Update on Preliminary Sampling Activities

INSTREAM FLOWS RESEARCH AND VALIDATION METHODOLOGY FRAMEWORK

EXPERT WORKSHOP JULY 29, 2017

OVERVIEW

• Funded - Texas Water Development Board • Via the SB3 BBASC process • 1st round – 2014-2015 • 2nd round – 2016-2017

• Three major basins • Guadalupe – San Antonio Basin • Colorado – Lavaca Basin • Brazos Basin – including Brazos Estuary

• Project goals: • To enhance the understanding of flow-ecology relationships in the three major basins • To initiate the process for developing a methodology for testing established flow standards ECOLOGICAL COMPONENTS

• Aquatic • Riparian • Oxbow Connectivity • Brazos Estuary SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS BRAZOS ESTUARY

- George Guillen Brazos Estuary Characterization Influence of Freshwater Inflow on Nekton of the Brazos River Estuary

George Guillen, Jenny Oakley, Mandi Moss and Cory Scanes and Tyler Swanson Environmental Institute of Houston University of Clear Lake BBASC Meeting San Antonio, TX, June 28, 2017 Alber (2002) Sediments Nutrients

Salinity Biota Positive Salt-Wedge Estuary

Salt-wedge and Turbidity Maxima – another effect of the salt wedge and freshwater mixing science.kennesaw.edu Many juvenile organisms require access to upstream tidal creeks and rivers.

Deegan 1985 6/30/2017 10 Freshwater Inflow vs. Salinity, Dissolved oxygen, Biota

Day6/30/2017 et al. 1989 11 Freshwater inflow creates a mosaic of habitat for both freshwater and marine organisms

Nybakken and Bertness 2004 6/30/2017 12 Default Freshwater Inflow Standards for Brazos River Estuary is the freshwater inflow standard for this gage site Study Objectives

1. Characterize the estuarine flow regime, and water quality (salinity, dissolved oxygen) - Phase 1 and 2 2. Quantify species composition, distribution and density of juvenile and adult nekton, and 3. Validate environmental flow recommendations in the lower tidal portion of the Brazos River using historical AND current data. Data Collection

 Historical  Johnson 1977 (Feb 1973-Jan 1975)  Kirkpatrick 1979 – limited summer 1977 data  Emitte 1983 – limited survey 1982  Miller 2014 (2012 nekton data)  Phase 1: (Nov. ‘14 – May ’15 – 10 events)  Phase 2: (Dec. ‘16-May ‘17 - 6 events) Study Area Methods • USGS flows at Rosharon gage = “index” of the flow regime in the lower estuary. Compliance point for flow standard.  Reviewed historical data  Evaluated surface and bottom water temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen versus flow regime   salinity and dissolved oxygen (bottom – surface values) index of stratification calculated.  Evaluate response of nekton to changing flow, salinity and dissolved oxygen Current Study

• 5 primary sites; 1, 10, 22, 31, 42 rkm; 4 secondary sites (Nov 2014 - May 2015; Dec 16- May ‘17) • Monitored various flow tiers. • Trawling – (3 rep) 10 ft, 5 minute tow, ¼” mesh; (3 rep) 4 ft wide, 1/8” mesh in cod –end. • Renfro Beam trawl – shoreline. Each primary site (3 reps; 1/8 inch mesh). • Water quality profiles – 1, 5, 10, 15, 22, 25, 31, 36, and 42 rkm, temp, pH, sal, DO, NTU • Continuous monitoring sondes: rkm 10, 22, 36 Methods

• Sampling limited to periods < 10,000 cfs for safety and logistical operation • Biological data exploration: PRIMER - cluster analysis, NMDS, ANOSIM. • Linear (linear, quadratic, cubic) – salinity vs. flow • ANOVA – variable, flow X rkm • Limited comparisons with historical data – flow regime Preliminary Results

Focus on most recent study 100,000 2014-15 2ps 2ps 2ps 2ps

4ps 4ps

10,000

Wet

Average 1,000 Dry

Subsistence 100 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

2012 100,000 1ps 1ps USGS Rosharon Gage 2ps Base Flow 3ps Event: HFP Event: Base/Sub Flow

10,000

Wet

Mean Daily Discharge (cfs) Average 1,000 Dry

Subsistence 100 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Miller 2012 Phase 1 Phase 2

Salinity (psu) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)

0.2 April 1 - 2ps April 1 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 April 28 - 2ps April 28 - 2ps 0.4 Current Study 0.6 0.8

0.2 Feb 4 - 2ps Feb 4 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 May 6 - 2ps May 6 - 2ps 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 Dec 9 - 4ps Dec 9 - 4ps 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 Jan 6 - 4ps Jan 6 - 4ps % of Total Depth 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 Feb 18 - Avg Feb 18 - Avg 0.4 0.6 0.8

