National Park Service 

 U.S. Department of the Interior 

 Natural Resource Program Center 

Natural Resources Foundation Report 

Big Thicket National Preserve 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/180 
ON THE COVER

Photographs of Big Thicket National Preserve by: Robert Sobczak 
Natural Resources Foundation Report 

Big Thicket National Preserve 

Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/180 

Robert Sobczak 

Big Cypress National Preserve 

33100 Tamiami Trail East 

Ochopee, Florida 34141 

James C. Woods 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Geological Resources Division 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

Greg Eckert 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Biological Resources Management Division 

1201 Oak Ridge Dr. 

Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 

Ellen Porter 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Air Quality Division 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

David L. Vana-Miller 

National Park Service 

Natural Resources Program Center 

Water Resources Division 

P.O. Box 25287 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

 February 2010 

 U.S. Department of the Interior 

 National Park Service 

 Natural Resource Program Center 

 Fort Collins, Colorado 
ii 

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public. 

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and many contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of 

management applicability. 

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data. 

 

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report are those of 

the authors and do not necessarily reflect policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department 

of the Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement 

or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. 

This report is available from the Water Resources Division website 

(http://www.nature.nps.gov/water/wrdpub.cfm) and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM ). 

Please cite this publication as: 

Sobczak, R., G. Eckert, J. Woods, E. Porter, and D. Vana-Miller. 2010. Natural resources 

foundation report: Big Thicket National Preserve. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/NRPC/WRD/NRR—2010/180. National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center, 

Fort Collins, Colorado. 

NPS 341/101187, February 2010 
iii 

Contents

 Page 

Figures................................................................................................vi 

Tables................................................................................................viii 

Executive Summary.................................................................................ix 

Acknowledgments................................................................................xviii 

Introduction...........................................................................................1 

 Purpose Statement...........................................................................3 

 Significance Statements....................................................................3 

Natural Resources Planning........................................................................5 

 The Natural Resources Foundation Report and its Objectives........................6 

 

Description of Natural Resources..................................................................7 

 Climate.......................................................................................7 

Physiography/Geology/Soils..............................................................7 

Vegetation..................................................................................15 

 Hydrography...............................................................................17 

Surface Water Hydrology................................................................18 

 Ground Water Hydrology................................................................23 

 Water Quality..............................................................................25 

 Wetlands and Riparian Areas............................................................33 

 Floodplains.................................................................................34 

 Air Quality..................................................................................35 

 Biological Resources.....................................................................37 

 
iv 

Fundamental Natural Resources and Values....................................................45 

 Fundamental Resource: Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems.....45 

 What Is the Importance of Flowing Water and Associate Dependent 

 Systems to the Preserve?...............................................................46 

 What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends 

 of Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems 

 Within the Preserve?.....................................................................51 

 What Are the Current and Potential Threats to Flowing Water 

 and Associated Dependent Systems Within the Preserve?...........57 

 Who Are the Stakeholders Who have an Interest in Flowing 

 Water and Associated Dependent Systems?.................................63 

 Which Laws and Policies Apply to Flowing Water and Associated 

 Dependent Systems, and What Guidance do the Laws 

 and Policies Provide?.....................................................................67 

 Fundamental Resource: The Thicket....................................................74 

What Is the Importance of the Thicket to the Preserve?...........................74 

 What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends of the 

 Thicket Within the Preserve?........................................................75 

 What Are the Current and Potential Threats to the Thicket Within the 

Preserve?.......................................................................................77 

 Who Are the Stakeholders Who Have an Interest in the 

 Thicket?.........................................................................................78 

 Which Laws and Policies Apply to the Thicket, and What Guidance 

 Do the Laws and Policies Provide?...............................................79 

 Fundamental Value: Scientific Value.................................................. 82 

What Is the Importance of Scientific Value to the Preserve?.................. 82 

What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends 

 of Scientific Value within the Preserve?.......................................82 
v 

 What Are the Current and Potential Threats to Scientific Value 

 Within the Preserve?.....................................................................83 

 Who Are the Stakeholders Who Have an Interest in the Scientific 

 Value of the Preserve?..................................................................83 

 Which Laws and Policies Apply to Scientific Value, and What 

 Guidance Do the Laws and Policies Provide?..............................84 

Climate Change and Big Thicket National Preserve...........................................85 

Literature Cited......................................................................................89 

Appendix 

Unifying Concepts in River Ecology and the Neches River..................................99 

 
vi 

Figures 

 Page 

Figure A. Cross-sectional view of the floodplain along riparian corridors 

 in Big Thicket National Preserve...................................................xii 

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Big Thicket National Preserve 

 and its units in southeastern Texas................................................... 2 

Figure 2. Maps of the Big Thicket region in relation to major physiographic 

 zones of Texas and Big Thicket National Preserve in relation 

 to various definitions of the Big Thicket............................................ .4 

Figure 3. The National Park Service framework for planning and decision making..... .5 

Figure 4. Annual minimum temperatures for Texas and annual average 

 temperature for Beaumont, TX....................................................... 7 

Figure 5. Three-dimensional and surficial diagrams of the geologic formations 

 of Big Thicket National Preserve.....................................................10 

Figure 6. Major drainage basins of Texas with a more detailed view of the major 

 drainages that comprise Big Thicket National Preserve.......................... 18 

Figure 7. Map showing the four major watersheds that comprise Big Thicket 

 National Preserve and the locations of the Neches River Saltwater 

 Barrier, B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir and Sam Rayburn Reservoir............... 19 

Figure 8. Weekly-calculated median discharge rates for major monitored 

 waterways in and near Big Thicket National Preserve............................20 

Figure 9. Ten-year average annual and half-year flow volume comparison 

 of the Neches River, Village Creek, Pine Island Bayou, Menard 

 Creek and the Trinity River............................................................ 21 

Figure 10. Average annual rainfall across the United States.................................22 

Figure 11. Seasonal rainfall distribution at Town Bluff.......................................22 

Figure 12. Annual and seasonal distribution of rainfall at Town Bluff.....................23 

Figure 13. Generalized location of the Gulf Coast Aquifer and its component 

 aquifers near Beaumont and the Preserve..........................................24 

Figure 14. State-designated, stream segment identifiers for Preserve waterways.........28 
vii 

Figure 15. Trends in ozone concentrations, Beaumont, TX.................................35 

Figure 16. Map showing location of Big Thicket National Preserve and counties 

 Designated nonattainment for the ozone standard................................36 

Figure 17. Comparison of average weekly discharge in the Neches River 

 and average monthly rainfall at Town Bluff......................................46 

Figure 18. Calendar graph of weekly rain recorded at B.A. Steinhagen 

 Reservoir depicting extreme flood and drought events..........................47 

Figure 19. Cross-sectional view of the floodplain along riparian corridors 

 in the Preserve.........................................................................48 

Figure 20. Peak weekly stage of the Neches River near Evadale, 1995-2007............50 

Figure 21. Annual flow rate summary and historic discharge volume of 

 Village Creek at Kountze............................................................52 

Figure 22. Annual flow rate summary and historic discharge volume of the 

 Neches River at Evadale............................................................52 

Figure 23. Locations of current dams and saltwater barriers in or adjacent 

 to the Lower Neches River System.................................................54 

Figure 24. Existing and proposed dams and reservoirs on the Neches River.............58 

Figure 25. Hydrograph showing weekly median flow for the 25-year periods 

 before and after construction of Town Bluff Dam on the Neches River......60 

Figure 26. Peak weekly flow rates for the Neches River and Village Creek..............61 

Figure 27. Generalized map of proposed additions to the Preserve as 

 introduced under H.R. 5891 by Congressman Kevin Brady 

 on April 16, 2008.....................................................................63 
viii 

Tables

 Page 

Table 1. County residence and acreage of units of Big Thicket National 

 Preserve....................................................................................3 

Table 2. Generalized stratigraphic formations in the vicinity of Big 

 Thicket National Peserve................................................................9 

Table 3. The 303(d)-listed streams (defined by stream segment) within 

 the Preserve..............................................................................31 

Table 4. Wetland types and acreage within Big Thicket National Preserve...............34 
ix 

Executive Summary

In accordance with the NPS 2004 Park Planning Program Standards, parks are to prepare a 

Foundation for Park Planning and Management (Foundation Document) that describes its 

purpose, significance, primary interpretive themes and special mandates, identifying and 

analyzing those resources and values determined to warrant primary consideration (Fundamental

and Important Resources and Values) in park planning and management. The Foundation 

Document may be developed as the first phase of a park’s general management planning process 

or independently of the General Management Plan. 

