ + (corridor) Dallardsville, Texas W 94°37'41" LPIB1 Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 326 N 30°11'21" ++NS (corridor) near Sour Lake, Texas W 94°23'41" LPIB6 Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 69 N 30°10'46" ++ + (corridor) near Beaumont, Texas W 94°11'11" MC1 Menard Creek at Hwy. 943 near N 30°33'40" ++NS (corridor) Segno, Texas W 94°42'05" MC4 Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near Rye, N 30°28'54" ++NS (corridor) Texas W 94°47'16" NR1 Neches River below Steinhagen Lake N 30°44'54" ++ + (corridor) W 94°07'45" NR2 Neches River below Steinhagen Lake N 30°24'40" ++NS (preserve) in Jack Gore Unit W 94°07'08" NR3 Neches River in Beaumont Unit near N 30°12'60" ++ + (preserve) Beaumont, Texas W 94°07'03" TC1 Turkey Creek on Hwy. 1943 near N 30°37'11" ++NS (preserve) Warren, Texas W 94°21'29" TC2 Turkey Creek on Hester Bridge Road N 30°33'06" ++ + (preserve) near Warren, Texas W 94°19'58" VC1 Village Creek on Mustang Trail near N 30°28'23" + (fish only) + + (fish only) (corridor) Village Mills, Texas W 94°21'53" VC3 Village Creek on McKinney Bridge N 30°27'60" ++ + (corridor) Road near Village Mills, Texas W 94°19'21" VC10 Village Creek on Hwy. 418 near N 30°23'53" ++NS (corridor) Kountz, Texas W 94°15'56" VC11 Village Creek near confluence with N 30°14'31" ++ + (corridor) Neches River W 94°07'14" a latitude and longitude for each monument using a using the hand-held GPS. Monuments were constructed hand-held global positioning system (GPS). For those by driving into the ground 30- by 1.25-centimeter reaches with geomorphic channel units, four transects reinforcement-bar stakes and attaching to the top of (each one corresponding to a geomorphic channel unit) each an aluminum surveyor’s cap stamped with also were marked with monuments and georeferenced “USGS.”

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 5 Fish Community Assessment a richest targeted habitat (RTH) and a qualitative multi- habitat (QMH) were collected in each reach in summer The fish community in each reach was sampled 1999. Spring RTH and QMH samples and summer RTH once in summer 1999 (table 1). In addition, the fish and QMH samples also were collected in 2001 in the community at each of eight reaches was sampled once seven of eight reaches where fish communities were in spring 2001 and again in summer 2001, to account for sampled in 2001. As with fish, sampling of benthic seasonal differences in fish distribution and water tem- macroinvertebrates in two seasons was done to account perature in the stream. Preserve and USGS staff selected for differences in species life stages and, consequently, the eight reaches for more intensive assessments that to increase the ability to identify taxa to the lowest tax- were considered the most important on the basis of his- onomic level. Multiple generations of benthic macroin- torical and ongoing water-quality assessments by the vertebrates can be collected at the same time in the preserve. temperate waters of streams in the Big Thicket National Various electrofishing and netting techniques Preserve. Therefore, the two seasonal samplings were were used to assess fish community composition and done to improve the accuracy of species composition structure (Meador and others, 1993; Moring, 2002). and relative abundance for these reaches. Barge electrofishing equipment was used to sample the Five RTH samples were collected in each reach fish community in each reach. Two electrofishing and composited. Each RTH sample was taken by select- passes were made per reach, and the time in seconds ing five sampling locations distributed between two or that the electrofishing unit was operated was recorded to more geomorphic channel units in the reach (for reaches monitor sampling effort. A 7.5- by 3-meter seine (0.64- with one full meander). At each of the five sampling centimeter mesh) was used to supplement electrofishing locations, a woody snag was located, and a submerged sampling, particularly in riffles. At least one seine-haul limb of at least 5 centimeters in diameter was selected was completed in each type of geomorphic channel unit from the snag for sampling. The limb was held in a present in the reach. Surber sampler with a 425-micron mesh net with a All collected fish were identified to species, and 425-micron dolphin plankton bucket attached to the end total and standard lengths in millimeters and total of the net. The net was oriented with the mouth directed weight in grams were recorded (Meador and others, upstream, and the limb was brushed for 60 seconds to 1993). All minnows and other problematic taxa were dislodge organisms into the net. The contents of the net fixed in 10-percent buffered formalin and returned to and plankton bucket were rinsed into a 19-liter bucket, the USGS office in Austin, Tex., for identification. Fish processed through a 425-micron sieve to remove specimens that were difficult to identify and those spec- entrained organic and inorganic debris, placed in a imens that required a verification of identification were 1-liter polypropylene jar, and fixed with 10-percent sent to ichthyologist Dr. Dean Hendrickson, Texas buffered formalin (Cuffney and others, 1993). Memorial Museum at the University of Texas, for final A QMH sample was collected in each reach by identification and permanent storage. using a 205-micron mesh d-frame net. Multiple habitats Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community in the reach were sampled including riffles, runs, mar- Assessment gins of pools, undercut banks, and in stands of aquatic macrophytes in an attempt to collect taxa not expected Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were col- to be represented by the RTH sample. The QMH sample lected at 14 of the 15 sampling reaches (table 1) using also was collected to augment the taxa composition or reach-based compositing methods developed by the taxa list for each reach. Contents of the d-frame net were USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) placed in a 19-liter bucket, field-processed through a program (Cuffney and others, 1993; Moring, 2002). 205-micron mesh sieve, transferred to a 1-liter jar, and One reach, Village Creek on Mustang Trail near Village fixed with 10-percent buffered formalin. Mills (VC1), was not sampled for benthic macroinver- All benthic samples were shipped to a contract tebrates because of budgetary constraints and because laboratory (Ecoanalysts, Inc., Moscow, Idaho) for iden- of its proximity to the Village Creek on McKinney tification and enumeration of taxa. If a sample had Bridge Road near Village Mills (VC3) reach. The 500 or fewer organisms, all the organisms in the sample USGS and NPS assigned higher priority for benthic were sorted, counted, and identified. If the sample macroinvertebrate sampling to VC3. Two sample types, contained more than 500 organisms, then a 500-count

6 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Table 2. Description of stream-habitat measures and land-use variables for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

[Land use refers to land use in contributing drainage area above downstream boundary of each reach; GIRAS, Geographic Information and Retrieval Analysis System; NLCD 92, National Land Cover Data 92; --, not applicable]

Stream habitat Land use

Measure Description of measure Variable Description of variable Linear reach Straight-line distance from mid- Drainage area Area within subbasin boundary length channel of upstream reach (square upstream from the reach (meters) boundary to downstream boundary kilometers) Curvilinear Distance from boundary to boundary Percentage urban GIRAS Level II urban land-use data reach length following channel thalweg land use (1970) from 90-meter cells (meters) Reach sinuosity Ratio of curvilinear distance to linear Percentage urban NLCD 92 Level II urban land-use distance land use (1990s) data from 30-meter cells Reach slope Measured as slope from mid-channel Percentage GIRAS Level II agricultural land-use elevation of streambed from agricultural land data from 90-meter cells upstream to downstream boundary use (1970s) Reach structure Ratio of frequency of in-channel Percentage NLCD 92 Level II agricultural land- index structure such as snags and agricultural land use data from 30-meter cells undercut banks to curvilinear reach use (1990s) length Bank slope Slope of bank from thalweg to high- Percentage forest GIRAS Level II forest land-use data bank terrace land use (1970s) from 90-meter cells Wetted channel Distance from left bank water’s edge Percentage forest NLCD 92 Level II forest land-use width to right bank water’s edge along land use (1990s) data from 30-meter cells (meters) each transect Bank-full Distance from high-bank terrace to Percentage change Absolute difference in land use channel high-bank terrace along each for each land use between 1970s and 1990s for each width transect from 1970s to Level II land-use category (meters) 1990s Channel Ratio of bank height divided by bank- -- -- incision full width Bank height Bank height from channel thalweg to -- -- (meters) bank-full terrace. subsampling routine was used (Lester, 1999). With the 2002) can include depth, velocities, bed and bank exception of some midges and non-insect macroinverte- substrates, and type, frequency and extent of geomor- brates, all taxa were identified to genus. A reference phic channel units (riffles, runs, and pools). Several collection with at least one specimen of each taxon reach-based and within-reach transect-based measures identified was provided to the USGS by the contract were taken (table 2). Four channel cross sections laboratory. extending from the right bank high-bank terrace to the left bank high-bank terrace were selected in each reach Stream-Habitat Assessment (corresponding to the four geomorphic channel units Characterization of channel and riparian-zone in reaches with one full meander). Many researchers habitat features (Fitzpatrick and others, 1998; Moring, have suggested up to 11 transects per reach (Fitzpatrick