0.2 Nov 11 - Dry Nov 11 - Dry 0.4 0.6 0.8

B42 B36 B31 B26 B22 B15 B10 B05 B01 B42 B36 B31 B26 B22 B15 B10 B05 B01

0 15 30 12 6 2 Salinity psu DO (mg/L) (Six Dates: Dec. '16- May '17) Trawl Nekton - Dec '16 - May '17 Group average Transform: Square root Resemblance: S17 Bray-Curtis similarity 0 Cluster b c 20 a

S 60

100

2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1

2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 4 2 4 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 4 River km

(Six Dates: Dec. '16- May '17) Shallow Water Nekton - Dec '16 - May '17 Group average Transform: Square root Resemblance: S17 Bray-Curtis similarity 0 Site 1 20 10 22 31 42 y 40

S 60

100

5 1 0 1 1 1 0 5 1 4 4 4 1 4 1 4 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 1 0

/ / / / / / / / / /

1 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2

/ 2 / / 2 2 / / 2 / / / / / 5 / / / / / 5 5 / / 2 / 5 5 /

3 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 5 5 5 1 5 5 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 2

1 1 1 1 River km

Current Study (Phase 1) and Miller (2014) combined. Significant relationship between salinity vs. flow tier and discharge Current (Phase 1) and Miller 2014 Study: Otter and Beam Trawl

NMDS plot for nekton abundance (log+1 transformed with Bray-Curtis resemblance) from 2012 and 2014-15 using combined otter trawl and beam trawl data. Relationships by Flow Tier (from top right to bottom left) and Site location (from bottom right to top left) are shown with general trend lines. Points are labeled by Flow Tier Category (1=Subsistence flow 2=dry base flow, 3=average wet flow, 5=four per season, 7=two per season events, and 8=one per season.. Conclusions  Salinity and dissolved oxygen responds rapidly to changes in freshwater inflow.  Prob. of hypoxia lower when flow is high and salt wedge is reduced or pushed downstream  Species composition sensitive to salinity but some species exhibit strong seasonal response, i.e. overall proportion of each species may be less sensitive = broad tolerance to salinity changes?  Latitudinal gradients related to salinity and dissolved oxygen are likely interacting with strong seasonal pulses of juvenile fish. Recommended Future Work

 Targeted investigation of flow tiers during summer /early fall months: currently lacking; critical period for dissolved oxygen  Mark/recapture, length freq, otolith aging to evaluate growth of immigrating YOY fish vs. flow regime  Stable isotope analysis – assess contribution of upstream nutrients to estuarine juvenile fauna  Response of larval fish and zooplankton communities to flow regime - ongoing  Telemetry of larger fauna (alligator, juvenile bull shark) Acknowledgments • Funding: Biowest, TWDB, EIH, UHCL • Collaborators and Reviewers: Edmond Oborny - BioWest, Dr. Tim Bonner - TX. State University; Dr. Jacquelyn Duke – Baylor; Dr. Kirk Winemiller – TAMU Phase 1 only. • Field Assistance: Phase 1: Kristi Fazioli, Bryan Alleman, Michael Lane, Natasha Zarnstorff, Sherah Loe, Rachel Byrne, James Yokely, Josi Robertson, Nicole Morris & Raphaelita Bishara; Phase 2: Kristi, Tyler Swanson, Natasha, Sherah, James, Nicole, Raul Sarmiento, Anna Vallery, Kaylei Chau Questions? Citations  Alber, 2002. A conceptual model of estuarine freshwater inflow management. Estuaries 25(68): 1246-1261.  Anderson, J.B. 2007. Formation and future of the Upper Texas Coast.  Bird, E. 2000. Coastal Geomorphology.  Day, J.W. et al. Estuarine Ecology. 1989.  McFarlane et al. 2015. The effect of four environmental parameters on the structure of estuarine shoreline communities in TX. Ecosphere 6(12): 258  McLusky, D. and M. Elliott. 2006. The Estuarine Ecosystem.  Tolan, J.M. 2013. Estuarine fisheries community level response to freshwater inflows

Coastal and Estuarine 6/30/2017 39 Ecology SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS OXBOW CONNECTIVITY

- Brad Littrell IMPORTANCE OF FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY

• Habitat for unique floodplain specialists

• Maintains basin-level diversity

• Provides important recruitment habitat for many species Slough darter Etheostoma gracile

• Source-sink dynamics

• Periodic connection is necessary to maintain water levels and allow for biotic exchange FLOODPLAIN SPECIALISTS OTHER FLOODPLAIN INHABITANTS FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY

• Previous studies described ecological function and connection discharge for Brazos River oxbows

• No such data was available in GSA basin

• What fish communities inhabit these areas? What flows are required to connect them?