This Natural Resources Foundation Report is designed to support development of the 

Foundation Document for Big Thicket National Preserve (Preserve) and to be used as a reference 

for the General Management Plan, as needed. 

The primary objectives of this report are to: 

1) Provide background information for the Preserve’s natural resources; 

2) Analyze the importance, current condition, related trends and issues/threats for natural 

resource-based, fundamental resources that are critical to achieving the Preserve’s purpose 

and maintaining its significance; and, 

3) Define the relevant laws and policies that support management decisions for the fundamental 

resources and identify stakeholder interests. 

Big Thicket National Preserve

Big Thicket National Preserve is a 106,384-acre national park unit located in southeastern Texas, 

approximately 75 miles northeast of Houston. The Preserve is composed of 15 units scattered 

over seven counties, a 3,500 mi2

 area, and has been referred to as a ‘string-of-pearls’ – that is, a 

series of units (pearls) connected by riparian corridors (strings). The Preserve is a remnant of the 

Big Thicket area of East Texas that originally covered approximately 3.5 million acres. Within 

this vast area, variations in geology, climate, soils, elevation and drainage have resulted in a 

nationally recognized area of high biological diversity; the Preserve is often referred to as a 

‘biological crossroads’ because it is a transition zone for four distinct vegetation types – eastern 

hardwood forest, arid southwestern desert, tropical coastal marsh, and central prairies. The 

Preserve was the first property added to the national park system based on ‘biodiversity’. 

Furthermore, the Preserve was designated a Biosphere Reserve in 1978 by the United Nations 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, in large part, because of its biological 

importance. 

Big Thicket National Preserve Purpose and Significance

The following purpose statement, which describes the specific reasons for establishing the 

Preserve, was generated during a scoping workshop in August, 2008 as part of the general 

management planning process: 

The Big Thicket National Preserve represents a portion of “the Big Thicket” in 

southeast Texas, known for its extensive biological diversity, and is dedicated to 

preserving, and enhancing the natural and ecological integrity [thereof]. The 
x 

Preserve maintains scientific and recreational values and provides for public 

enjoyment. 

Based on this purpose statement, the 2008 workshop developed the following significance 

statements: 

 

Extraordinary Combination of Habitats and Species and Their Scientific Value 

Big Thicket National Preserve, the first national preserve, was set aside for its biodiversity. The 

Preserve contains remnants of the Big Thicket of Texas and its diverse units are representative of 

the larger biogeographic region. The Preserve serves as a refuge for a combination of plants, 

animals, and natural communities that include elements from the southeast swamps, eastern 

forests, central plains, and southwest deserts. The Preserve is the only NPS unit with this 

combination of resources. The opportunities for scientific research at the Preserve include the 

study of biodiversity and disturbance resulting from land uses and natural phenomena (e.g., 

hurricanes and fires). 

Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems 

Big Thicket National Preserve has an extensive, dynamic system of hydrologic processes and 

associated dependent systems important to maintain the diverse yet specific 

ecological make-up of the Big Thicket. These include contiguous riverine and wetland systems. 

The Preserve provides examples of blackwater systems, which are not typically found outside of 

the Amazon basin and Southeastern United States, and of rare baygall wetlands that exemplify 

the original and seemingly impenetrable Big Thicket. 

National and International Designations 

Big Thicket National Preserve has received both national and international recognition. 

Visitor Experience 

In a state where public lands are not widely available, Big Thicket National Preserve offers the 

visitor a wide array of recreational and educational opportunities in a natural setting within close 

proximity to large urban areas. 

Cultural Resources

Big Thicket National Preserve has a rich cultural history spanning centuries and cultures – 

Prehistoric to modern American Indians/Native Americans, Spanish explorers, and early settlers 

to today’s modern users. Resources include remnants of historic land use activities and 

structures, traces of travel corridors, and archeological sites. 

Fundamental Resources

It is important for NPS units to identify the fundamental resources and values critical to 

achieving a particular unit’s purpose and maintaining its significance. During the workshop in 

August, 2008, the following fundamental resources and values were identified for Big Thicket 

National Preserve: 

• Cultural Resources 

• Visitor Resources 
xi 

• The Thicket 

• Scientific Value 

• Scenic Resources 

• Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems. 

The identification of these fundamental resources and values at the Preserve helps ensure that all 

planning is focused on what is truly most significant about the Preserve. For every fundamental 

resource and value, some basic analysis is needed to identify why the resource or value is 

important, assess current conditions, potential threats and the level of stakeholder interests, and 

determine existing policy and planning guidance. Basic analyses were developed for those 

natural resource-based, fundamental resources and values; namely, Flowing Water and 

Associated Dependent Systems, The Thicket, and Scientific Value. Such analyses are needed to 

identify basic management strategies that are in place and to identify issues to be addressed in 

general management planning or other planning processes. 

Those laws and policies and the guidance they provide to these fundamental resources and 

values, and the stakeholders who have an interest in the Preserve and these fundamental 

resources and values are discussed in detail in the main body of this report. The summary, below, 

centers on the importance and current conditions of and the potential threats to these fundamental 

resources and values.

Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems

A relative even spread of rainfall throughout the year belies a distinct seasonal regime of flowing 

water in the Preserve’s riparian corridors. River and stream waters typically rise to a winter peak 

and recede during the summer into a fall baseflow condition on an average-annual basis, despite 

slightly higher rains in the summer and fall period. This seasonal trend is reflective of the 

significant role that evapotranspiration plays in the region. Absent evapotranspiration, winter 

rains are more likely to recharge the shallow ground water and augment river/stream flows. 

Similar quantities of rain in the late spring and summer either directly evaporate or fuel the rapid 

vegetation growth that is characteristic of the Big Thicket. 

Prolonged absence of rain or its short-term abundance can interrupt or enhance the seasonal 

balance between evapotranspiration and rainfall. Rainless summers hasten the desiccation of 

vegetation, expose wetland flats, parch floodplains, and reduce stream flows. Torrential 

downpours any time of the year can result in sudden and dramatic flow and stage spikes in local 

creeks, which combined with the region’s relatively poor drainage, can lead to severe flooding. 

Perhaps the most defining characteristic and process of all the waterways in the Preserve are the 

floodplain/riparian areas and the associated flood pulse. The rise and fall of river stage and flow 

sets the rhythm of the Preserve’s floodplain habitats: its bottomlands, the cypress sloughs, and 

the baygalls (see diagram below). It happens along all the creeks of the Preserve, but is most 

pronounced and at a larger scale along the main stem of the Neches. Water stage and flow, 

sediment load within the water column, and its flooding duration and seasonal timing all play 

important roles in maintaining the structure and function of the riparian corridor. Plants and 

animals that live in the river and floodplain have adapted to routine floods and the rhythm of 

soaking and drying out. 
xii 

river/creek

channel

bottomland

hardwoods

cypress

slough

baygall

river floods 

for most 

of year

river 

floods

seasonally

river

infrequently 

floods

flowing 

water

year

round

floodplain uplands

flatlands

slopes

poor

drainage

good

drainage

Not to scale

Figure A. Cross-sectional view of the floodplain along riparian corridors in Big Thicket National Preserve. 

Low ridges, backwater sloughs, oxbow lakes, and terraces break up the overall flatness of the 

floodplain. It is these slight changes in the topography of the floodplain, coupled with the 

magnitude of the flood pulse that are key determinants to the ecology of the riparian corridor. 

Closest to the river’s edge is the bottomland forests. Water moves quickly in and out of the 

bottomlands, scouring the forest floor and leaving it with a sparse under story. The closed 

canopy filters sunlight, further discouraging ground cover. 