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 7 and others, 1998). However, for the study described in technology to yield positive or negative percentage this report, the selection of four cross sections in each changes in these land uses between the 1970s and reach was assumed to be sufficient to characterize 1990s. Percentage changes in selected land-use channel morphology and therefore, variability in stream variables (table 2) were used to explain differences in velocity, depth, and substrate types and distribution. biological communities or stream-habitat conditions. All but one reach, Little Pine Island Bayou (LPIB6), were one full meander in length, with a pair of point Data Management and Analysis bars alternating on each bank. Four cross sections were assumed to be sufficient to characterize gross All field data were recorded on waterproof data channel morphology because of the uniformity of the forms in the field. Recorded data included site name and channels for the majority of reaches. In addition, all description, individuals collecting the sample, date and 15 sites are on low-gradient streams, which facilitates time, weather conditions, sample identification (ID) and the selection of one full meander of channel length. This description, and any pertinent comments about the approach helped to standardize the reaches among sites reach or sampling effort. Field data forms were for comparison. reviewed in the field for accuracy and completeness, and a final review was done at the USGS office in A Sokia Leitz Set 4A laser-operated total sta- Austin, Tex. tion was used to survey all transects and the entire reach to provide the data needed for many of the reach habitat After review, all data were keyed into a spread- measures. All survey data were stored on-site in a data sheet pending data analysis. Hard copies of the data logger that was electronically linked to the total station. were printed and filed with the field data forms for each The data were imported into an electronic spreadsheet reach. All data were archived in the USGS office in and sorted, and computations were done to determine Austin. Benthic macroinvertebrate identification and linear reach length, curvilinear reach length, bank enumeration data were received from the contract labo- height, bank width, bank slope, wetted channel width, ratory in a spreadsheet format and stored along with and mean depth. other digital data for the project. All statistical analyses were done with the Statis- Land-Use Characterization tica® software package (StatSoft, 1998). Cluster analy- sis was used to compare overall similarities among fish Land use was characterized for each contributing communities and among benthic macroinvertebrate subbasin upstream from the downstream boundary of communities by reach. Cluster analysis is a classifica- each reach. Sixty-meter digital elevation models tion technique that groups like entities (fish or benthic (DEMs) that were re-sampled from 30-meter DEMs macroinvertebrate communities by reach in this appli- were used to delineate each subbasin for the computa- cation) into clusters. Similarity among communities tion of drainage area. The 1970s land-use data were by reach is quantified in terms of “linkage distance” obtained from the Geographic Information Retrieval (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988), which can be shown and Analysis System (GIRAS) (U.S. Geological Survey graphically—the more similar the communities in two [1973–80]), and includes land-use data from 1973 to reaches, the smaller the linkage distance. 1980. The GIRAS 1:250,000-scale blocks used for The number of fish or invertebrate species col- land-use characterization overlap within the majority of lected can be influenced by the number of individuals the above-reach drainages. The 1973–80 land-use data collected. For two streams of similar size, the number of will be referred to hereinafter as the 1970s land-use species generally is proportional to the number of indi- data. The 1990s land-use data were obtained from a viduals collected but declines asymptotically with USGS dataset called National Land Cover Data 1992 increased sampling until no new species are collected (NLCD 92) (Vogelmann and others, 2001), which was with repeated samplings (Nielsen and others, 1989); derived from early to mid-1990s Landsat Thematic therefore, unless the asymptote is quantified, the num- mapper satellite data. For this report, Anderson Level I ber of individuals collected can introduce bias into the and Level II land-use categories including barren, for- interpretation of biological diversity indexes or other ested, urban or built-up, range, water, and wetland were metrics (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). In the field effort compared using geographic information system (GIS) for the study described in this report, no attempt was

8 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 50 Pearson's r = .836, p-value = .0001 45 NR3

40

NR1 35 VC11 LPIB6 VC3 30

VC10 25 LPIB1 TC2 BSC5 20 VC1 AT INDICATED REACH TC1 NR2 15 BSC2 MC1

NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES COLLECTED MC4 10

5 -100 100 300 500 700 900 1,100 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED AT INDICATED REACH

EXPLANATION VC11 Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites and National Park Service site number (reach ID)— Number referenced in table 1

Figure 2. Number of fish species collected relative to number of individuals collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. made to quantify the asymptote of species richness in Principal components analysis was used as a any of the reaches. The number of individual fish col- variable reduction technique to determine those stream- lected was positively correlated with the number of habitat and land-use variables that explain the largest species (fig. 2) in each reach (Pearson’s r = .836, amount of variation among reaches, and in turn, com- p-value = .0001). Therefore, a technique was required to pare those physical variables to selected biological remove the influence of sample size on the number of variables using correlation. Principal components species collected. analysis is a multivariate statistical technique (Ludwig To remove the influence of fish and invertebrate and Reynolds, 1988) that quantifies the amount of sample size among reaches, the number of individuals variation (among reaches in this application) explained of each species was converted to a “1” or “0” to indicate by each variable in terms of “factor loadings.” Stream- the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species from the habitat and land-use variables (table 2) with factor reach. These presence-absence data were used in the loadings greater than 0.7 were compared with total cluster analysis to compare the fish and invertebrate number of fish species, total number of aquatic insect community similarity among the 15 reaches. species (or genus), and Menhinick’s species richness Another measure of species for comparison using correlation. among reaches that avoids sample-size bias is Menhinick’s species richness (Menhinick, 1964). Stream-habitat variables also were compared Menhinick’s richness was computed for each reach by using correlation with land-use variables to identify dividing the number of species in the reach by the those stream-habitat variables, if any, that could be square root of the number of individual fish or inverte- significantly correlated with particular land-use brates collected. characteristics.

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 9 BASELINE ASSESSMENT The cluster analysis to determine fish community similarity among reaches showed that reaches clustered Fish Communities according to their geographic proximity and that the smaller reaches typically were more similar in overall Sixty-eight species of fish were collected among fish community structure than the larger reaches, with a the 15 reaches during 1999–2001 (table 3, at end of few exceptions (fig. 3). The two Trinity River Basin report). A total of 4,818 individual fish were collected. reaches, MC1 and MC4, were most similar in species Minnows (family Cyprinidae) were the most abundant composition. The Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 326 group with 1,433 individuals collected among the near Sour Lake, Tex. (LPIB1) reach did not cluster with 15 reaches. Of the minnows, the blacktail shiner the other reach in the same subbasin, Little Pine Island (Cyprinella venusta) was the most frequently collected Bayou at Hwy. 69 near Beaumont, Tex. (LPIB6). species (644 individuals). Minnows typically are the Among sites on the same reach, the Neches River most abundant group or family of fishes in streams. reaches had the largest linkage distance (4.45) and, They commonly are collected in large numbers with a therefore, the least similarity. NR1 and NR3 are more variety of collection techniques because of the school- than 48 river kilometers apart, and the more down- ing behavior of many species, including the blacktail stream reach, NR3, had several marine or estuarine fish shiner. The longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) of the species that the upstream reaches (NR1 and NR2) did Centrarchidae family was the most frequently collected not. of all species (761 individuals). The tarpons, family Menhinick’s species richness ranged from a min- Elopidae, were the least abundant group with seven imum of 1.016 at Little Pine Island Bayou reach LPIB6 individuals collected, all of one species, ladyfish (Elops to a maximum of 2.097 at Village Creek reach VC10 saurus). Ladyfish and other tarpons are marine or estu- (fig. 4). The small richness at Little Pine Island Bayou arine species and are not commonly collected in fresh- LPIB6 is influenced by the fact that 47 percent of the water streams. Four blue suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) individual fish collected at the site were two species of were collected, all within the reach Neches River below shad, the threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and the Steinhagen Lake (NR1). The blue sucker is difficult to gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Shad are pelagic collect because of its habitat preference for the bottom filter feeders, and LPIB6 is a relatively deep channel of deep, fast moving rivers and channels. The blue with little current or in-channel structure such as snags sucker is listed by the State of Texas as a threatened or undercut banks that are characteristic of Village species and is a “current-loving” or rheophilous species. Creek reach VC10 and other reaches that had compara- The four blue suckers were collected in a higher- tively larger species richness. The occurrence of snags gradient section of the Neches River in the tailwaters of and other in-channel structure can result in higher spe- the Steinhagen Lake Dam. Common carp (Cyprinus cies richness because of the variety and greater volume carpio), an introduced species, was collected in only of habitat present. one reach, Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near Rye (MC4). Another way to assess fish community structure The most fish species (43) were collected in the is to compare the relative abundance of major fish most downstream Neches River reach, the Neches River families among sampling sites (fig. 5). Relative abun- in the Beaumont Unit near Beaumont (NR3). This reach dance is less than 100 percent in figure 5 because sev- is only several kilometers upstream from the tidal break eral families with low relative abundance were omitted. in the Neches River, and several species including lady- Minnows (family Cyprinidae) and sunfishes (family fish and atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) were Centrarchidae) dominated the relative abundance collected more frequently in this reach than other among the 15 reaches. Centrarchid relative abundance reaches. In addition, this Neches River reach is longer was dominated by the longear sunfish (Lepomis and wider than the other reaches, and fish species rich- megalotis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), spotted ness generally increases with increasing channel size or bass (Micropterus punctulatus), and largemouth bass stream order (Vannote and others, 1980). The least num- (Micropterus salmoides). Centrarchids generally had a ber of fish species were collected at the two Menard higher relative abundance in smaller channels such as Creek reaches, 12 at Menard Creek at Hwy. 943 near LPIB1 where there is more in-channel structure in Segno (MC1) and 11 at Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near relation to total reach area compared to that of the Rye (MC4). larger reaches in the Neches River. The total number of