44 FLOODPLAIN CONNECTIVITY FIRST ROUND

• 7 floodplain lakes evaluated • 5 on lower Guadalupe • 2 on lower San Antonio

• Fish Community Data • Electrofishing, seining

• Connection Data • Elevation of control points and water surface • Connection discharge interpolated from nearest gauges (Osting et al. 2004) FISH COMMUNITY DATA

• Species richness ranged from 2 – 23 among floodplain collections • Fish communities significantly different between floodplain and riverine collections

100%

90%

80%

70%

Riverine Species Riverine 60% -

50%

40%

30%

20%

10% Percent Riverine vs. Non vs. Riverine Percent

% Riverine % Non-Riverine FLOODPLAIN VS. RIVERINE

Family Scientific Name Common Name Classification Lepisosteidae Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Floodplain Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Generalist Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Floodplain Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Floodplain Cyprinidae Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Riverine Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Floodplain Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Riverine Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Riverine Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Floodplain Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Riverine Catostomidae Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Riverine Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Riverine Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Riverine Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Floodplain Mugilidae Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Generalist Atherinopsidae Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Floodplain Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Floodplain Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Generalist Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Floodplain Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Floodplain Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Floodplain Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Floodplain Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Floodplain Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Generalist Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Floodplain Lepomis sp. sunfish Generalist Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Riverine Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Floodplain Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Floodplain Percidae Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Floodplain Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Floodplain Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter Riverine Cichlidae Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Generalist TEMPORAL ASSESSMENT

30000 100

Daily Max Discharge 27000 90 Connection Discharge 24000 % Riverine Species 80

21000 70

18000 60

15000 50

12000 40

9000 Riverine % Species

6000 20 Daily Maximum Maximum Daily Discharge (cfs) 3000 10

0 0

02/01/12 03/01/12 05/01/12 08/01/12 10/01/12 11/01/12 01/01/13 03/01/13 04/01/13 06/01/13 09/01/13 12/01/13 02/01/14 05/01/14 01/01/12 04/01/12 06/01/12 07/01/12 09/01/12 12/01/12 02/01/13 05/01/13 07/01/13 08/01/13 10/01/13 11/01/13 01/01/14 03/01/14 04/01/14 Date CONNECTION RESULTS FIRST ROUND

Corresponding USGS Connection Frequency of Floodplain Site Gauge Discharge (cfs) Connection Gonzales1 Guadalupe at Gonzales 2,822 5.2 / year Cuero1 Guadalupe at Cuero 1,710 6.6 / year Cuero2 Guadalupe at Cuero 207 Baseflow Victoria1 Guadalupe at Victoria 290 Baseflow Victoria2 Guadalupe at Victoria 144 Baseflow LSAR1 San Antonio at Goliad 2,740 4.0 / year LSAR2 San Antonio at Goliad >10,000 0.8 / year INTERPRETATION AND VALIDATION

• Guadalupe River floodplain habitats harbor a unique assemblage of fishes distinct from the mainstem • Connection of floodplain habitats often results in a community shift • Connection magnitudes for unique floodplain habitats can provide a direct link to evaluate pulse flow recommendations • Moving target – floodplain features constantly changing INTERPRETATION AND VALIDATION

Floodplain Lake Gonzales1 Cuero1 LSAR1 LSAR2 Connection Discharge (cfs) 2,822 1,710 2,740 >10,000

San San Guadalupe Guadalupe Antonio Antonio USGS Gage River at River at River at River at Gonzales Cuero Goliad Goliad

2/season N N - - Winter 1/season Y Y N N 2/season Y Y N N Spring TCEQ environmental flow standard pulse Seasonal 1/season Y Y - - recommendations compared to connection discharges at four Pulses 2/season N N - - Summer floodplain lakes in the lower GSA basin. 1/season N Y N N Pulse events with a “Y” had a 2/season N Y - - magnitude greater than the estimated Fall connection discharge, whereas those 1/season Y Y N N with an “N” did not. Dashes represent

- - Y N recommendations which were not Apr. - Jun. 3/period applicable at a particular gage. Large Pulses Feb. - Apr. 2/period - - Y N Jul. - Nov. 2/period - - Y N INTERPRETATION AND VALIDATION

Number of

annual connection Historical Connection Floodplain events connection Discharge USGS Gage Lake protected frequency (cfs) by TCEQ (connections/year) flow standards

Gonzales1 2,822 Guadalupe River at Gonzales 5 5.2 Cuero1 1,710 Guadalupe River at Cuero 8 6.6 LSAR1 2,740 San Antonio River at Goliad 7 4 LSAR2 >10,000 San Antonio River at Goliad 0 0.8 2016-2017 FLOODPLAIN WORK

• Focus on understanding community responses to flow

• Additional fish community data within quality floodplain habitats

• Assess change in connection magnitudes over time at established sites FISH COMMUNITY DATA