Slightly higher in the floodplain are the swamp forests of cypress and tupelo trees, commonly 

called cypress sloughs. The sloughs retain water for most or all of the year, but regular flooding 

flushes away organic debris preventing cypress sloughs from becoming acidic. 

Bogs or seeps occur where water sinks through porous sandy soils and then hits an impermeable 

clay layer causing water to seep out to the surface. Leaching of the saturated soils creates acidic 

conditions. These acid bogs or acid seeps are usually open, grassy and rich in plant species, 

including the four kinds of carnivorous plants that occur in Texas. 

Where conditions are right, seep-fed creeks that drain bogs flow into forested swamps thick with 

evergreen shrubs (hollies and magnolias) – the baygalls. Baygalls are the highest-perched of the 

floodplain wetlands, but are considered a low-lying feature relative to the sandy uplands. River 

water infrequently floods into baygalls, where it sits there like a bowl. Often found at the 

outermost reaches of the floodplain, baygalls may also receive ground water inflow from 

adjacent uplands or spring seepage from the base of adjacent terraces. Whatever its source, 

water sits in a baygall until it dissipates through evaporation or gradual lowering. 

Wetland savannas or wet grasslands occur on claypan soils that trap rainwater but dry out in the 

summer, creating unique conditions. In such wetland savannas, stands of longleaf pines grow 

with evergreen shrubs, sedges and grasses, orchids, and carnivorous plants. These wetland 

savannas combine flatter terrain with lower elevation and include the highest numbers of plant 

species measured in any natural community in Texas, yet they are one of the rarest types of 

habitat in Texas. 

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) identifies ecologically unique stream segments 

throughout the State. Such identified stream segments are evaluated on five criteria including 

biological function; hydrologic function; riparian conservation areas; high water 
xiii 

quality/exceptional aquatic life/high aesthetic value; and threatened or endangered 

species/unique communities. This designation means that a state agency or political subdivision 

of the state may not finance the actual construction of a reservoir in a specific river or stream 

designated as an ecologically unique stream segment. TWDB has identified virtually all of the 

major stream segments in the Preserve for consideration as ecologically unique stream segments, 

including: Big Sandy Creek; Neches River; Village Creek; Beech Creek; Turkey Creek; Menard 

Creek; Pine Island Bayou; and, Little Pine Island Bayou. 

A casual observer may conclude that there are two primary – and separate – structures that affect 

the Preserve’s interests along the Neches River: Town Bluff Dam and the Neches River 

Saltwater Barrier. These structures, operated by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, are located 

85 river miles apart, forming the approximate upstream and downstream endpoints of the 

Preserve’s Neches River corridor. 

In actuality these structures, along with the Sam Rayburn Dam, are operated in concert with each 

other for the purpose of maintaining a carefully calibrated water flow and stage regime in the 

Neches River, thus ensuring delivery of water necessary to satisfy the water 

rights of end users – a large portion of which is passed through the Lower Neches Valley 

Authority Canal – and preventing saltwater intrusion from the heavily industrialized and dredged 

Sabine Lake estuary from fowling fresh water intakes. 

Five dam and reservoir projects have been authorized by Congress in the Angelina-Neches 

Rivers basin; only three of which have been built: 1) B.A. Steinhagen Lake behind Town Bluff 

Dam – originally called just “Dam B” -- completed in 1953; 2) Sam Rayburn Dam and Reservoir 

completed in 1965; and, 3) Neches River Saltwater Barrier completed in 2003. The two other 

projects – "Dam A" and "Rockland" – have been authorized, but never built. A separate dam and 

reservoir project called the Blackburn Crossing Dam (and the upstream Palestine Lake) is 

located over 150 river miles north of Town Bluff Dam in the upper reaches of the Neches River 

Basin. 

Since the 1940s, regional planners have periodically discussed the prospect of building a dam 

and reservoir on the Neches River 25 miles upstream of B.A. Steinhagen Lake. Most recently, 

LNVA raised the dual possibility of building the Rockland Dam project in tandem with enlarging 

B.A. Steinhagen Lake. The agency is proposing the dam to the Texas Water Development Board 

as a regional effort to increase water supplies for the state. 

While annual flow volumes appear to be relatively unchanged before and after dam building, 

timing and magnitude of spring peak flows, summer base flows, and aperiodic flushing events 

have been altered. These changes may impact river water quality, sediment load, and 

riparian/floodplain habitats to varying degrees. 

Prior to dam building, the Neches River typically peaked at 10,000 – 12,000 cubic feet per 

second (cfs) in late winter/early spring and dropped to a low-water base flow rate of 500 cfs 

during the summer and early fall. After dam construction in 1953, median year spring flows 

have tended to be repressed in magnitude with low-water base flows increased to fend off 

downstream saltwater intrusion and delivery of water rights. 
xiv 

Ecosystems are often framed relative to the last major disturbance, whether the result of a natural 

event (such as Hurricane Rita) or an anthropogenic one (such as recent drawdown of B.A. 

Steinhagen Lake), or a combination of the two. The modern day infrastructure tends to dampen 

the magnitude of seasonal and extreme flood and drought events, but also causes them on 

occasion, such as reservoir drawdown. 

Aperiodic high flow events, where short-term flow rates exceeded 50,000 cfs, also played a 

larger role prior to dam building. They occurred at a frequency of once every five years prior to 

1950, but have been non-existent at that magnitude since the mid 1950s, during which the 

Neches River achieved a weekly peak discharge of between 20,000 – 30,000 cfs. Thus, it stands 

to reason that floodplain ecology has been modified by the absence of higher order flood events. 

In turn, the loss of extended periods of drought has changed oxbow and wetland dynamics and 

other floodplain characteristics. Regardless, even under the dam-altered hydrologic regime, 

extreme events continue to make a lasting mark on the river corridor and floodplain. 

The Thicket

The term “thicket” may have developed from early travelers who made accounts of the difficulty 

in crossing baygall and swampy areas. While these vegetative communities were never so 

expansive to warrant the name thicket for an entire region, they were likely pervasive enough for 

travelers to frequently encounter them, leading to the perspective of impenetrable thickets. 

Historical studies show that the area described as the Thicket was always a complex of 

ecological systems ranging from prairie to dense forest. A related issue regarding perspective 

and reality is the role of the Thicket as a biological “cross-roads” given the unique biological 

community combinations resulting from species ranges overlapping from at least three 

ecoregions, and some species found from more arid parts of Texas persisting in the Thicket. 

More recent analyses determined that species and communities found in the Thicket are 

predominantly shared with those of the southeastern coastal plain. What can be said is that the 

Thicket consists of high alpha- (within patch) and beta- (among patch) diversity, and that many 

species and communities are at the edge of their ranges (mostly southern and western edges of 

ranges). Biodiversity is the variety of life and its processes: this encompasses compositional 

(what is there), structural (how it is distributed in space and time) and functional (what it does) 

elements of ecosystems, each being manifest at multiple levels of interconnected organization 

ranging from genes to species, communities, ecosystems and landscapes. It is the biodiversity 

then that becomes the essence of “the Big Thicket.” 

Taken together, it is the interplay of geology, topography, climate, water, and soils that causes 

abrupt transitions in composition of vegetative communities. The longleaf pine ecosystem, one 

of the most threatened in North America and also one of the most diverse, occurs on three main 

landforms: (1) uplands that are dry because of coarse soils and relatively steep terrain; (2) 

especially dry deep sands of old stream terraces where one can view cacti, yuccas and other 

plants commonly thought of as desert plants in association with the pines; and (3) wet, poorly 

drained flats where longleaf pine savannas occur together with a herb-rich ground layer of sedges 

and grasses, including carnivorous plant species. In uplands and some stream bottoms with 

sandy-loam soils that are well-drained, but moist most of the year, one can find magnificent 

stands dominated by southern magnolias and American beach. Bottomland-hardwood forests of 

oaks and gums are found in floodplains along rivers and creeks, and sloughs and oxbows of river 

and creek floodplains are dominated by bald cypress and tupelo swamps. The wetland baygall 
xv 

vegetation communities in the Preserve are compositionally distinct, and are poorly defined by 

topography and drainage; however, seepage water may be a key factor in their locations because 

they often occur at the base of bluffs in floodplains. 