10 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 VC1 BSC5 BSC2 MC4 MC1 TC1 TC2 VC3 LPIB1 REACH ID VC10 VC11 NR2 LPIB6 NR1 NR3

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 LINKAGE DISTANCE

Figure 3. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of fish communities for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

2.4

2.0

1.6

1.2

0.8 MENHINICK'S SPECIES RICHNESS

0.4

0

MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 VC10 VC11

REACH ID

Figure 4. Menhinick’s species richness for fish communities from15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 11 100

EXPLANATION 80 Drum Perch Pirate perch Sunfish 60 Killifish Catfish Sucker Minnow 40 Gar

20 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR FISH FAMILIES, IN PERCENT

0

MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 VC10 VC11 REACH ID

Figure 5. Relative abundance of major fish families for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. centrarchids collected was higher at the large channel (Arachnida). Sampling in this study was intentionally sites, but the relative abundance was lower. Gars (family biased for the collection of aquatic insects, and all Lepisosteidae) are common in large rivers, and gars non-insect taxa were considered incidental collections; were relatively the most abundant in the Neches River therefore, the results discussed below will be limited to reaches. Pirate perches (family Aphredoderidae) were aquatic insect taxa among the 14 reaches sampled. most common in the smaller reaches including Big The most frequently collected aquatic insect was Sandy Creek reach BSC2, Menard Creek reach MC1, the riffle beetle (Stenelmis sp.). Of the 10 most com- Turkey Creek reach TC2, and Village Creek reach VC1. monly collected taxa, six were midges of the family Pirate perches are common in smaller sand-bottomed Chironomidae. The most frequently collected streams and rivers; Aphredoderus sayanus is the only was Polypedilum illinoense gr. Midges often dominate species in the family (Robison and Buchanan, 1984). the aquatic insect community in freshwater streams in number of species, number of individuals, and aquatic Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities insect biomass (Resh and Rosenberg, 1984). Other commonly occurring taxa included the filter-feeding A total of 9,238 benthic macroinvertebrates caddisfly, Cheumatopsyche sp., and the filter-feeding that constitute 301 unique taxa were collected among blackfly, Simulium sp. The most abundant the 14 reaches sampled for invertebrates (table 4, were the collector-gatherers Tricorythodes sp. and at end of report). Two-hundred forty-two of the Pseudocloeon dardanum. benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were aquatic insects, A cluster analysis using presence/absence data and 59 were non-insect taxa that included freshwater for all of the aquatic insect taxa (fig. 6) showed a very worms (Clitellata), opossum shrimp (Mysidacea), different pattern compared to results of the fish com- roundworms (Nematoda), snails (Gastropoda), amphi- munity cluster analysis (fig. 3). Unlike the fish commu- pods (Malacostraca), clams (Bivalvia), and water mites nity cluster analysis, the aquatic insect cluster analysis

12 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 NR1 TC2 BSC5 VC10 NR2 BSC2 MC4 MC1

REACH ID TC1 LPIB6 VC3 NR3 VC11 LPIB1

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 LINKAGE DISTANCE

Figure 6. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of aquatic insect communities for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. does not indicate a clustering of reaches based on site currents and a relatively deep channel. It is likely that proximity. For example, the cluster analysis results the small number of taxa and number of individual show the Neches River reach (NR2) to be more similar insects collected in this reach is at least partially the to a Big Sandy Creek reach (BSC2) and to the Menard result of adverse sampling conditions. Creek reaches (MC1 and MC4) than it is to the other The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera two Neches River reaches (NR1 and NR3). The major- (EPT) index commonly is used to assess the ecological ity of the linkage distances were 8.0 or higher, which health of streams. The EPT index is the sum of the indicates that the aquatic insect communities are more proportion of each of the three orders (mayflies, stone- variable and dissimilar than the fish communities , and caddisflies), and it is expressed as a percent- among the 14 reaches. age of all identified taxa; larger scores indicate healthier The number of aquatic insect taxa was signifi- streams. The index is sensitive to changes in water cantly positively correlated (Pearson’s r = .908, quality and is less variable seasonally and perennially p-value = .0001) to the number of individuals collected than other metrics such as species richness (Lenat and in the 14 reaches (fig. 7). The Village Creek on McKin- Barbour, 1994). The EPT index was largest for the ney Bridge Road (VC3) reach had the largest number of Neches River reach NR1 and smallest for the Little Pine aquatic insect taxa (108), and the Neches River below Island Bayou reach LPIB6, one of the two reaches in Steinhagen Lake in the Jack Gore Unit (NR2) reach had stream segments in the preserve that are on the State the fewest number of taxa (12). 303(d)list (fig. 9). The EPT index score for NR1 proba- bly is larger than the other index scores because this Menhinick’s species richness varied considerably reach is only a few kilometers downstream from the among the reaches (fig. 8). Big Sandy Creek reach Steinhagen Lake Dam; and net-spinning caddisflies BSC2 had the largest species richness (3.9), with a new likely are more common in the reservoir release waters taxon observed for about every two insects collected in below the dam. Caddisflies respond to increased dis- the reach. The smallest species richness (1.09) was for solved oxygen concentrations caused by re-aeration in the Neches River reach NR2. The collection of aquatic the tailwaters of the dam. The low index score for insect samples in NR2 was difficult because of swift LPIB6 might be explained by little or no current at this

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 13 120

Pearson's r = .9084, p-value > .0001 VC3

100 TC2 NR3 VC11

80 BSC5

NR1 LPIB6 60 MC1 VC10

TC1

40 MC4 LPIB1 BSC2

NUMBER OF INSECT TAXA COLLECTED 20 NR2

0 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED AT INDICATED REACH EXPLANATION VC11 Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites and National Park Service site number (reach ID)— Number referenced in table 1 Figure 7. Number of aquatic insect taxa collected relative to the number of individuals collected for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

4.2

3.6

3.0

2.4

1.8

1.2 MENHINICK'S SPECIES RICHNESS

0.6

0

MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC3 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 VC10 VC11 REACH ID Figure 8. Menhinick’s species richness for aquatic insects from14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

14 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF EPT TAXA, IN PERCENT

0

MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC3 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 VC10 VC11 EXPLANATION REACH ID Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Plecoptera (stoneflies) Trichoptera (caddisflies)

Figure 9. Relative abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT index) for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. reach, possibly lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, overland runoff influences the trophic structure of the and little in-channel structure such as woody snags to aquatic insect community in the stream (Vannote and provide a substrate and habitat for the EPT taxa. Many others, 1980). The river continuum concept of Vannote of the EPT taxa, particularly caddisflies (Trichoptera), and others (1980) hypothesizes that the macroinverte- require a current at velocities that facilitate their filter- brate community exists in a way that is compatible with feeding habits. The mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were a its source of nutrition—that is (in the study described in larger percentage of the EPT index at the reaches with this report), the aquatic insect community in smaller smaller channel size, and the caddisflies were a larger stream channels will be of the type (shredders and percentage of the EPT index in those reaches with larger channel size. Stonefly (Plecoptera) taxa are more scrapers, for example) that can deal with the more depauperate than the or caddisfly taxa in the Big coarse particulate matter that tends to be characteristic Thicket National Preserve and are less represented in of smaller stream channels; whereas in larger stream the EPT index for the 14 reaches. channels in which smaller particulate matter tends to be characteristic, the aquatic insect community will be of The trophic structure of aquatic insect communi- the type (filter feeders, for example) that depends on ties is influenced by many factors including channel width, depth, velocity, nutrient composition and fine particulate organic matter. In general, aquatic insect availability, bed material, and composition and density communities in the Big Thicket reaches fit the river con- of riparian vegetation (Hynes, 1970). In low-order tinuum concept. With a couple of exceptions (LPIB1 (smaller) streams in wooded settings dominated by and NR3), the relative abundance of shredders and deciduous riparian species, the amount and composition scrapers (fig. 10) generally was larger in the reaches of input to the stream from leaf- and dead-fall and from with smaller channels (fig. 11a); and, also with a couple

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 15 100

EXPLANATION 80 Shredders Scrapers Predators

60 Gatherers Filterers

40

TROPHIC GROUPS, IN PERCENT 20

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR AQUATIC INSECT 0 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC3 VC10 VC11 REACH ID