• Fish community data collected at each site visit

• Data combined with previously collected TIFP and BIO-WEST data

Cuero1 Cuero2 Victoria1 Victoria2 LSAR1 LSAR2 Total Family Scientific Name Common Name Classification # % # % # % # % # % # % # % Lepisosteidae Atractosteus spatula Alligator gar Generalist 1 0.2 1 0.1 Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Floodplain 3 0.7 1 0.3 2 0.6 1 4.8 7 0.6 Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Generalist 5 1.2 5 0.5 • 21 river collections and 18 Clupeidae Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Floodplain 65 15.2 13 4.0 2 0.6 80 7.3 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Floodplain 11 3.6 11 1.0 Cyprinidae Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Riverine 2 16.7 6 1.4 2 0.6 177 57.3 6 28.6 193 17.6 Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Floodplain 2 0.5 2 0.2 Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Riverine 9 2.1 1 0.3 10 0.9 floodplain collections Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Floodplain 1 0.2 1 0.1 Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Riverine 1 0.2 75 24.3 2 9.5 78 7.1 Catostomidae Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Riverine 10 2.3 10 0.9 Characidae Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Generalist 2 0.6 1 0.3 1 4.8 4 0.4 Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Floodplain 1 8.3 1 0.1 Atherinopsidae Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Floodplain 2 0.5 2 0.2 Fundulidae Lucania goodei Bluefin Killifish Floodplain 22 6.7 5 1.6 27 2.5 Poeciliidae Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Floodplain 13 3.0 244 74.4 9 2.9 1 50.0 9 42.9 276 25.1 Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Floodplain 29 6.8 1 0.3 30 2.7 Centrarchidae Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Floodplain 2 16.7 2 0.2 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Floodplain 4 33.3 7 1.6 4 1.2 2 0.6 17 1.5 Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Floodplain 2 16.7 103 24.1 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 50.0 1 4.8 109 9.9 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Floodplain 1 8.3 149 34.9 9 2.7 15 4.9 174 15.8 Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Generalist 5 1.2 4 1.3 1 4.8 10 0.9 Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Floodplain 28 8.5 28 2.5 Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Riverine 1 0.2 1 0.1 Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Floodplain 15 3.5 2 0.6 2 0.6 19 1.7 Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Riverine 1 0.3 1 0.1 Total Individuals 12 427 328 309 2 21 1099 Number of Species 6 19 11 16 2 7 26 TEMPORAL ASSESSMENT

% Riverine Species Riverine % 20

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 Days since last major connection FLOODPLAIN FISH COMMUNITIES

• Type A • Large and deep oxbow lakes • Strong dominance of floodplain species (gar, crappie) • Minor changes following flow pulses • Source populations for lentic adapted species in river (crappie) • EX: Cuero 2

• Type B • Shallow floodplain features • Drastic changes in fish community following pulse events • Pugnose Minnow, Bluntnose Darter, Slough Darter • EX: Gonzales 1 VICTORIA 2 CONNECTION POINT

• 4/1/2015 625 cfs VICTORIA 2 CONNECTION POINT

• 2/15/2017 1730 cfs VICTORIA 2 CONNECTION POINT

• 5/18/2017 1260 cfs REVISED CONNECTION MAGNITUDES

Connection Discharge Frequency of Floodplain Site Corresponding USGS Gauge (cfs) Connection

Gonzales1 Guadalupe at Gonzales 2,822 5.2 / year

Cuero1 Guadalupe at Cuero 1,710 6.6 / year

Cuero2 Guadalupe at Cuero 207 Baseflow

Victoria1 Guadalupe at Victoria 290 Baseflow

Victoria2 Guadalupe at Victoria 144 Baseflow REVISED CONNECTION MAGNITUDES

Connection Discharge Frequency of Floodplain Site Corresponding USGS Gauge (cfs) Connection

Gonzales1 Guadalupe at Gonzales 2,822 5.2 / year

Cuero1 Guadalupe at Cuero 1,710 6.6 / year

Cuero2 Guadalupe at Cuero 1,630 ?

Victoria1 Guadalupe at Victoria 1,450 ?

Victoria2 Guadalupe at Victoria 1,580 ?

• Revisit standards with new connection magnitudes QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS RIPARIAN

- Jacquelyn Duke RECAP ROUND 1

Indicator species

• Black Willow (Salix nigra) • Seed deposition early spring through summer

• Box Elder (Acer negundo) • Fall/overwinter

• Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) • Spring and Fall/overwinter

Credti: ncwildlife.org RECAP ROUND 1 STUDY HYPOTHESES

Riparian responses to flow: • Seedlings • Distrib vs. TCEQ /BBEST flows • Distrib vs. actual flows • Survival vs. flows • Saplings • Distrib vs. TCEQ /BBEST flows • Distrib vs. actual flows • Survival vs. flows • Mature trees • Distributions reflect TCEQ/BBEST flow coverage (80% or more) • Community • Relative abundance reflects riparian dominance TRANSECT METHOD (ROUND 1)

Pros Cons • Easily identifiable • Tedious flow linkage Species maneuvers, if needed • Tight linkage between • Indicator species must life stages and flow be present • Quick, simple field • Limited community method to characterization characterize zone • Limited community • Known distribution and temporal changes width of zone • Stats-free ROUND 2 – CORRIDOR METHOD

Community: 1) Biotic (woody and herb, wetness indicators) and abiotic (steepness, dominant soil type/class, stream sinuosity, channel width) 2) Relative Abundance of grouped species (OBL, FACW, FAC, FACU) Within Sites: 3) Community diffs between tiered groups? 4) Community diffs between spring and fall? Between Sites: 5) Community diffs between sites? 6) Community diffs result from abiotic factors? Across basins: 7) Community diffs between sites across basins?