 

Section 4(a) of the Preserve’s enabling legislation directs that the Preserve’s lands, through the 

NPS, will be administered “in a manner which will assure their natural and ecological integrity in 

perpetuity...” Although a formal current condition assessment has not been conducted, and 

measures have not been assessed for ecological integrity of Preserve resources, clear indicators 

of degraded resources exist. At this time, it is estimated that about three percent of the remaining 

habitat in East Texas is considered intact. Urban development was a major cause of habitat loss 

in the early part of this century, as was logging. Bottomland forests along many rivers have been 

completely converted. Longleaf pine areas have been converted to loblolly or slash pine 

plantations or severely fire suppressed. Preserve units are fragmented on the landscape, top 

predators in food webs are absent, biological invasions are rampant, and extraction activities 

within and near the Preserve, no matter how carefully conducted, are incompatible with natural 

area resource persistence. Positive trends are the establishment of invasive plant control, reestablishment of fire on portions of the fire-adapted landscape, preparation of an Oil and Gas 

Management Plan in 2006, the reinvigoration of science manifested in resource inventories 

(including the All-Taxa Biological Inventory), status and trend monitoring of select resources, 

and the continued encouragement of research at the Preserve. 

Land use legacies may have led to potential irreversible conditions. There are extirpated species 

from the thicket – red wolf, mountain lion, red-cockaded and ivory-billed woodpeckers, 

Louisiana pine snakes, and passenger pigeons. The lack of top predators is rarely offset by 

hunting, because of the effects predators have on prey behavior. Forests are secondary growth, 

leading to less structural and compositional heterogeneity. 

Biological invasions represent a significant threat to the Preserve, as they can not only negatively 

affect individual species, but can influence ecosystem properties such as fire, and thereby change 

the entire nature of the Thicket. Invasive species can be native or non-native. Native species 

such as the southern pine beetles might be considered a natural process, except that the current 

restricted and fragmented state of host species and their communities demands a “hands-on” 

approach to managing poorly understood outbreaks. High priority non-native invaders are: 

Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, Japanese climbing fern, Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, golden 

bamboo, Chinaberry, Chinese wisteria, Nandina, Mimosa, water hyacinth and giant salvinia. 

Including spring annuals, possibly a third of plant species now found in the Thicket area are nonnative. Emerging plant species of concern are cogon grass and deep-rooted sedge. Non-native 

animals include nutria, grass carp, zebra mussels, and the imported red fire ant. Feral 

populations of animals represent a subset of invasions. Cats and dogs are known to disrupt 

wildlife behavior and predate on birds and young of other wildlife groups. Feral hogs disrupt 

soils and understory communities via rooting while foraging. 

Fragmentation of the landscape is a continued threat. Landscape processes such as fires and 

floods, and predation and herbivory patterns of wide-ranging species will not occur within a 

natural range of variation. 
xvi 

Oil and gas activity along the boundary as well as within the Preserve will continue to disturb 

wildlife and threaten water quality. Additionally, oil and gas activity, operation and maintenance 

of trans-preserve pipelines, illegal fossil collecting, and adjacent land use and development are 

current and potential threats to geologic resources. 

Scientific Value

Scientific value continues to be an important role for all protected areas. The development of 

science is one of the driving objectives of Biosphere Reserve designations. In short, the quest to 

understand nature has always accompanied the appreciation of nature in efforts to protect 

“special places.” The Preserve provides access to scientific research in a region where there is so 

few public lands. The Preserve’s status as a collection of protected areas within a working 

landscape provides opportunities to test numerous hypotheses in conservation biology and 

ecology. The types of research that the Preserve is particularly amenable to include:

• restoration of communities and ecosystems; 

• exotic plant biology and ecology; 

• ecosystem resistance and resilience to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. Of interest 

to managers is how resources respond to disturbances. Generally, it is helpful to know the 

range of variation of “natural” disturbances; 

• population ecology of species at the edge of their respective ranges, and in combination 

with other species within assemblages; this is directly relevant to climate change research 

and modeling; 

• landscape ecology: This includes analyses of connectedness, fragmentation, corridors and 

reserve design; 

• ozone emissions from local (oil and gas development) sources and effects on biota; 

• recreational opportunities and impacts; 

• effects (in both directions) of timber harvest activities and protected area activities; 

• climate change response; and 

• flood pulse concept, natural flows, and flow variability. 

The primary threat to the scientific value of the Preserve is the inability of science and 

conservation to keep up with the rapid pace of agricultural, industrial, residential, and water 

development growth in the Big Thicket region, and compete against the economic incentives for 

this growth. Economic development has resulted in loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the 

Big Thicket’s ecology and large spatial extent. Conservation efforts have been successful to 

varying degrees in counteracting these effects, and a growing body of scientific knowledge has 

provided support to conservation measures, but lack of funding, the disparate nature of the 

threats, and complexity of the ecosystem makes it an on-going and difficult task. There is a need 

to foster a regional outlook for advocating science and conservation within the Big Thicket 

region in this regard, to both better protect and restore natural areas and processes within the 

Preserve and throughout the Big Thicket region. 

Climate Change

Global warming will have particularly important impacts on the Gulf coast region’s water 

resources. Gulf coast ecosystems are linked by the flow of water from the uplands through 

freshwater lakes, rivers and wetlands to the coast. Vast wetland areas require periods of flooding 
xvii 

to maintain healthy habitats and sustain food webs. While there remains uncertainty about how 

global warming will affect rainfall, stream flow, soil moisture and overall water availability, 

human consumption of water resources is almost certain to increase as a result of the region’s 

population growth. If climate change results in reduced runoff and lower groundwater levels for 

parts of the year, the consequence could be a shortage of water to satisfy both ecosystem needs 

and the growing and competing human demands. Other impacts could include: 

• The increasing drawdown of surface water systems and underground reservoirs could 

combine with sea level rise to increase saltwater contamination of aquifers. 

• Changing surface runoff patterns driven by changes in rainfall could alter river 

ecosystems. Changes in flooding patterns could also significantly affect river 

ecosystems. Flooding periodically rejuvenates floodplains by erosion and deposition and 

is essential to the health of river ecosystems. From an ecological perspective, flood 

pulses are not disturbances, but rather essential processes that define the biology and 

water quality of river ecosystems. If climate change results in more intense rainfall 

events, humans are likely to try to reduce flooding by increasing channelization of rivers 

and building dams, levees and reservoirs, all of which are functionally less effective in 

flood control than maintaining floodplain habitats that can receive and slow overbank 

flows. 

• In freshwater streams, warmer temperatures and a longer growing season could reduce 

habitat for cool-water species. In very shallow water systems, higher temperatures could 

lead to oxygen depletion and cause potentially massive die-offs of fish and invertebrates. 

• Primary productivity in freshwater wetlands would increase with higher concentrations of 

CO2 and modestly warmer temperatures, as long as precipitation is not reduced. This 

may mean increased accumulation of organic matter, enhanced rates of soil formation, 

and – for systems close to the coast – an increased ability to cope with sea-level rise. 

• Changes in climate will influence the spread of invasive species that threaten freshwater 

systems, affecting native plants, fish and shellfish and associated recreation and 

commercial fisheries. 

• If droughts become more frequent or intense, the risk of wildfire could increase. In 

ecosystems not fire-adapted, recovery from catastrophic fires can take decades or longer. 

In contrast, wildfires are critical for grassland communities such as coastal prairies and 

bogs which are well adapted to natural cycles of burning. 