Figure 10. Relative abundance of major aquatic insect trophic groups for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. of exceptions (LPIB1 and MC1), the relative abundance 1990s urban land use in drainage areas upstream from of filter feeders generally was larger in the reaches with the downstream boundaries of the bioassessment larger channels (fig. 11b). Relative abundance is less reaches was significantly negatively correlated than 100 percent in figure 10 because minor aquatic (Pearson’s r = -.698, p-value = .012) with the reach insect trophic groups were omitted. structure index, a measure of stable habitat for aquatic biota (fig. 12). (The three Neches River reaches, NR1, Stream Habitat and Land Use NR2, and NR3, were not included in this comparison because of the lack of contributing drainage area down- The physical characteristics of the channel of a stream from the most upstream reach, NR1, and the stream reach and the contributing drainage upstream large catchment, Steinhagen Lake, upstream from all from a reach (table 5, at end of report) can influence three sites on the Neches River.) The percentage of the structure and function of the resident fish and urban land use ranged from about 0.6 to about 2.5 per- aquatic insect communities (Richards and others, 1996; cent; however, percentages of urban land use of less Allan and others, 1997; Stauffer and others, 2000). than 10 percent in a drainage area have adversely influ- Among stream-habitat variables measured for this enced the aquatic insect community (McMahon and report (table 2), bank-full channel width, bank height, Cuffney, 2002). and curvilinear reach length had principal components analysis factor loadings greater than 0.7; and the 1990s The drainage areas upstream from each of 13 bio- land-use variables percentage agricultural, percentage assessment reaches were dominated by forested land forest, and percentage urban had factor loadings greater use in the 1970s and in the 1990s, although the percent- than 0.7. These variables were used for further analysis: age decreased during the intervening years (fig. 13; correlation with total number of fish species, total num- table 5). Forested land use in the 1970s ranged from ber of aquatic insect species, and Menhinick’s species about 84 percent in the drainage area upstream from richness. None of the selected stream-habitat or land- Little Pine Island Bayou reach LPIB6 to about 98 per- use variables were significantly correlated with any of cent upstream from Little Pine Island Bayou reach these biological measures. LPIB1. By the 1990s, forested land use had decreased In a comparison of stream-habitat variables with to about 77 percent in LPIB6 and to about 92 percent land-use variables using correlation, the percentage of in LPIB1. The percentage of forested lands decreased

16 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 50 MC4 (a)

VC10 BSC5 40

NR3 VC3 VC11 TC2 30 TC1 MC1

20 BSC2

LPIB1 NR1 10 PERCENTAGE SHREDDERS AND SCRAPERS LPIB6

NR2 0 2040 6080 100120 140160 180200 220240 260 280 MEAN WETTED CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS

50 (b)

40 MC1

30 LPIB1

VC11 NR2 20 NR3 NR1

PERCENTAGE FILTERERS LPIB6 VC3 VC10 10 MC4 TC1 BSC2

TC2 BSC5 0 2040 6080 100120 140160 180 200 220240 260 280 MEAN WETTED CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS EXPLANATION VC11 Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites and National Park Service site number (reach ID)— Number referenced in table 1

Figure 11. Relation between (a) relative abundance of shredders and scrapers and channel size, and (b) relative abundance of filter feeders and channel size for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

BASELINE ASSESSMENT 17 350 Pearson's r = -.698, p-value = .012 BSC2 MC1 300

250

200 BSC5 LPIB1 VC11 VC1 MC4 150

100 VC3 TC1

VC10 TC2

REACH STRUCTURE INDEX 50

LPIB6 0

-50 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 1990s URBAN LAND USE, IN PERCENT EXPLANATION VC11 Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites and National Park Service site number (reach ID)— Number referenced in table 1

Figure 12. Reach structure index relative to 1990s urban land use in contributing drainage area above downstream boundary of reach for 12 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001. the most (10.6 percent) in Turkey Creek reach TC1. sites, or reaches, in the Big Thicket National Preserve The percentage of urban land decreased slightly (maxi- and the baseline data and information on the fish and mum 0.82 percent for any drainage area) between the aquatic insect communities of these reaches summa- 1970s and 1990s for all of the drainage areas upstream rized in this report constitute a first step toward assess- from the reaches for which data are available (table 5). ment of the status of aquatic biological resources in the However, the percentage of land in agricultural use preserve. The principal findings of the study are increased from a minimum of about 0.8 percent in the 1. The fish communities in the preserve were domi- LPIB1 drainage area for the 1970s to a maximum of nated by minnows and sunfishes. about 15 percent in the LPIB6 drainage area for the 1990s. Timber-crop management is common through- 2. The blue sucker, listed by the State as a threatened out the lands bordering the units of the Big Thicket species, was collected only in one reach, the National Preserve. Neches River below Steinhagen Lake. 3. Fish communities in geographically adjacent SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS reaches in this assessment were most similar in overall community structure. Often described as the “biological crossroads” of 4. The most frequently collected aquatic insect was North America, the Big Thicket National Preserve is an the riffle beetle. Of the 10 most commonly col- important holding of the NPS because of its biological lected aquatic insect taxa, six were midges. diversity and unique geographic distribution. The USGS, in cooperation with the NPS, conducted a study 5. Aquatic insect communities among reaches did not to establish benchmark biological monitoring stations at indicate the same geographically proximate 15 sites throughout the preserve from which to assess pattern of similarity as did fish communities. baseline biological conditions in streams and to supple- 6. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera ment historical and ongoing water-quality monitoring at (EPT) index was smallest for the Little Pine these sites. The establishment of the 15 bioassessment Island Bayou near Beaumont reach LPIB6, one

18 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 120

(12)

100 (10)

80

60 LAND USE, IN PERCENT

40

20 (10) (12)

(10) (12) (10) (10) (12)

(12)

0 URBANAGRICULTUREFOREST WETLAND BARREN LAND-USE CATEGORY EXPLANATION

Median Land-use percentage in the 1970s Land-use percentage in the 1990s (10) Number of land-use data points

Figure 13. Land use by category in the 1970s and 1990s in the drainage areas upstream of the 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas.

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 19 of two reaches in stream segments in the pre- Harcombe, P.A., 1996, Characterization of the biological serve that are on the State 303(d) list. resources of the water corridor units of Big Thicket National Preserve: Department of Ecology and Evolu- 7. Trophic structure of the aquatic insect communities tionary Biology, Rice University. [Prepared under coop- among the 14 reaches sampled generally is erative agreement with the National Park Service.] consistent with the river continuum concept, Harrel, R.C., 1976, Preliminary limnological survey of with shredders and scrapers more abundant in streams in the Big Thicket National Preserve: Report to reaches with smaller, low-order stream chan- National Park Service, Santa Fe, N. Mex., Work Order nels and filter feeders more abundant in reaches PX7000–5–0770. with larger channels. ______1985, Effect of a crude oil spill on water quality and 8. Stream habitat and land use were not significantly macrobenthos of a southeast Texas stream: Hydrobiolo- correlated with any of the biological commu- gia, v. 124, p. 223–228. nity measures or metrics. Harrel, R.C., and Bass, D., 1979, Water quality monitoring 9. The percentage of 1990s urban land use in the program in the Big Thicket National Preserve: National drainage areas upstream from 12 bioassessment Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Report reaches (three reaches not included in compari- PX7029–8–0789. son) was significantly negatively correlated Harrel, R.C., and Commander, S.D.,1980, Water quality with the reach structure index, which indicates monitoring program in the Big Thicket National Pre- less stable habitat for aquatic biota. serve, Turkey Creek Unit: National Park Service, South- western Region, Project Report PX7140–9–099. 10. Between the 1970s and 1990s, the percentage of forested lands upstream from each of 13 ______1981, Water quality monitoring program in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Turkey Creek Unit: National bioassessment reaches decreased the most (10.6 Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Report percent) in the Turkey Creek near Warren (TC1) PX7029–1–0114. drainage area. Harrel, R.C., and Darville, R., 1977, Water quality monitor- REFERENCES CITED ing program in the Big Thicket National Preserve: National Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Abbot, J.C., Stewart, K.W., and Moulton, S.R., II, 1997, Report PX7029–6–0866. Aquatic insects of the Big Thicket region of East Texas: ______1978, Water quality monitoring program in the Big Texas Journal of Science, v. 49, no. 3, p. 35–50. Thicket National Preserve: National Park Service, Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L., and Fay, J., 1997, The influence Southwestern Region, Project Report PX7029–7–0636. of catchment land use on stream integrity across multi- Hynes, H.B.N., 1970, The ecology of flowing waters: Liver- ple spatial scales: Freshwater Biology, v. 37, p. 149–161. pool, Liverpool University Press, 555 p. Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and for collecting invertebrate samples as part of the Schlosser, I.J., 1986, Assessment of biotic integrity in National Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geo- running waters—A method and its rational: Illinois Nat- logical Survey Open-File Report 93–406, 66 p. ural History Survey, Special Publication Number 5. Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., Arconte, P.J.D., Meador, M.R., Lenat, D.R., and Barbour, M.T., 1994, Using benthic macro- Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, Revised methods invertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effec- for characterizing stream habitat in the National Water- tive, water-quality monitoring—Rapid bioassessment, Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey chap. 11 in Loeb, S.L., and Spacie, Anne, eds., Biologi- Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4052, 77 p. cal monitoring of aquatic systems: Ann Arbor, Mich., Flora, M.D., 1984, Development of a water quality monitor- Lewis Publishers, 381 p. ing program for the Big Thicket National Preserve, TX: National Park Service, Water Resources Field Support Lester, G., 1999, Laboratory methods for the processing of Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, invertebrate samples: Ecoanalysts Inc., 4 p. Colo., WRSFL Project Report No. 84–BITH–1. Ludwig, J.A., and Reynolds, J.F., 1988, Statistical ecology: Hall, R.W., and Bruce, K.A., 1996, Characterization of water New York, John Wiley, 337 p. quality in the water corridor units of Big Thicket Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993, Methods National Preserve: Department of Ecology and Evolu- for sampling fish communities as part of the National tionary Biology, Rice University. [Prepared under coop- Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological erative agreement with the National Park Service.] Survey Open-File Report 93–104.