Image Credit: geologycafe.com

Gonzales River Site Profile ROUND 2 – COMMUNITY DYNAMICS

8) Stream discharges needed to inundate plots? 9) Do Flow Tier standards align with riparian needs? Recommendations: 10) Which method (longitudinal random vs. transects) is more beneficial for long-term monitoring?

Gonzales River Site Profile SAMPLING PROCEDURES

• Parallel-to-stream tiers (lower, mid, upper) • 2X2m random plots. Min/tier=25 • In the field • Woody veg ident and counts grouped by size class: • Seedling, Sapling, Sapling older, Transition, Overstory (mature) • Herbaceous ident and counts • GPS elev. and distance to stream • Mature tree counts and distrib • CO-LN Basin: fall and spring. Brazos/GSA spring only SAMPLING PROCEDURES CONTINUED

• Stats - community differences • USGS Gauge Data and HEC-RAS modeling for site inundation

Photo Cred: Nick Castillo

Photo Cred: Casey Williams SITES – GSA BASIN

2 sites • 1 San Antonio • 1 Guadalupe . .

Guage ID Authority Location . 8188500 USGS San Antonio River at Goliad, TX . 8173900 USGS Guadalupe River at Gonzales, Tx Image Credit: TX Climate News (modified) SITES – BRAZOS BASIN

2 sites • 2 Brazos River

Guage ID Authority Location 8098450 USGS Brazos River at Hearne, Tx 8116650 USGS Brazos River at Rosharon, TX

Image Credit: TWDB (modified) SITES – CO-LN

4 sites • 1 Lower Colorado • 1 Colorado trib • 1 Navidad near Edna • 1 Lavaca trib Image Credit: TX Climate News near Ganado

Guage ID Authority Location 1925 LCRA Hydromet Colorado River at Bend, TX 8158700 USGS Onion Creek at Driftwood 8164390 USGS Navidad River at Stranes Park, Edna TX 8164450 USGS Sandy Creek at Ganado, Tx EXAMPLES OF RESULTS ONION CREEK – COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGES BY TIER

nMDS – non-metric multidimensional scaling – ordination - Orders similar objects near each other COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGES ACROSS THREE SITES

ANOSIM - analysis of similarities (non-parametric)  Compares variation in species abundance and composition among samples SIMPER STATS EXPLAINING BCCM DIFFERENCES TO CB AND TO OC

Groups BCCM & CB Average dissimilarity = 95.26 contribute most to the differentiation of BCCM and CB

Group BCCM Group CB Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Cherry laurel 1.78 0.00 17.23 1.07 18.09 18.09 Sea Oats 0.64 1.53 14.11 0.83 14.81 32.90 Smilax 0.25 0.71 6.70 0.72 7.04 39.94 Yaupon 0.76 0.00 6.40 0.73 6.72 46.66 TX persimmon 0.00 0.67 6.35 0.73 6.67 53.33 Cedar elm 0.00 0.59 5.30 0.59 5.56 58.89 Wild rye 0.00 0.48 4.50 0.40 4.73 63.62 Soapberry 0.25 0.17 3.03 0.52 3.18 66.80 Hackberry 0.00 0.35 2.82 0.53 2.96 69.75 Frost weed 0.12 0.24 2.61 0.43 2.74 72.49

Groups BCCM & OC Average dissimilarity = 92.15

Group BCCM Group OC Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% SeaOats 0.64 2.17 16.43 1.15 17.83 17.83 Cherry laurel 1.78 0.00 16.22 1.03 17.61 35.43 Yaupon 0.76 0.28 6.59 0.80 7.16 42.59 Cedar elm 0.00 0.91 6.18 0.84 6.70 49.29 Hackberry 0.00 0.81 5.85 0.92 6.35 55.65 smilax 0.25 0.35 3.89 0.62 4.22 59.87 Frostweed 0.12 0.46 3.82 0.53 4.14 64.01 Beautyberry 0.07 0.28 2.92 0.48 3.17 67.18 Goldeneye 0.00 0.31 2.75 0.41 2.99 70.17 Simper – ranks species contributions to sample (dis)similarities MATURE TREE ASSEMBLAGES ACROSS THREE SITES MATURE TREE ASSEMBLAGES ACROSS THREE SITES Groups BCCM & CB Average dissimilarity = 97.82