• Any increase in storm and hurricane frequency could hasten forest turnover, possibly 

resulting in the accelerated replacement of canopy trees with different, more competitive 

species. 
xviii 

Acknowledgments 

We thank the following individuals for their helpful comments on a draft version of this report: 

Mark Flora, Mike Martin, James Harte, and Don Weeks of the NPS-Water Resources Division; 

Andrea Stacy of the NPS-Air Resources Division; David Roemer and Todd Brindle of Big 

Thicket National Preserve; John Reber of the NPS-Intermountain Regional Office; Joe Meiman 

of the NPS-Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network; and Christina Miller and Erin 

Flanagan of the NPS-Denver Service Center. 
1

Introduction

The approximately 106,384-acre Big Thicket National Preserve is located in southeastern Texas 

just north of Beaumont and 75 miles northeast of Houston (Figure 1). The Preserve is composed 

of 15 units scattered over seven counties, a 3,500 mi2

 area (Figure 1; Table 1). As such the 

preserve may be seen as a ‘string-of-pearls’ – that is a series of units (pearls) connected by 

riparian corridors (strings) (Figure 1). The Preserve is species-rich, including 290 birds, 54 

amphibians and reptiles, and 52 mammals that have been identified from incomplete surveys 

(Cooper et al. 2004). Diggs et al. (2006) estimated that there are 1,826 species of vascular plants 

in 174 families in the Big Thicket region – an estimate that is believed to be significantly 

underestimated. 

The Preserve is a remnant of the Big Thicket area of East Texas that originally covered 

approximately 3.5 million acres (Figure 2). Within this vast area, variations in geology, climate, 

soils, elevation and drainage have resulted in a nationally recognized area of high biological 

diversity; the Preserve is often referred to as a ‘biological crossroads’ because it is a transition 

zone for four distinct vegetation types – eastern hardwood forest, arid southwestern desert, 

tropical coastal marsh, and central prairies. The area provides habitat for rare species and favors 

unusual combinations of plants and animals. The Preserve was the first property added to the 

national park system based on ‘biodiversity’. Furthermore, the Preserve was designated a 

Biosphere Reserve in 1978 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Organization (UNESCO), in large part, because of its biological importance. 

Historically, the Big Thicket area was wilderness and remained undeveloped until the early 

1800’s. High rainfall together with poor drainage characteristic of low, flat terrain resulted in 

extensive growth of wetland brush bogs – dense stands of mostly evergreen shrubs, now locally 

called ‘baygalls’ that made travel through the area difficult (Gunter 1971). The area gradually 

opened to pioneer settlement -- evidence of some of this pioneer way of life still exists today. 

Logging and the railroad were evident in the 1880’s and 1890’s. Nearly all of the Big Thicket 

has been logged at least once over the last two centuries. Much of the land formerly in natural 

forests is managed today as productive timberland. Nearly simultaneously with the timber boom 

came the oil boom in the Big Thicket. 

Today, forest products and petrochemical industries remain the primary contributors to the 

region’s economy. Rice and soybean agriculture is increasing, creating a greater demand for 

agricultural land. Housing developments are pressing on the margins of the thicket, creating 

countless openings through its interior. Given this situation and because the Preserve is 

fragmented into scattered units tenuously connected by riparian corridors, the Preserve was 

identified in 2003 by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) as the most 

endangered NPS unit. 

The General Management Planning process for the Preserve began in August, 2008 with an 

internal Foundation workshop that produced a Purpose Statement for the Preserve and 

Significance Statements for the Preserve’s resources (natural and cultural; see below). The 

purpose of the Preserve is a clear statement of why Congress established the Preserve as a unit of 
2

Figure 1. Map showing the location of Big Thicket National Preserve and its units in 

southeastern Texas. 
3

the national park system. Significance statements define what is most important about the 

Preserve’s resources and values, and is based on the purpose for which the Preserve was created. 

Table 1. County residence and acreage of Big Thicket National Preserve management units (modified 

from NPS 2006). Abbreviations as follows: B = Beaumont Unit; BC = Beech Creek Unit; BSC = Big Sandy 

Creek Unit; C = Canyonlands Unit; HCS = Hickory Creek Savannah; L = Loblolly Unit; LNRC = Lower 

Neches River Corridor Unit; LR = Lance Rosier Unit; MCC = Menard Creek Unit; NBJG = Neches Bottom 

and Jack Gore Baygall Unit; PILPI = Pine Island Little Pine Island Bayou Unit; TC = Turkey Creek Unit; 

VCC = Village Creek Unit. Acreage represents the latest figures as of February, 2010 (Glenna Vigil, 

Intermountain Regional Office, pers. comm. to Todd Brindle, Big Thicket National Preserve). 

Counties Preserve Units within County Acres 

Hardin VCC; BSC; TC; MCC; B; LR; NBJG; 

PILPI; UNRC; LNRC; 

 54,970 

Jasper LNRC; UNRC; NBJG 7,017 

Jefferson B; PILPI 1,603 

Liberty MCC; L 1,485 

Orange B; LNRC 7,368 

Polk MCC; BSC 18,972 

Tyler BSC; BC; C; HCS; TC; UNRC 14,969 

Total 106,384 

 

Purpose Statement 

The Big Thicket National Preserve represents a portion of “the Big Thicket” in southeast Texas, 

known for its extensive biological diversity, and is dedicated to preserving, and enhancing the 

natural and ecological integrity [thereof]. The Preserve maintains scientific and recreational 

values and provides for public enjoyment. 

Significance Statements 

 

Extraordinary Combination of Habitats and Species and Their Scientific Value 

Big Thicket National Preserve, the first national preserve, was set aside for its biodiversity. The 

Preserve contains remnants of the Big Thicket of Texas and its diverse units are representative of 

the larger biogeographic region. The Preserve serves as a refuge for a combination of plants, 

animals, and natural communities that include elements from the southeast swamps, eastern 

forests, central plains, and southwest deserts. The Preserve is the only NPS unit with this 

combination of resources. The opportunities for scientific research at the Preserve include the 

study of biodiversity and disturbance resulting from land uses and natural phenomena (e.g., 

hurricanes and fires). 

Flowing Water and Dependent Systems 

Big Thicket National Preserve has an extensive, dynamic system of hydrologic processes and 

associated dependent systems important to maintain the diverse yet specific ecological make-up 

of the Big Thicket. These include contiguous riverine and wetland systems. The Preserve 

provides examples of blackwater systems, which are not typically found outside of the Amazon 

basin and Southeastern United States, and of rare baygall wetlands that exemplify the original 

and seemingly impenetrable Big Thicket. 
4

Figure 2. Maps of the Big Thicket region in relation to major physiographic zones of Texas (left) and Big 

Thicket National Preserve in relation to various definitions of the Big Thicket (right). Adapted from Cozine 

(2004) and Gunter (1993). 

National and International Designations 

Big Thicket National Preserve has received both national and international recognition. 

Visitor Experience 

In a state where public lands are not widely available, Big Thicket National Preserve offers the 

visitor a wide array of recreational and educational opportunities in a natural setting within close 

proximity to large urban areas. 

Cultural Resources

In Big Thicket National Preserve has a rich cultural history spanning centuries and cultures – 

Prehistoric to modern American Indians/Native Americans, Spanish explorers, and early settlers 

to today’s modern users. Resources include remnants of historic land use activities and 

structures, traces of travel corridors, and archeological sites. 
5

Natural Resources Planning

In recent years, the NPS Natural Resource Program Center has been looking for ways to 

integrate sound science into park planning and management from a multi-disciplinary 

perspective. Any attempts at integration must support the NPS planning framework as defined 

by the 2004 Park Planning Program Standards and draft Director’s Order 2.1: Resource 

Stewardship Planning. Within this planning framework, six discrete levels of planning are 

represented by six planning-related documents (Figure 3). 

Foundation

GMP

Program

Mgmt 

Plans Strategic

Plan Implementation

Plans

Annual Performance Plan 

and Report

WHY WHAT HOW

PLANNING FRAMEWORK

LONG TERM SHORT TERM

Figure 3. The National Park Service framework for planning and decision making. 

The Foundation Statement defines the legal and policy requirements that mandate the park’s 

basic management responsibilities, and identifies and analyzes the resources and values that are 

fundamental to achieving the park’s purpose or otherwise important to park planning and 

management. This is the first step in the park planning framework and sets the stage for a park 

unit’s General Management Plan and Program Management Plans.

 

The General Management Plan (GMP) uses information from the Foundation report to define a 

broad direction for resource preservation and visitor use in a park, and serves as the basic 

foundation for park decision-making, including long-term direction for desired conditions of 

park resources and visitor experiences. 