20 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 McMahon, G., and Cuffney, T.F., 2002, Quantifying urban StatSoft, 1998, Statistica for Windows, version 6.0: Tulsa, intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecolog- Okla., StatSoft, Inc. ical conditions: American Water Resources Association, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2002, Draft 25 p. 2002 Texas 303(d) list (October 1, 2002): Texas Com- Menhinick, E.F., 1964, A comparison of some species- mission on Environmental Quality, accessed January 10, individuals diversity indices applied to samples of field 2003, at URL insects: Ecology, v. 45, p. 859–861. http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/02_twqmar/ Moring, J.B., 2002, Baseline assessment of instream and 02_categories/02_303d.pdf riparian-zone biological resources on the Rio Grande in and near Big Bend National Park, Texas: U.S. Geo- Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2003, State of Texas logical Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report threatened and endangered species listing: Texas Parks 02–4106, 33 p. and Wildlife Department, accessed November 14, 2003, Nielsen, L.A., Johnson, D.L., and Lampton, S.L., 1989, Fish- at URL eries techniques: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/endang/ Society, 468 p. U.S. Geological Survey, [1973–80], Geographic Information Resh, V.H., and Rosenberg, D.M., 1984, The ecology of Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS)—Land use and aquatic insects: New York, Praeger, 625 p. land cover (LULC): accessed January 6, 2003, at URL Richards, C., Johnson, L.B., and Host, G.E., 1996, Land- http://edc.usgs.gov/products/landcover/lulc.html scape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Schell, J.R., v. 53, p. 295–310. and Cushing, C.E., 1980, The river continuum concept: Robison, H.W., and Buchanan, T.M., 1984, Fishes of Arkan- Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, sas: Fayetteville, Ark., University of Arkansas Press, v. 37, p. 130–137. 536 p. Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S.M., Yang, L., Larson, C.R., Stauffer, J.C., Goldstein, R.M., and Newman, R.M., 2000, Wylie, B.K., and Van Driel, N., 2001, Completion of the Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff to fish 1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous community composition in agricultural streams: Cana- United States from Lansat thematic mapper data and dian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 57, ancillary data sources: Photogrammetric Engineering p. 307–316. and Remote Sensing, v. 67, p. 650–652.

REFERENCES CITED 21 Total 01 01— 0 0 0 0 0 000500001 2 8 minnow Alligator gar 0 0 0 0 0 0 gar 93 gar 22 0 0506000110 0 0 03564100000 0 0 110 0 0 3 0 035618000021276 Alligator Spotted Longnose hedi hd000500410000 284 01421400000 shad 0 5 0 297 02540 06274100000 0 shad 0 0 2 0 1 01820 1 000001120 2 10 pickerel 0 0Threadfin 0 0 0 0 0 0Gizzard 0 0 0 0 003042000 0 0 0 0 12 0 156 shiner 0 0101000100 0 1 shiner 000000000 0 shiner 0 2 0Grass 9 0 3 shiner 0 0 000400000 2 0 01500300200 0Ladyfish 7 0 0121 0 000200000 0Red 0 15 shiner Texas 0 0 1 0 silvery Mississippi 0 2 0 0 000000000 shiner shiner 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 000100031 0 0Emerald 0 1 29 shiner 1 0 0 7 0001900022 0 minnow 050300000 0Blacktail shiner 0 1 7 150 0 0 0142 2 25 Blackspot 0 0 000000062 86 0 1 carpMimic 0 0 32612180 0 11 6 62 0Pallid 8 0 0 0 8 100000000Weed carp 0 2 7 300101265101 Golden 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 0 silverside Bullhead silverside minnow 0 0 000000000 1 1 0Pugnose 0 redhorse 000021036 sucker 3 1 Common 8 15 0Grass 0 0 4 7 0 sucker 0 040000000 18 204 0 218Brook 4 35 1 143Inland 17 7 10Blue 0 16Spotted 109 0 27 142Blacktail 31 20 16 644 13 6 1 32 1 2 462 Species ID Bioassessment reach Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 VC10 VC11 crysoleucas idella Lepisoteus spatula Lepisoteus oculatus Lepisoteus osseusLepisosteus Dorosoma petenense Dorosoma Dorosoma cepedianumDorosoma amabilis Notropis Hybognathus nuchalis Cyprinella venusta atrocaudalis Notropis volucellus Notropis amnis Notropis texanus Notropis Notemigonus Pimephales vigilax Opsopoeodus emiliae Cyprinus carpio Ctenopharyngodon Menidia beryllina Minytrema melanops Moxostoma poecilurum Esox americanus Elops saurus Cyprinella lutrensis atherinoidesNotropis Labidesthes sicculus Cycleptus elongatus Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected 15 1999–20bioassessment for reaches, Fish taxa NationalBig Thicket and Preserve, counts of Texas, individual fish collected 15 1999–20bioassessment for reaches, NationalBig Thicket Preserve, Texas, Group Family Table 3 Gars Lepisosteidae Herrings Clupeidae PikesTarponsMinnows Esocidae Elopidae Cyprinidae SilversidesSuckers Atherinidae Catastomidae Table 3. Table 3. Table Continued

22 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Total 01— mlmuhbfao0 0 01738000013078 0 190 0 0 buffalo 0 0 0 060300000 5 14 carpsucker Smallmouth River lcsrp omno 1219034715 3 148 2 0 0 0 053442711356 32 0 2000042170 199 6142 1 0 4 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 0 1 142600043 0 0 4 140 2 5 0 39 010302013 0 0 bullhead 0 topminnow5 12 1 0 7 0 catfish 0 catfish 0 0 0 0 0 000010000 1 000010330 3 0 0 topminnow 0 0 0 055800000 madtom madtom 0 0 9 catfish 0 8 21 0 000000500 0 0 5 0 0 5Yellow 3 300000040 0Blue 15 0 topminnow Channel 2 sunfish 7Flathead 1 0 0 0 3 000000050 0Tadpole 0 2 0 8 15 8 sunfish Freckled 1 230115182 0 050024022 1 1 38 24 sunfish 0Blackspotted sunfish 0 0 021017000021083 0 0 330 Blackstripe 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0150781021315150 bass Golden 0 000000000 0 5 340 0 0 080100000 crappie 0 8 Longear sunfish 14 crappie Dollar sunfish Redbreast 0Redear 0 0 bass 3Spotted 29 0 0 010000000 0 2White 0 0 46 0 0 sunfish 0Black 6 0 020500000 0 55 5 0 000000041 0 12 pygmy bassSpotted 72 5 sunfish 002601121 19 6Largemouth 3 0 12 51 0 bass 51 3Redeye 17120 0 40 0 0Green 0 8 bass 40 0 0 01601511016 mullet 111 0Bluegill 12 0 0 030100000 0 1 3Warmouth 0 13 0 69Banded 5 0 030100000 0 27 3Bantam 96 4 30 8White 112Striped 5 2 761 2Striped 1 25 19 7 23 148 4 1 13 0 5 54 9 14 10 76 40 7 179 7 0 19 2 54 404 Species ID Bioassessment reach Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 VC10 VC11 nigromaculatus punctulatus Ictiobus bubalus carpio Carpiodes Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus Pylodictis olivaris gyrinus Notorus Notorus nocturnus Fundulus notatus Fundulus chrysotus Lepomis marginatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis punctatus annularis Poxomis Poxomis Micropterus salmoides Micropterus coosae Micropterus cyanellus Lepomis Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis gulosus Elassoma zonatum symmetricus Lepomis saxatilis Morone Fundulus olivaceus megalotis Lepomis chrysops Morone Mugil cephalus Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected 15 1999–20bioassessment for reaches, NationalBig Thicket Preserve, Texas, Group Family Suckers—Continued Catfish Ictaluridae Killifishes Cyprinodontidae Sunfishes Centrarchidae bassesTemperate Percichthyidae Mullets Mugilidae Table 3. Table Continued

Table 3 23 Total 01— 97 33217 157 19 930 22 55 32 46 958 12 165 756 11 66 33 212 101 18 416 43 142 17 385 22 4,818 18 32 25 32 69 iaeprh7 perch 3 2 6 0 53 8 0003010824 Pirate etr addre 1 0 0 0 0 000000030 0 4 darter 2 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 3 0006012360 0 0 000000000 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 darter 0 0 5 0 0 1 3 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 sand 1 0 0 000001000 000000010 darter darter 0 0 102605480 1 010510320 0 0 100120000 0 lamprey3 2 0 0 0 0 1 darter 39 1 1 18 14 0 0 0 0 000000000 0 darter 0 0 030100000 logperch 0 1 0 4 0 0 lamprey 0Dusky sand 0 000100000 brook 0Slough 0 1 Western 0 0495220000020111 drum 0 150 Bluntnose mosquitofish Cypress Scaly needlefish Bigscale Chestnut Southern Western Freshwater Atlantic Species ID Bioassessment reach Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 VC10 VC11 chlorosomum Aphredoderus sayanus Percina sciera Etheostoma gracile Ammocrypta clara Etheostoma Etheostoma proeliare Ammocrypta vivix macrolepida Percina Ichthyomyzon gagei Ichthyomyzon castaneus affinis Gambusia Aplodinotus grunniens marina Strongylura Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected 15 1999–20bioassessment for reaches, NationalBig Thicket Preserve, Texas, Group Family species Pirate perches Aphredoderidae Perches Percidae Number of fish Number of fish apesPtoyotde0 0 0 0 Petromyzontidae 0 000001000 0 1 Lampreys LivebearersDrums Poeciliidae Needlefishes fish of Number Sciaenidae Belonidae Table 3. Table Continued