Group BCCM Group CB Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Juniper 0.00 5.52 12.35 2.34 12.63 12.63 Yaupon 4.62 0.00 10.13 2.81 10.36 22.98 Cedar elm 0.00 3.96 8.74 1.38 8.94 31.92 Cherry laurel 3.28 0.00 7.15 1.27 7.31 39.23 Q nigra 2.37 0.00 5.18 1.32 5.30 44.53 Water hickory 2.07 0.00 4.64 0.87 4.74 49.27 Am elm 0.00 2.09 4.43 1.63 4.53 53.80 Elm 1.80 0.00 3.94 1.30 4.03 57.83 Sycamore 1.45 0.83 3.71 0.82 3.80 61.63 Persimmon 0.00 1.72 3.71 0.96 3.79 65.42 Little elm 1.46 0.00 3.30 0.59 3.37 68.79 Green ash 0.00 1.57 3.29 0.98 3.36 72.15

Groups BCCM & NR Average dissimilarity = 71.95

Group BCCM Group NR Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Little elm 1.46 4.68 9.09 1.38 12.63 12.63 Cherry laurel 3.28 0.00 7.25 1.27 10.08 22.71 Yaupon 4.62 2.98 6.04 1.20 8.40 31.11 Hackberry 1.11 2.97 5.28 1.12 7.33 38.44 Water hickory 2.07 0.93 4.77 1.02 6.63 45.07 Q nigra 2.37 1.36 4.46 1.26 6.20 51.27 Big elm 1.42 1.29 4.45 0.94 6.18 57.45 Elm 1.80 0.00 4.00 1.30 5.56 63.01 Ash 0.30 1.40 3.54 0.62 4.92 67.93 Pecan 0.00 1.68 3.38 0.98 4.69 72.63

Groups CB & NR Average dissimilarity = 94.19

Group CB Group NR Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.% Juniper 5.52 0.00 12.81 2.24 13.60 13.60 Little elm 0.00 4.68 10.72 1.49 11.39 24.98 Cedar elm 3.96 0.00 9.06 1.35 9.62 34.60 Yaupon 0.00 2.98 6.24 1.30 6.63 41.23 Hackberry 0.52 2.97 6.16 1.21 6.54 47.77 Am elm 2.09 0.43 4.25 1.45 4.52 52.28 Persimmon 1.72 0.00 3.84 0.95 4.08 56.36 Pecan 0.83 1.68 3.63 1.00 3.85 60.21 Green ash 1.57 0.38 3.43 1.03 3.64 63.85 Ash 0.00 1.40 3.40 0.54 3.61 67.46 Bumelia 1.41 0.00 3.37 0.90 3.57 71.03 MATURE TREE ASSEMBLAGES ACROSS ALL BASINS Indicator Gonzales Box Elder Green Ash Sycamore Species Low Elevation (cfs) 3,129 231 3,912 Indicator231 GonzalesHigh Elevation DO (cfs) FLOWBox6,959 Elder STANDARDSGreen8,738 Ash Sycamore5,026 INUNDATESpecies8,738 Low Elevation (cfs) 3,129 231 3,912 Indicator231 HighGonzales Elevation (cfs) MATUREBox6,959 Elder Green8,738 Ash DISTRIBUTIONS? Sycamore5,026 Species8,738 Low Elevation (cfs) 3,129 231 3,912 231 High Elevation (cfs) 6,959 8,738 5,026 8,738 Indicator Guadalupe River at Gonzales, Gage 08173900 Gonzales Box Elder Green Ash Sycamore Species Low Elevation (cfs) 3,129 231 3,912 231 Gu Sadalupeeason River at GonzalesBase , GSmallage 08173900 Seasonal Pulse (2 Large Seasonal Pulse (1 High Elevation (cfs) 6,959 8,738 5,026 8,738 per season) per season)

GuSWintereasonadalupe River at796 GonzalesBase cfs , GSmallageTrigger: 08173900 Seasonal 1,150 Pulse cfs (2 LargeTrigger: Seasonal 4,140 Pulse cfs (1 per se ason) per season) SWintereason 796Base cfs SmallTrigger: Seasonal 1,150 Pulse cfs (2 LargeTrigger: Seasonal 4,140 Pulse cfs (1 GuSpringadalupe River at791 Gonzales cfs , GageTrigger: 08173900per se 3,250 ason) cfs Trigger:per season) 4,154 cfs Winter 796 cfs Trigger: 1,150 cfs Trigger: 4,140 cfs SSpringeason 791Base cfs SmallTrigger: Seasonal 3,250 Pulse cfs (2 LargeTrigger: Seasonal 4,154 Pulsecfs (1 Summer 727 cfs Trigger:per se 950ason) cfs Trigger:per season)1,760 cfs WinterSpring 791796 cfscfs Trigger:Trigger: 3,250 1,150 cfs cfs Trigger:Trigger: 4,154 4,140 cfs cfs Gonzales River Site Profile Summer 727 cfs Trigger: 950 cfs Trigger: 1,760 cfs

SummerSpring 727791 cfscfs Trigger:Trigger: 3,250950 cfs cfs Trigger:Trigger: 1,760 4,154 cfs cfs

Summer 727 cfs Trigger: 950 cfs Trigger: 1,760 cfs

DO FLOW STANDARDS INUNDATE MATURE DISTRIBUTIONS?