The Program Management Plan tiers off the GMP identifying and recommending the best 

strategies for achieving the desired resource conditions and visitor experiences presented in the 

GMP. Program planning serves as a bridge to translate the qualitative statements of desired 

conditions established in the GMP into measurable or objective indicators that can be monitored 

to assess the degree to which the desired conditions are being achieved. Based on information 

obtained through this analysis, comprehensive strategies are developed to achieve the desired 

conditions. The Program Management Plan component for natural and cultural resources is the 

Resource Stewardship Strategy. 
6

The Strategic Plan tiers off the Program Management Plan identifying the highest-priority 

strategies, including measurable goals that work toward maintaining and/or restoring the park’s 

desired conditions over the next five years. 

Implementation Plans tier off the Strategic Plan describing in detail (including methods, cost 

estimates, and schedules) the high-priority actions that will be taken over the next several years 

to help achieve the desired conditions for the park. 

The Annual Performance Plan and Report measures the progress of projects from the 

Implementation Plan with objectives from the Strategic Plan. 

The Natural Resources Foundation Report and its Objectives 

This Natural Resources Foundation Report (NRFR) represents the NPS Natural Resource 

Program Center’s attempt to integrate sound science early in the planning process (in this case at 

the Foundation planning level) via a multi-disciplinary approach. It is modeled after a similar 

report by the Water Resources Division called a Water Resources Foundation Report. The 

NRFR addresses the needs of the Foundation Statement for natural resources and will have 

utility during the rest of the GMP process and during. 

The primary objectives of this Natural Resources Foundation Report for the Big Thicket 

National Preserve are to: 1) provide background information for natural resources; and 2) 

identify and describe the fundamental natural resources at the Preserve, along with the 

identification of stakeholders and laws and policies that apply to these fundamental natural 

resources. The natural resource-related information contained in this report is designed to better 

assist the Preserve with development of the Foundation Statement that ultimately supports the 

preparation of the new GMP for the park. 
7

Description of Natural Resources 

Climate

The climate of the Preserve is humid subtropical; however, the Preserve is positioned on the 

western edge of the humid subtropical climatic region. This humid subtropical climate is 

characterized by long, hot humid summers and fairly short, mild winters (average of 240 

consecutive frost-free days per year). Onshore winds from the Gulf of Mexico provide maritime 

influence during the spring, summer, and fall. Arctic, Rocky Mountain, and Pacific storms occur 

frequently in the winter months and result in depressed temperatures; however, warming periods 

usually occur between fronts. Sub-zero temperatures are rare with typically less than a dozen 

freezing nights per year. The mean annual temperature is approximately 700

 F (210 C). Figure 

4 shows the monthly maximum and minimum temperatures and average relative humidity for the 

Beaumont area. 

Physiography, Geology and Soils

Despite the fact that the Preserve receives abundant and well-distributed annual precipitation, the 

availability of water at the surface varies greatly in response to the underlying geology, soil type 

and topographic variation across the Preserve. 

The surface formations of the Preserve are sedimentary in nature, and geologically young – only 

a few million years old. As glaciers advanced and retreated during the recent ice ages, sea level 

rose and fell along the low-lying southeast Texas coast. During warm periods (with high sea 

levels), the land flooded and rivers deposited vast deltas and alluvial plains of mud, sand, and silt 

on the seabed. During cold periods (when the ice returned and sea level fell), erosion cut into the 

newly deposited sediments. 

The weight of increasing sediments caused the land to subside over time, slanting the layers 

downward into the Gulf of Mexico. The layers are exposed at the surface as broad, irregular 

bands paralleling the Gulf, and decrease in age as you near the coast. This trend is overlain by 

ancient river terraces and sea bluffs, now perched well above the modern- day water table as 

-5 to -10

0 to -5

5 to 0

10 to 5

15 to 10

20 to 15

25 to 20

30 to 25

-21 to -23

-18 to -21

-15 to -18

-12 to -15

-10 to -12

-7 to -10

-4 to -7

-1 to -4

F C

USDA Hardiness Zone

Annual Minimum Temperature

Jan FebMar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

Fahrenheit

Celsius

Average Annual Temperatures

Beaumont, Texas

maximum

minimum

average

3-day running

average of daily

high (for 2008)

3-day running

average of daily

low (for 2008)

Figure 4. Annual minimum temperatures for Texas (left) and annual average temperature for Beaumont, 

TX, including 3-day running average of high and low temperatures for 2008. 
8

upland high ground, and ancient, fine-grained coastal flats that impede water absorption in the 

lowlands and flatlands. 

 

Geologic Background 

Big Thicket National Preserve lies within the Flatwoods and Lower Coastal Plain geographic 

areas of Southeast Texas, situated within the relatively flat-lying Gulf Coastal Plain 

physiographic province. At the surface the Southeast Texas region is dominated by nearly flatlying sedimentary strata representing Pleistocene-Holocene (Recent) deltaic sands and mud 

which are underlain by Miocene sediments (Wermund 1996). These deposits record sea level 

change and river system evolution in association with the Miocene-Holocene evolution and sea 

level change of the Gulf of Mexico. The vast low-lying coastal plain records a sequence of 

gently dipping fluvial, deltaic and nearshore marine deposits. As noted by Callicott et al. (2006), 

sea level fluctuations during the Pleistocene periodically inundated the currently exposed 

Southeast Texas coastal plain, leaving behind a band of sediments sorted by grain size (river 

floodplain silts, river outwash sands, and lagunal mud and clays). When the current Holocene 

coastline stabilized, a mix of clayey and sandy sediments covered the lower-lying area of the 

coastal plain. 

The topography is nearly flat in the southern part to gently rolling in the northern part of the 

Preserve. Slopes in the Flatwoods Area (Beaumont and Lance Rosier Units) are generally less 

than one percent. Slopes in the Lower Coastal Plain Area (Jack Gore Baygall and Neches 

Bottom, Turkey Creek, Big Sandy Creek, and Beech Creek units) are generally one to three 

percent, and range from 0.5 to 12 percent. Elevation generally rises to the north and west from 5 

feet (above mean sea level) in the Beaumont Unit to 365 feet at the northern tip of the Big Sandy 

Creek Unit and 215 feet at the northern edge of the Beech Creek Unit. Although the units of the 

Preserve vary widely in topography, soils, and size, most are situated along water corridors or in 

upland settings, or a combination of both. 

Geologic maps and descriptions for the Preserve area have been produced by Shelby et al.

(1992), Aronow (1981) and Bureau of Economic Geology (1968). Recently, the NPS Geological 

Resources Division completed a digital geology map for the Preserve (available at: 

http://science.nature.nps.gov/nrdata/quickouput.cfm?type=ds&cat=geology&key=GRE&parkcode=BITH). In stratigraphic order 

from lower to upper (oldest to youngest), the geologic units in the Preserve include the Miocene 

Fleming Formation, Pliocene-Pleistocene Willis Formation, Pleistocene Lissie Formation 

(subdivided into the Bentley Formation and the Montgomery Formation), Pleistocene Beaumont 

Formation, Late Pleistocene-Recent (Early Holocene) Deweyville Formation, and Recent 

alluvium (Table 2). Older strata generally outcrop farther away from the Gulf Coast and 

younger, overlying strata outcrop seaward (Figure 5). The thicknesses of the individual 

formations increase towards the Gulf of Mexico (Teas 1935). Younger, overlying deposits were 

incised during times of sea level fall (regressions), exposing terrace deposits, and older, 

underlying strata. Most of the preserve is heavily vegetated and exposures of the underlying 

geology (and associated paleontological resources) are likely to be found in only river and stream 

cut banks, gullies, or other erosional features. 

The Fleming Formation (Figure 5) in the Preserve is characterized by light gray to yellowish 

gray clay, silt, and sand. The Fleming Formation is exposed in some of the deep gullies within 

the northern units of the Preserve (G. Watson, Big Thicket National Preserve, pers. comm. to J. 
9

Table 2. Generalized stratigraphic formations in the vicinity of Big Thicket National Preserve (revised from 

 Renfro et. al. 1973). 

Era System Series 

Time 

(millions of 

years ago) Formation Group 

Approx. 