24 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Total t Nationalt Nationalt 1000 0 00 0 2 0 1 00 000 0000 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 000 0000 1 0 000 10 1010 0 0 00 1 0 2 0 0 00 000 0000 2 1 0 00 1 000 0000 2 2 00 0 4 1 4 0 004 0003 0 00 0 12 rswtrsrm00 1020 0 0 00 2300 0 26 shrimp0 Freshwater rswtrlmes 0 0 000 3000 0 00 0 3 limpets0 Freshwater sp. 0 0 0 500 0010 0 00 4 10 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 0 1 0 010 0000 0 00 0 2 p rswtrsal 0 1 0 050 0000 5 00 0 11 snails Freshwater sp. sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 500 0000 0 00 0 5 sp. 0 0 46400 0012 7 40 8 72 sp. 0 0 5040 0 3 006498 1921 sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 1 30 0 5 sp. 0 3 3 3 10 1 0 0 10 0 0 53 0 4 87 sp. 0025160 0 0 0 6001240500 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 2 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 400 0020 0 00 0 6 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 00 4 4 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 Helobdella Helobdella triserialis Helobdella Placobdella Placobdella ornata Placobdella parasitica Taphromysis louisianae Taphromysis Campeloma Campeloma decisum Amnicola Ferrissia Physella Menetus dilatatus Menetus Arrenurus Clathrosperchon Corophium Corophium Crangonyx Gammarus Hyalella azteca Hyalella Hyalella LymnaeidaePhysidaePlanorbidaePlanorbidae 0 2 0 0 000 0 0000 0 0 00 1 010 0000 3 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 000 0000 0 10 0 1 yrpatde0 0Hydryphantidae 0Arrenuridae 200 0010 7 00 1 11 LebertiidaeLimnesiidaeMideopsidae 0 3 0SperchonidaeTorrenticolidae 100 0030 0 4 0Unionicolidae 0 20 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Clathrosperchonidae 14 0 0 0 0 000 0000 0 0 000 0 1 0020 000 00 0 0000 13 0 1 000 000 0000 14 0000 0120 10 0 1 1130 1 80 0 4 9 Corophiidae Gammaridae rnoytde0 3Crangonyctidae 0 0 000 0000 17 1301 Hyalellidae altxdLmrcn 0Rhynchobdellida 0 0 Glossiphoniidae 101 0000 0 00 0 2 OligochaetaHaplotaxidaLumbricina Aquatic earthworms 0 29 0 197 0 0 7 0 21 0 3 17 0 10 284 eteigosHdoide0 1 3 0050 56 2910 0 1700 Architaenioglossa Viviparidae NeotaenioglossaHydrobiidae Basommatophora Ancylidae rmiiomsyrbtdeWtrmts0 0 0 mites 000 3000 0 00 0 3 Water AcariTrombidiformesHygrobatidae 0 2 Mites 2 62 1 510 1021 27146 eaoaCmaia ryihs1 4 0 000 0000 3 00 1 9 Crayfishes Cambaridae Decapoda Taxonomic classification of classification benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates of benthic and Taxonomic macroinvertebrates counts of and individual counts 14 of taxa bioassessment individualfor 14 taxa bioassessment reaches,for Big Thicke reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family Table 4 Clitellata Arhynchobdellida Erpobdellidae Freshwater leeches 0 1 0 0 0 0 Mysidacea Mysida Mysidae Nematoda (phylum) 0 2 0030 0 0 20 1610 0 24 Roundworms Nematoda Gastropoda rcnd arpiomsrbtiSi ie 0 4 5010 0 8 mites 20 1600 1 37 Soil SacroptiformesOribatei Arachnida aaotaamhpd mhpd 0 0 0 000 2130 0 00 0 6 Amphipods TurbellariaMalacostracaAmphipoda 0 0 0 000 1000 0 10 0 2 Flatworms Table 4. 4. Table Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Preserve, Texas,

Table 4 25 Total t Nationalt 0000 1 00 0 1 481710088 4 183 7 2428112721605028283 0 1 0 002 0010 0 20 3 9 2 0 032300 117 158 0160000133193068 0 420 000 0073 28370 0 0 00 000 0000 0 1 0 00 00 000 1000 1 0 0 0 00 0 000 3000 1 00 00 0 0 3 0 0 4 156 0 0 88210 0 01330 0 0 0 000 0000 0 00 2 2 0 0 00 000 0000 0 0 01 04 4 3 02 500 0000 8 2 16000 0000 9 00 000 0 00 0000 48 0 0 2681 00 0 0 20 5 200 0000 0 00 0 2 clams) ryihs0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 Crayfishes ia lm 0 110 000 0110 0 10 0 clams 14 Aisan ecas0 0 0000 0 0 00 1300 0 13 Peaclams sp. 0 0 0 0 000 0070 19 2100 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID pCafse 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp.Crayfishes sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. 0 1 2 000 0004 33 6 5150 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 p qai o us 0 0000 0 0 00 1000 0 10 bugs0 sow Aquatic sp. p ryihs1 1 0 001 0000 0 00 0 3 Crayfishes sp. sp. 0 1 0 010 0000 0 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 000 0003 20 0 4130 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 2 66 0 14 sp. 0 2 0 000 8010 2 26 0 21 sp. 0 0 23030 0000 0 00 1 27 sp. 1240 2202010221140179 sp. 0 1 0 001 1000 1 00 1 5 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 kadiakensis longipalpus propinquum dardanum Orconectes Orconectes dupratziProcambarus Procambarus Palaemonetes Caecidotea Lirceus Corbicula Corbicula fluminea Acerpenna pygmaea Baetis intercalaris Baetis Centroptilum Procloeon Pseudocloeon Pseudocloeon Pseudocloeon Pseudocloeon Plauditus Eupera cubensis Sphaerium Amercaenis ridens Brachycercus amica hilaris Caenis latipennis Caenis Caenis punctata Caenis Leptohyphes aamndeFehae hip 0 0 000 1010 0 00 0 2 shrimp0 Freshwater Palaemonidae Corbiculidae Pisidiidae Sphaeriidae Peaclams 0 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 15 0 12 0 0 0 36 0 0 0 000 0000 14 0 0140 Leptohyphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isopoda Asellidae Veneroida 0 Clams 0 0 000 0000 1 10 0 2 Unionoida Unionidae Unionids (freshwater Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family Malacostraca— Decapoda—Cont. Cont. Bivalvia OstracodaInsecta 0 Ephemeroptera 3 0 0 000 0050 37 6230 Ostracods Mayflies 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 12 0 17 18 0 52 Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

26 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Total t Nationalt 6 0 11000 0000 0 00 0 17 0 2 00 000 0000 0 3 10 00 0 1 00 011 1000 6 0 1 0 000 22 1000 0 30 0 0 000170300 10 23 9 0 2 0 0 0 000 0010 1 00 0 2 0 0 00 0 0 000 0000 3 000 00 0010 0 00 00 3 0 1 0 2 000 0010 1 10 1 4 agnle 0 0 0 000 0000 0 20 0 2 Dargonflies sp. 0 0 3 000 0000 0 00 1 4 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 60 0 6 sp. 000 00001301001015 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 7 13 0 0 8 2 9 0 2 11 23 72 23 6 176 sp. 0 6 0 000 0000 1 00 0 7 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 050 0000 8 20 0 15 sp. 0 0 0 000 0070 0 00 4 11 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. 000 01001100021015 sp. 1 0 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 77 3 2 0 041 0003 1628200 sp. 100 00000120400017 sp. 5 1 80 0 084 1085 626151 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 001 0000 7 00 0 8 sp. 010 0000022101115050 sp. 2 0 0 000 0013 6 08 0 20 sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 0 10 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 1 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 062 0000 0 00 0 8 sp. 0 1 0 000 0100 5 401122 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 interpunctatum pentacantha Tricorythodes Choroterpes Paraleptophlebia Thraulodes Heptagenia Stenacron Stenacron floridense Stenacron Stenonema exiguum Stenonema integrum Stenonema mexicanum Stenonema Asioplax Hexagenia Argia Hetaerina Calopteryx Isonychia Macromia illinoiensisMacromia Macromia molesta Neurocordulia Neurocordulia Acroneuria Neoperla Perlesta Taeniopteryx Boyeria Boyeria vinosa Nasiaeschna Hagenius brevistylus Progomphus Stylurus Phyllogomphoides etplbia 0 0 0 075Leptophlebiidae 0003 7 11 0 24 Heptageniidae peeelde0 0Ephemerellidae 0Ephemeridae 0 000 0000 17 0161 Calopterygidae Isonychiidae Corduliidae Taeniopterygidae MacromiinaeAeshnidae 1 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 2 0 0 0 000 0000Libellulidae 2 00 0 2 0 0 0 000 0000 1 10 2 4 Gomphidae 0 0 0 120 0000 2 10 0 6 Cont. dnt ongindeDmefis0 0 0 000 3000 0 30 2 8 Damselflies Coenagrionidae Odonata lcpeaPria tnfis0 0 0 000 0000 1 10 0 2 Perlidae Stoneflies Plecoptera Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family Insecta—Cont. Ephemeroptera— Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