Discharge needed to inundate Riparian Species Indicator Goliad Black Willow Box Elder Green Ash Sycamore Species Low Elevation (cfs) 19 1,669 19 19 19 High Elevation (cfs) 639 10,021 6,380 19 10,021

Gage 08188500, San Antonio River at Goliad: Subsistence Flows, Base Flows, and Small Seasonal Pulses Hydrologic Season Base Small Seasonal Pulse Condition Winter Dry 200 cfs Trigger: 1,520 cfs Frequency: 1 per season Winter Average 329 cfs Winter Wet 469 cfs Spring Dry 174 cfs Trigger: 1,570 cfs Frequency: 2 per season Spring Average 313 cfs

Spring Wet 502 cfs Gage 08188500, San Antonio River at Goliad:Large Large Pulses Pulses Summer Dry 139 cfs Trigger: 1,640 cfs Time Period Frequency Trigger Frequency: 1 per season Summer Average 237 cfs 3 per time period April through June 4,000 cfs Summer Wet 481 cfs 2 per time period Fall Dry 167 cfs Trigger: 2,320 cfs February through April 4,000 cfs July through 2 per time period Fall Average 280 cfs 8,000 cfs November Fall Wet 584 cfs

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Pros and Cons for Corridor Method and Recommendations to come… QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION SAMPLING ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS AQUATICS

- Timothy Bonner Flow Tiers (2016 - 2017)

GSA Brazos Colorado Total Sites 7 6 5 18 Visits 18 40 26 84

Subsistence 0 0 0 0 Base 0 1 11 12 Flow Pulses 18 39 15 68 4 / season - 4 - 4 3 / season - 9 - 5 2 / season 2 7 8 17 1 / season 11 12 4 27 1 / year 1 1 3 5 1 / 2 year 1 1 0 2 1 / 5 year 3 5 0 8 Aquatics (2016 - 2017)

• Sampled habitats (N = 224, 400 unique samples) • 66 riffles • 79 runs • 56 backwaters • 23 pools • Fishes: 57 species, N = 21,668 • Aquatic macroinvertebrates (174 Hess samples) • 8 orders; N = 65,924 Flow Tiers (2014 - 2017)

GSA Brazos Colorado Total Sites 7 6 5 18 Visits 59 68 26 153

Subsistence 1 3 0 4 Base 21 16 11 48 Flow Pulses 37 49 15 103 4 / season - 6 - 6 3 / season - 9 - 9 2 / season 5 12 8 27 1 / season 22 14 4 40 1 / year 5 2 3 10 1 / 2 year 1 1 0 2 1 / 5 year 4 5 0 9 Aquatics (2014 - 2017)

• Sampled habitats (N = 362, 716 seine hauls) • 130 riffles • 153 runs • 56 backwaters • 23 pools • Fish: 59 species; N = 43,349 • Aquatic macroinvertebrates (379 Hess samples) • 8 orders; N = 115,228 Lower Brazos River – Hempstead and Rosharon

160000 Hempstead 140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

Discharge (CFS) Discharge 40000

20000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Date Lower Brazos River

3.5 Preflood 3.0 Post flood

2.5 D pre > D post

) P < 0.03

2 2.0

1.5

1.0

Fish density (fish/m density Fish 0.5

0.0

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Lower Brazos River

100 Preflood Post flood 80 b = -11.1 P < 0.01 60

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Lower Brazos River

100 Preflood Post flood

80 b = 11.9 P < 0.01

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Lower Brazos River

Maintenance flows?

100 Preflood Post flood

80 b = 11.9 P < 0.01

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative Resetting flows? 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Inverts

100

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

20 Preflood Post flood

0 S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier

Lower GSA – Gonzales, Cuero, Goliad

60000 Cuero 50000

40000

30000

20000

Discharge (CFS) Discharge 10000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Date Riffle habitats – Overall density

4 Preflood Post flood 3

)

Fish density (fish/m density Fish

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

35 Preflood 30 Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 5

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

100 Preflood Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

100 Preflood Post flood 80

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats – Overall density

25 Preflood Post flood 20

) 2 15

Fish density (fish/m density Fish

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats

120

100

Preflood 40 Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Inverts

100

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

20 Preflood Post flood

0 S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier

Upper GSA (Guadalupe River, Medina River)

30000 Comfort 25000

20000

15000

10000

Discharge (CFS) Discharge 5000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Date Riffle habitats – Overall density

16 Preflood Post flood 14

)