Depth 

 0 

 Holocene 

 Beaumont (Qbc/Qbs) 

 Quaternary Montgomery 

 Pleistocene Lissie (Ql) 0-300′

 Q Bentley 

 Willis 

 3 

 

 Pliocene Goliad 

 11 Legarto 

 Fleming Fleming 

 Oakville ~1,200′

 Miocene 25 Anahuac 

 Catahoula Catahoula 

 Frio 

 ~1,800′

 Vicksburg (subsurface only) Vicksburg 

 Oligocene 40 

 Whitsett 

 Tertiary Manning 

 McElroy Jackson 

 Wellborn 

 

 Eocene Cadell-Moody’s Ranch 

 Yegua-Cockfield 6,500′

 Cook Mountain 8,500′

 Stone City 

 Sparta Claiborne 

 Weches 

 Queen City 9,900′

 Reklaw 

 

 Calvert Bluff-Sabinetown Wilcox 

 60 Simsboro-Rockdale-Pendleton 

 Hooper-Seguin 

 Paleocene Wills Point Midway 23,000′

 70 Kincaid 

 Kemp 

 Corsicana Navarro 

 Nacatoch 

 Marlbrook 

 Pecan Gap 

 Cretaceous Annona Taylor 

 KI Wolfe City 

 Ozan 

 Gober 

 Brownstown Austin 

 Tokio/Blossom 

 Bonham 

 KU South Bosque 

 Eagle Ford Eagle Ford 

 Lake Waco 

Deweyville (Qd)

Citronelle 

Carrizo 10,000′

 14,000′
10

Kenworthy 2006), and the Bureau of Economic Geology (1968) mapped Fleming exposures in 

the Big Sandy Creek Unit, the northern area of the Menard Creek Corridor Unit, and near the 

western boundary of the Upper Neches River Corridor Unit in close proximity to the B.A. 

Steinhagen Lake/Town Bluff Dam. The Fleming Formation is reported to be over 12 million 

years old (Aronow 1975) and reaches a thickness of 1,300 – 1,450 feet (Shelby et al. 1992). The 

depositional environments of the Fleming Formation are variously interpreted by authors, but are 

generally thought of as river deltaic deposits near marine waters (Kenworthy et al. 2007). 

The Willis Formation (Figure 5) is characterized by red clay, silt, sand, and siliceous 

(silica/quartz-rich) gravel and represents the oldest Pleistocene, maybe upper Pliocene geologic 

unit in the Preserve area (Rigsby 1980; Shelby et al. 1992). The Willis Formation reaches a 

maximum thickness of about 100 feet (Shelby et al. 1992; Bureau of Economic Geology, 1968). 

The Willis Formation is reported to be 2 to 3 million years old (Aronow 1981). Watson (1975) 

also notes that the Willis Formation is deeply dissected and well-drained in the Big Thicket area. 

Surface exposures of the Willis Formation are dominant in the Big Sandy Creek Unit and the 

northern area of the Menard Creek Corridor Unit (Shelby et al. 1992; Bureau of Economic 

Geology 1968). 

Moving southward, the older Pleistocene age formations, deposited between 125,000 to 

2,500,000 years ago, include the Bentley and Montgomery Formations (also mapped by some 

authors as the Lower and Upper Lissie Formations, respectively; Figure 5). The thickness of 

each of these units ranges from 75 to 125 feet. The Bentley Formation overlies the Willis 

Formation, and is characterized by generally brown fluviatile clay, silt, sand, and a minor gravel 

component. The Bentley Formation is mapped in the Beech Creek Unit, Hickory Creek 

Savannah Unit, and Turkey Creek Unit of the Preserve (Shelby et al. 1992; Bureau of Economic 

Geology 1968). 

Figure 5. Three-dimensional and surficial diagrams of geological formations of Big Thicket National 

Preserve. Adapted from Paret (1993) and Cozine (2003). 
11

The Montgomery Formation is found in the Lance Rosier Unit (Bureau of Economic Geology 

1968), and is characterized by locally calcareous clay, silt, and sand with very minor gravel (no 

larger than small pebbles) component. Shelby et al. (1992) mapped the Pleistocene Bentley and 

Montgomery Formations as the undivided Lissie Formation. 

The youngest, most seaward, and one of the most widespread of all the Pleistocene deposits of 

the Texas Gulf Coastal Plain is the Beaumont Formation (Figure 5), deposited between 70,000 to 

125,000 years ago with a reported thickness of about 100 feet (Shelby et al. 1992; Bureau of 

Economic Geology 1968). The Beaumont Formation consists of predominantly fine-grained 

deposits, with a reported lithology of clay, silt, and some sand (Shelby et al. 1992). The 

Beaumont Formation’s clay content is generally much higher than the other Pleistocene deposits 

and ranges in color from blue-gray to yellow-gray, to purple and various shades of red (Rigsby 

1980). The Formation was mapped in extensive areas surrounding the City of Beaumont by 

Shelby et al. (1992). As such it is mapped in or adjacent to a number of Preserve units, including 

the Lance Rosier Unit, Pine Island - Little Pine Island Bayou Corridor Unit, Loblolly Unit, 

Menard Creek Corridor Unit, Lower Neches River Corridor Unit, and the Neches Bottom and 

Jack Gore Baygall Unit east of the Neches River. The surface of the formation is often crisscrossed by broad, low meander ridges less than 10 feet high on whose surfaces stream patterns 

may be discerned (Aronow 1981). Due to the high percentage of clay, the Beaumont Formation 

acts principally as an aquitard, or geologic unit that inhibits water penetration. However, sand 

lenses within the clay beds are likely to act as local aquifers (Enprotec, Inc. 1998). 

The Deweyville Formation is characterized by sands, silts, clay, and some gravel found in 

natural levee, stream channel, and backwater swamp deposits (Shelby et al. 1992), and occupies 

filled valleys of ancient streams (Watson 1975). The Deweyville is the oldest of the Holocene 

age deposits in the Preserve area, and straddles the boundary between late Pleistocene and 

Recent. As reported by Baskin (1991), there is some dispute regarding the age of the 

Deweyville, but it is at least 13,000 and perhaps as many as 50,000 years old. Shelby et al.

(1992) mapped sand and gravels of the Deweyville in the Menard Creek Corridor Unit near the 

Trinity River, and surface exposures also occur in the Neches Bottom and Jack Gore Baygall 

Unit west of the Neches River and in the lower reaches of the Village Creek Corridor Unit near 

the City of Lumberton. 

As described by Shelby et al. (1992), Recent alluvium deposits in the Southeast Texas region are 

characterized by clay, silt, and sand sediments associated with modern streams. The surfaces of 

the alluvial deposits are graded to present-day sea level which was attained between 2,500 to 

4,500 years ago (Aronow 1981). Alluvial deposits are mapped within the Preserve by Shelby et 

al. (1992) along the larger stream corridors in the area, primarily the Neches River, including the 

Beaumont Unit, Big Sandy Creek and Village Creek. The alluvial deposits contain abundant 

organic material in localized areas. 

Soils

In general, the soils of Big Thicket National Preserve developed from Pleistocene age fluviomarine deposits, including the Willis, Bentley and Montgomery Formations and Pleistocene to 

Holocene age (late Pleistocene to less than 10,000 years ago) Deweyville Formation, and more 

recent Quaternary age alluvium. Quaternary alluvium is thickest within the major active 

drainages, the Neches and Trinity Rivers. The Deweyville Formation, underlying the alluvium, 
12

is also associated with river and stream drainages. Most soils in the Preserve developed on the 

Bentley and Montgomery Formations (undivided Lissie Formation) as these formations are 

exposed at the surface in approximately 70 percent of the Preserve (S. Aronow, Lamar 

University, pers. comm. to J. Kenworthy 2007). 

Soils formed in floodplains range from loamy to clayey in texture, and occur on old oxbows to 

moderately well-drained natural levees adjacent to stream channels. Upland soils are generally 

loamy to sandy in texture and are found on a wide variety of landscapes. Immediately above the 

floodplains are sandy point bar deposits and low, mounded terraces. 