Table 4 27 Total t Nationalt 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 0 0 00 000 8010 0 0 0 00 2 11 001 0000 0 01 0 2 000 000410430000084 000 000004200220064 0 4 0062 0 0 01 0 0101 24 0 0 0 000 9000 0 00 0 9 0 0 0 000 0001 1 50 0 7 0 0 0 100 4000 0 00 0 5 water striders backswimmers sp. 2 1 33 0 7 1 0 0 41 0 6 100 2 5 198 sp. 0 3 0 000 0000 9 00 0 12 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 000 000121100004743 sp. 0 1 0 000 0002 9 00 0 12 sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 021 0000 0 60 0 9 sp. 0 0 0 45 0 000200411127 sp. 0 0 0 100 0090 0 00 6 16 sp. 0 0 0 000 0010 0 00 0 1 sp. 000 00120160220427 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 20 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 100 0000 0 00 1 2 sp. 0 0 0 001 0000 0 01 0 2 sp. 0 2 0 100 0051 0 80 0 17 sp. 0 0 0 010 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 000 0070 0 00 2 9 sp. 0 0 0 100 6030 0 00 1 11 sp. 0 0 0 4 043 6213 40 1043 s.Fue 0 0 0 Flukes 060 0000 sp. 0 03 0 9 p reigwtrbg00 0 000 0020 0 00 0 bugs0 2 water Creeping sp. sp. 0 0 0 000 2000 0 00 0 2 sp. Pygmy s.Wtrsopos1 0 0 100 0000 0 00 1 3 scorpions sp. Water s. Adrle 0 0 0 000 0000 0 00 1 1 sp. Alderflies Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 mississippiensis numerosus Rhagovelia Pelocoris Ambrysus Trichocorixa Palmacorixa Ranatra Trochopus Neoplea Chauliodes Corydalus Belostoma Sialis Cheumatopsyche bidens Hydropsyche Hydropsyche simulans Hydropsyche Hydropsyche Macrostemum flava Potamyia Smicridea Brachycentrus Brachycentrus Brachycentrus Helicopsyche Neotrichia Hydroptila Mayatrichia fraternus Cyrnellus Neureclipsis Nyctiophylax Polycentropus Naucoridae erde Wtrsrdr 0 0 0000 0 0 00 1230 0 15 striders GerridaeVeliidae Water Broad-shouldered Nepidae Pleidae Capsalidae eotmtdeGa ae us0 0 0 000 bugs 0000 0 00 1 1 water Gian Belostomatidae Sialidae yrpyhdeCdifis0 0 0 010 1000 0 00 0 2 Caddisflies Hydropsychidae Brachycentridae Helicopsychidae oyetooia 0 0 0 000 0000Hydroptilidae 1 00 0 1 Polycentropodidae eaotrCrdldeDbo le 0 0 0 020 flies 0010 0 10 0 4 Dobson MegalopteraCorydalidae Trichoptera 0 0 0 000 0000 0 00 1 1 Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family net—otHtrpeaoiia ae ota 0 0 0 000 3000 0 00 0 3 boatman Water Insecta—Cont.HeteropteraCorixidae Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

28 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Total t Nationalt 0000 0 00 0 1 0 2 0 022 0000 0 10 0 7 0 0 0 000 6000 0 00 0 6 0 0 0 000 0000 0 002525 0 0 0 000 1000 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 000130100 14 0 2 3 20 000 0 0004 25 1 1130 79 14 3 0 010 0004 47250 1 175 0003 72 3990 butterflies beetles beetles beetles 0 0 0 000 0001 0 01 0 2 sp. 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 13 1 0 0 1 28 sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. water Burrowing sp. 010 00050100311122 sp. 0 0 0 100 1010 0 00 1 4 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 1 01 2 4 sp. 0 0 0 100 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 020 0000 0 00 1 3 sp. 1 182 054 0000 271091490 sp. 0 0 0 000 1000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 010 0000 2 00 1 4 sp. 0 0 0 100 0000 4 00 0 5 pilatei 0 0 0 000 0000 0 00 1 1 s.Mnt osbels 0 0 000 1000 6 00 1 8 beetles0 moss Minute sp. sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 2 00 0 2 sp. 124 0 1 0230 0 769124 0260 sp. 0 0 0 000 3080 2 00116129 sp. 1 16 28 0 33 29 11 0 5 35 190 71 39 53 511 sp. 0 0 0 000 1000 0 00 0 1 s.Wilggbels2 0 5 001 4020 1 10 1 17 beetles Whirligig sp. sp. beetles Water-penny 1 0 0 0 0 0 sp. 0 0 0 000 2000 0 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1260220 0 95 sp. 0 0 0 000 0100 1 00 0 2 s.Mrhbels00010100 002962 0 0 0 1700130300 beetles sp. Marsh sp. 0 2 0 021 6010 1 10 0 14 sp. 0 0 0 26 0 000 0010 12112 sp. 0 0 0 000 1000 0 00 0 1 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 Oecetis persimilis Oecetis Oecetis Nectopsyche candida Nectopsyche Triaenodes Chimarra Coptotomus Desmopachria Hydrovatus Liodessus Lioporeus Neoporus Cymbiodyta Derallus Enochrus Hydrochus Tropisternus Berosus Sperchopsis Ectopria Hydrocanthus Suphis Ancyronyx variegatus Dubiraphia vittata Dubiraphia Macronychus glabratus Microcylloepus Stenelmis Cyphon Dineutus Gyretes Gyrinus Hydraena Philopotamidae HydrophilidaePsephenidae Water-scavenger Noteridae lia ifebels4 0 2 0 100 0000 41 0304 beetles Elmidae Riffle Helodidae Gyrinidae Hydraenidae Cont. Lepidoptera Moths and Coleoptera Dytiscidae Predaceous diving Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family net—otTihpeaLpoeia 0 2 0 100 0000 1 00 0 4 Insecta—Cont.Trichoptera—Leptoceridae Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

Table 4 29 Total t Nationalt 0134 17210151143121285 0 1 0 100 0000 0 30 2 7 0 3 0 010 1020 0 00 4 11 0 0 3 1060 39 1061 0 0102 0 0 0 300 0000 0 00 0 3 beetles flies

sp. Biting midges 0 3 0 13 0 0 39 0 29 0 5 4 0 14 107 sp. 0 0 0 200 0000 0 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. dance and Balloon sp. 0 3 0 001 0010 0 20 0 7 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 0 0 0 000 0020 0 00 0 2 s.igs0 0 0 700 0000 0 00 0 sp.Midges 7 sp. 0 0 0 000 0120 0 00 0 3 sp. 1 1 0 010 0030 9 40 0 19 sp. 0 45 2 10 1 0 0 0 7 29 40 16 7 0 157 sp. 0 0 0 100 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 100 0040 0 00 0 5 sp. 0 0 0 000 0040 0 00 0 4 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 2 00 3 5 sp. 0 0 0 300 1010 0 00 0 5 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 20 0 2 sp. 0 180 5 010 0000 76 5110 sp. 0 0 0 300 0040 0 00 0 7 sp. 0 0 0 100 0030 3 00 7 14 s.Patmmde 0 0 0 000 0010 0 00 0 1 midges Phantom sp. sp. 0 7 0 000 0010 0 00 0 8 s.Caefis0 0 0 flies 010 0000 0 00 1 2 Crane sp. sp. Crawling water gr. sp. 0 2 1020 0 0 40 1200 1 22 sp. 0 0 0 100 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 36 0 2 70 0 0 0 27 7 43 10 4 7 206 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 1 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 0 400 0000 0 00 0 4 sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 gr. frequens Culicoides Forcipomyia Probezzia Sphaeromias Hexatoma Pilaria Bezzia/Palpomyia Peltodytes Chaoborus Radotanypus Rheosmittia Smittia Stempellina Synorthocladius Hemerodromia Pericoma Simulium Tipula Antillocladius Cladopelma Clinotanypus Coelotanypus Corynoneura Epoicocladius Fissimentum Harnischia Pagastiella Parachironomus Parachironomus Phaenopsectra longimana Potthastia (1) Tipulidae Haliplidae pyrdeBiefis0 0 0 flies 000 2000 0 00 0 2 Brine Ephydridae Chaoboridae Empididae scoia ohadsn le00 0 000 0000 1 00 0 1 flies0 sand 0 0 0 and flies 100 0000 0 00 0 0 0 0 1 001 5010 0 Moth 30 1 11 Marsh Psychodidae Blackflies Sciomyzidae Simuliidae Tipulidae 0 1 0 100 0000 1 00 0 3 Chironomidae eaoooia 0 0 0 000 0001Ceratopogonidae 0 00 0 1 Cont. itr Athericidae 1 0 0Diptera 000 0000 1 02 0 4 Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family Insecta—Cont. Coleoptera— Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