2 12

Fish Density (fish/m Fish Density 4

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

Preflood Post flood 40

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

100

Preflood Post flood 80

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

0 S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

16 Preflood Post flood 14

)

2 12

Fish Density (fish/m Fish Density 4

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

60 Preflood Post flood 50

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 10

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Inverts

100

Relative abundance (%)

20 Preflood Post flood

0 S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats – Overall density

50 Preflood Post flood 40

) 2 30

Fish density (fish/m density Fish

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats

100

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

0 Preflood Post flood

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Teir Run habitats

100 Preflood Post flood 80

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Teir

Upper Little River – Lampasas and Leon rivers

7000 Lampasas River-Kempner 6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Discharge (CFS) Discharge

1000

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Date Riffle habitats – overall density

2.5

Preflood 2.0 Post flood

) 2 1.5

1.0

0.5

Fish density (fish/m Fish density

0.0

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

40 Preflood Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

Preflood 8 Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

Preflood 30 Post flood

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 5

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Riffle habitats

100 Preflood Post flood 80

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Inverts

100

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative

20 Preflood Post flood

0 S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats – Overall density

) 2 15

Fish density (fish/m density Fish

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Run habitats

120

100

Relative abundance (%) abundance Relative 20

S B 4 S 3 S 2 S 1 S 1 Y 1 in 2 >1 in 5 Tier Observations

• Support for some predictions: • Lower Brazos River (more similar to historical fish community) • % Burrhead Chub positively associated with flow tiers • % Central Stoneroller negatively associated with flow tiers • % EPT positively associated with flow tiers

• Some surprises (opposite of predictions): • % Darters negatively associated with flow tiers • % Blacktail Shiner positively associated with flow tiers or no effect • Improves our understanding on how organisms respond to flows Observations

• Support for e-flow standards • Lower GSA associated with Burrhead Chub abundances (1 S) • Lower Brazos—maybe with maintenance flow following a resetting flow (not a standard) • Upper Brazos River inverts (1 S)

• Colorado River drainage, San Marcos, Cibolo Creek, Navasota River, Little River ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS VALIDATION METHODOLOGY APPLICATION

- Ed Oborny ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

• Two main objectives • To inform and refine validation methodologies with the goal of having a scientifically defensible approach for testing TCEQ environmental flow standards. • To provide the BBASC with information on how application of these methodologies might validate or suggest refinement for existing TCEQ flow standards at select basin sites. PRELIMINARY STUDY CONCLUSIONS • Brazos Estuary • Established baseline characterization • Relationship to flow at Rosharon gage remains inconclusive at this time. • Oxbow Connectivity • Good ecological indicator relative to pulse flows, water quality. • Most recent oxbows connected with existing TCEQ flow standards. • Riparian • Good ecological indicator relative to pulse flows. • Larger pulses than established TCEQ flow standards are generally needed to support the existing riparian communities. PRELIMINARY STUDY CONCLUSIONS • Aquatics • Fish and macroinvertebrates are: • Good ecological indicators for water quality. • Ecological indicators for pulse flows within the range of the TCEQ flow standards inconclusive (Exceptions – Burrhead Chub). • Major flood events shape the aquatic community. • Follow up monitoring after major shifts might serve as the ecological linkage of fish and macroinvertebrates to smaller pulses. • Freshwater mussels may be a good aquatic ecological indicator relative to pulse flows. ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS PROPOSED VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

• Standardized approach • Incorporates multiple ecological components • Simplified field and desktop activities • Level I – Aquatic Community • Level II – Floodplain Connectivity • Level III – Riparian Community • Level IV - ??? Future SB3 components ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS PROPOSED VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

• Level I – Aquatic Community • Subsistence, base • Community indices, fluvial specialists, etc. • Level II – Floodplain Connectivity • Pulse flows • Floodplain aquatic community • Level III – Riparian Community • Pulse flows • Full riparian community ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS PROPOSED VALIDATION METHODOLOGY

• Potential Application - Example • Guadalupe River at Gonzales (TCEQ Standards) • Level I – both subsistence and base could be lower and still ecologically support the existing aquatic community. • Level II – 1/season pulses prescribed meet oxbow connectivity and timing for ecological response. Slight adjustment from 1,410 cfs to above 1,800 cfs for Fall 2/season pulses would add connectivity. • Level III – pulses prescribed are insufficient to support the full riparian community or push back upland species. ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS FUTURE RESEARCH AND MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

• SB3 Applied Research • Post flood community shift aquatics • Freshwater mussels • Channel morphology • Long-term Monitoring • Each component • Select sites in each basin TRINITY RIVER AUTHORITY SB3 WORKPLAN INSTREAM FLOW ACTIVITIES

- Webster Mangham QUESTIONS / COMMENTS?

• Acknowledgements • Landowners • TWDB • River Authorities • BBASC and BBEST • TPWD and TCEQ • Volunteers