30 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Total t Nationalt 0 0 00 0 0 000 0001 00 000 00 4000 0 0 01001125 0 1 010 0000 0 86 0 15 0 0 00 000 0000 0 0 0 30 0 000 6000 3 0 00 0 6 1 0 2 200 0001 0 11 0 8 304 2152001590016167 0 0 0 000 0001 0 00 0 1 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 2 0 0 020 0011 35 2 5139 igs0 0 1Midges 000 0000 0 61 2 10 gr. 0 4 0 1 300 1080 28 1100 sp. sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 0 1 1 213 0041 3 70 8 31 sp. 00 0 0 0 52 0 1400360200 gr. gr. gr. 0 0 0 010 0000 0 50 0 6 sp. 0 121 8 16 2 0 7 0 8 13 108 20 5 0 308 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 1 40 0 5 sp. 0 27 1 0 9 0 0 0 5 19 90 30 2 0 183 sp. sp. 0 0 0 700 0000 0 00 0 7 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 064 2000000121551669 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 20 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 0 10 0 1 sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 123 4 269 742 1080 2717117 sp. 0 0 0 110 0000 0 00 0 2 sp. 0 2 4 220 3087 2 55 2 42 sp. 0073 6 00 0 2 5 110100 44 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 1 00 0 1 sp. 0 0 8020 0 0 00 1100 1 22 sp. 0 2 0 000 0000 0 00 0 2 sp. 0 0 0 000 0000 1 53 3 12 sp. 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 2 26 21 20 1 4 109 sp. 0 64 0 0 0 1 1 0 23 47 24 30 92 4 286 sp. 0 0 0 300 0000 0 00 0 3 sp. 100 40020120215229 sp. 2 1 0 101 0000 1 00 0 6 sp. 0 1 0 000 0000 0 00 0 1 sp. 1 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 66 11 2 0 101 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 teracoluthus) (Euorthocladius) sp. Procladius Ablabesmyia Labrundinia Labrundinia johannseni Labrundinia pilosella Larsia Nilotanypus fimbriatus Nilotanypus Pentaneura Cricotopus bicinctus Cricotopus Lopescladius Nanocladius Nanocladius (Plecop- Nanocladius minimus Orthocladius Zavrelimyia Orthocladius Cryptotendipes sp. 0 3 0 000 0000 0 01 0 4 Chironomus Cryptochironomus Cryptotendipes Dicrotendipes Goeldichironomus Glyptotendipes Nilothauma Paracladopelma Paratendipes Polypedilum convictum Polypedilum Unniella Zavreliella Parametriocnemus Rheocricotopus vitracies Tvetenia Xylotopus par Thienemanniella Thienemannimyia (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Class Order Family Insecta—Cont. Diptera—Cont. Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

Table 4 31 Total t Nationalt 2010 0 00 0 7 0 0 1 200 0043 0 60 3 19 0 0 3010 0 61 0 00 6800 10 32700 73 2 91 0120 00020170 0 4 0 70 100 344 0060 1522288 0 10 0 1 0 0 012 7 0001 1 00 0 0 5 8 0 18 3 0 3 154 19 5 13 44 0 11 2 0 399 7 5 17 274 0 0 0 000 0070 00 100 00 000 1 00000 0 8 0 00 4330 0 00 2 10 0 00 3400 0 0 46 100 0000 0 00 3 4 6632 694 335 79 716 35 359 93 66 544 121 60 784 420 36 1,258 1,314 527 66 555 12 7,786 94 54 99 108 64 86 242

sp. 0 6 2 210 0021 1 12 1 19 gr. 0 3 0 100 0100 0 01 2 8 sp. 0 0 0 000 0060 0 10 5 12 sp. 1 1 2 9 130 3081 44 1140 sp. 1 0002 78 2082 0 3 311100 sp. sp. 1 3 0 15 15 2 0 10 1 0 27 0 0 85 0 3 1 0 9 17 85 3 3 8 5 11 249 1 0 56 Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID sp. 4 98 0026 23120 0 16250100 gr. sp. 1 20 44 24 4 1 4 0 15 13 21 58 17 27 249 sp. 0 3 0 100 0010 0 00 1 6 Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 TC-2 VC-3 VC-10 VC-11 nigrohalterale gr. gr. gr. perpulchra caffrarius xenolabis Rheotanytarsus Stempellinella Tanytarsus Parakiefferiella Paralauterborniella Pseudochironomus Cladotanytarsus Polypedilum fallax Polypedilum halterale Polypedilum Polypedilum illinoense Polypedilum flavum Polypedilum scalaenum Polypedilum tritum Polypedilum Stelechomyia Stenochironomus Stictochironomus Stictochironomus Tribelos jucundumTribelos fuscicorne Tribelos Xenochironomus (8) (9) aaia os n erfis 1 0 010 0000 0 00 0 2 flies0 deer and Horse Tabanidae Dolichopodidae Long-legged flies 0 1 0 3 0 0 Taxonomic classification of benthic Taxonomic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual 14 taxa bioassessment for reaches, Big Thicke Subfamily Ceratopogoninae. SubfamilyProcladiini. , tribe Tribe Natarsiini. Pentaneurini.Tribe Subfamily Orthocladiinae. Orthocladiini.Tribe Subfamily Chronominae,Chironomini. tribe Pseudochironomini.Tribe Tanytarsini.Tribe Class Order Family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Number of benthic macroinvertebrates insects aquatic of Number 76 805 436 1,081 411 105 724 123 882 426 1,426 1,507 543 693 9,238 Number of aquatic insect taxa insect aquatic of Number Insecta—Cont. Diptera—Cont. Table 4. Table Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued Preserve, Texas,

32 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 -6 7.79 x 10 x 7.79 -4 1.22 x 10 -4 1.68 x 10 x 1.68 -5 6.95 x 10 -4 1.18 x 10 x 1.18 -4 10 X 6.28 -5 10 X 3.20 3.20 -5 10 X 6.44 -5 10 Bioassessment reach ID X 5.04 -4 10 X 1.43 -5 10 X 5.95 -5 10 X , square kilometers; NA, not available] available] not NA, kilometers; square , 2 1.06 -4 10 X 1.34 -4 10 X 1.95 -5 10 X .68 1.24.63 .92 .78 3.02 .92 .97 2.2 .58 NA NA 1.95 1.90 1.83 1.98 1.80 2.49 1.82 2.36 2.46 1.02 2.33 1.27 .98 1.00 1.16 1.87 1.01 1.75 5.65 4.41 .84 12.9 5.79 4.25 25.3 24.7 21.7 5.22 5.05 2.93 3.28 3.27 2.95 7.89 6.96 4.73 15.1 NA NA 25.5 25.0 22.6 11.2 10.8 5.92 7.21 6.89 7.19 BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 VC1 VC3 VC10 VC11 11.8 9.36 5.10 40.9 14.1 15.5 86.1 67.4 96.5 10.7 9.79 8.51 16.7 23.4 41.0 21.9 38.7 17.8 58.7 22.2 41.1 103 91.8 88.6 29.5 21.8 23.9 30.4 36.3 78.2 93.1 93.8 97.7 83.7 93.1 92.3 68.7 69.3 72.8 90.4 90.8 94.9 94.3 94.9 94.4 83.1 83.5 92.1 77.4 NA NA 59.4 59.6 62.6 79.8 80.4 85.2 84.0 85.3 84.4 113 117 159 866 104 161 1,170 926 908 161 186 134 241 455 477 280 389 239 1,620 227 391 19,900 20,400 23,600 367 391 700 593 838 1,120 113 75.2 92.4 487300 81.2 197 101 182 962 0 639 300 509 149 115 21.4 107 0 77.2 161 0 363 93.0 191 48.3 157 95.5 57.2 176 Stream-habitat and land-use 15 data 1999–2001 bioassessment for reaches, NationalBig Thicket Preserve, Texas, (m)

) 2 Table 5 use variable length (m) index land use (1970) land use (1990s) land agricultural use (1970s) channel width (m) agricultural land land agricultural use (1990s) channel width (m) land use (1970s) (km land use (1990s) Stream-habitat measure or land- or measure Linear reach length length reach Linear Curvilinear reach structure Reach Reach sinuosityReach slope 100 1.65 155 172 177 127 160 121 145 178 140 173 174 149 125 249 Percentage urban Percentage urban Percentage Bank height (m)3.653.302.197.463.544.0710.95.977.233.644.263.564.335.624.12 height Mean bank slopeBank .074 wetted Mean .082 .067 .079 .084 .092 .034 .047 .065 .101 .083 .094 .075 .074 .053 Percentage Mean bank-full bank-full Mean Percentage forest Channel incision area Drainage .055 .026 .032 .039 .054 .031 .033 .025 .029 .037 .045 .047 .028 .044 .011 Percentage forest Table 5. Table 2description; for[See data table m, meters; km

Table 5 33 Moring— Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and —USGS WRIR 03–4270 Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001