Soils within the Preserve are characteristic of those developed under a mild climate, with 

abundant rainfall, in a mixed conifer-deciduous forest. Two broad categories of soils are found: 

a highly leached, acidic, sandy to loamy textured soil with a lower less-permeable zone of clay 

accumulation; and a more clayey textured, less permeable soil that is subject to either high water 

tables or periods of extensive flooding. The latter soils shrink and swell with changes in 

seasonal moisture. In general, the sandier soils tend to occur in uplands, and clayey textured 

soils are found in swales, lowlands, floodplains, and wetlands. 

Deshotels (1978) produced initial soils maps of Big Thicket National Preserve based upon the 

park boundary at that time, and described 51 soil map units in the Preserve. Since then, the 

Preserve has increased in size, and soils information has been obtained by merging the various 

county soil surveys into one composite soil legend that reflected the boundary of the Preserve in 

2007. At the present time, 89 different soil types have been recognized within Big Thicket 

National Preserve, and 131 soil map units are on the comprehensive soils legend (P. Biggam, 

National Park Service, pers. comm. 2009). 

Soil wetness, depth to a high water table, ponding and flooding are issues associated with the 

Angelina, Aris, Babco, Bleakwood, Caneyhead, Cypress, Estes, Fausse, Iulus, Iuka, Laneville, 

Lelaville, Manco, Olive, Ozias, Pophers, Sawlit, Sawtown, Tyden and Voss soils. Past timber 

and pulpwood harvesting activities as well as oil and gas operations may have had an impact on 

these soils through excessive soil rutting and soil trafficablity issues. The surface horizons in 

these soils may have been disturbed by these activities. Many of these soils are also considered 

to be hydric soils and may be occurring in wetlands. The Cypress soils occur in swamps and 

have an organic muck surface layer that is unique in the area (P. Biggam, National Park Service, 

pers. comm. 2009). 

Hillslope Features and Processes

Slope failures resulting from erosion occur most commonly along the steep bluffs of the Neches 

River (Upper Neches River Corridor Unit, Jack Gore Baygall Unit, Neches Bottom Unit, Lower 

Neches River Corridor Unit, and in the newly acquired Canyonlands Unit). Erosion is also 

occurring along bluffs adjacent to the Trinity River at Menard Creek. If the Rush Creek area 

(near Beech Creek) is acquired by the federal government, the Preserve will likely have 

additional hillslope issues due to the area’s varied terrain. 

Paleontological Resources

Fossils have been identified in all strata that outcrop in the Preserve, making it a high probability 

area for finding paleontological resources. The brief description that follows has been adapted 
13

from Kenworthy et al. (2007) which presents a more thorough account of fossil occurrences and 

significance, as well as park management recommendations to protect paleontological resources. 

The Fleming Formation outcrops in steep gullies in and around the Preserve’s most northern 

management units. The Fleming Formation is widely known for its abundant and diverse faunal 

assemblage, primarily representing vertebrates such as fish, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. 

Although the fossils of the Fleming Formation tend to be poorly preserved, they are significant 

for their use in paleo-environmental reconstructions and in establishing stratigraphic 

relationships. 

According to Kenworthy et al. (2007), Miocene rhinoceros material was collected in 2002 by a 

local resident near, and likely in the Preserve along the banks of the Neches River in the Town 

Bluff area just below Dam B of the B.A. Steinhagen Lake. Dwyer (2005) reported on this 

discovery and also noted the potential for large pieces of petrified wood in the same area. The 

Miocene rhinoceros fossils are apparently now on display at the Icehouse Museum in Silsbee. 

A Pleistocene-age mammoth tooth was found among reworked sediments of the Fleming 

Formation along the bank of the Trinity River in the Menard Creek Corridor Unit of the park. A 

mammoth or mastodon bone fragment was also discovered in February 2009 in the same general 

area. This site of the 2009 discovery also produced several small pieces of petrified wood 

(Dusty Pate, Big Thicket National Preserve, pers. comm. 2009). 

Although all strata may contain petrified wood, the basal gravels of the Willis Formation are 

reported to have most of the petrified wood in the Preserve (Fay 2008). The Bentley Formation 

includes some marine invertebrates in small, isolated deposits. The Bentley and Montgomery 

formations are regionally known to preserve ice-age megafauna such as ancestral horse, 

mastodon, giant ground sloth, turtle, and saber-tooth cat material. 

The Beaumont Formation in the Big Thicket area has produced fresh, marine, and brackish water 

local fauna, including invertebrates, vertebrates, as well as flora such as cypress logs. However, 

fossils have not yet been officially documented within the Preserve from the Beaumont 

Formation. Also, late Pleistocene Trinity River Terraces near the Preserve have produced an 

abundance of fossil material including vertebrates, aquatic invertebrates, insects, and logs. 

Especially interesting are the rare and well-preserved skulls of a ground sloth and a species of 

tapir discovered in Pleistocene gravel terrace deposits of the Trinity River now submerged under 

Lake Livingston (Lundelius and Slaughter 1976). 

The Deweyville Formation is not known for paleontological resources, but it has produced 

petrified wood. In addition, undivided fluviatile terrace deposits and recent alluvium may 

contain a small amount of reworked older fossil material. 

Unique or Culturally Significant Geologic Features

Sand mounds (also referred to as “pimple mounds” or “Mima mounds”) occur throughout the 

Texas Gulf Coast Plain, and the highest concentration of sand mounds in the Preserve occurs in 

the Lance Rosier Unit. All known mounds of this region occur in-and-on the sandy surficial 

deposits. Despite the widespread continental (and even global) distribution of these features, 

their origin and mode of formation is uncertain. Sand mounds, river terraces, and other high 
14

grounds are high probability areas for finding cultural artifacts and commonly contain evidence 

of camps and ancient inhabitants. A different and unrelated type of mound-feature occurs to the 

northwest of the Preserve and is the work of the Caddoan Mound Builder Culture (Dusty Pate, 

Big Thicket National Preserve, pers. comm. 2008). These mound-features are approximately 10 

ft (3 m) high. 

As noted by Fay (2008), salt domes are important features for a variety of reasons: unique 

topographic highs tend to be significant in a cultural context, salt domes can produce salt licks 

which attract wildlife, and the features are associated with the occurrence of historically curative 

sulfurous water. Salt domes are historically significant and provide an excellent opportunity to 

interpret their origin and uses (e.g., oil and gas development in the area). Salt domes are 

hydrologically significant because the topographic highs influence surface drainage; High Island, 

near the Preserve, is a good example of this (Fay 2008). Fay (2008) also noted that Sour Lake 

has a distinct topographic expression and its movement could have been influenced by oil and 

gas production (e.g., Spindletop, Saratoga, and Sour Lake oil and gas fields). 

Oil and Gas Development

The vast majority of oil and gas resources beneath the Preserve are non-federally owned (owned 

by private individuals, companies, or the State of Texas). When Preserve lands were acquired by 

the NPS, private entities retained the subsurface oil and gas mineral rights for most of the lands, 

and the State of Texas retained the subsurface oil and gas mineral rights beneath the Neches 

River and navigable reaches of Pine Island Bayou. 

The owners and/or lessees of these mineral interests have the right to develop the oil and gas 

resources subject to applicable laws, regulations and policies. NPS regulations at 36 CFR Part 9, 

Subpart B (36 CFR 9B), promulgated in 1978, govern all activities associated with the 

exploration and development of nonfederal oil and gas in National Park System units where 

access is on, across or through federally owned or controlled lands or waters. The 36 CFR 9B 

regulations are “designed to insure that activities undertaken pursuant to these (nonfederal oil 

and gas) rights are conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the National 

Park System and each unit thereof were created, to prevent or minimize damage to the 

environment and other resource values, and to ensure to the extent feasible that all units of the 

National Park System are left unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 

According to Preserve records, approximately 226 abandoned oil and gas wells are within the 

boundaries of the Preserve. Most wells had been plugged and abandoned before the Preserve 

was established in 1974. However, nonfederal oil and gas exploration and development 

operations (e.g., geophysical surveys, exploratory well drilling, well production, transportation, 

reclamation, etc.) continue today in the Preserve, and there are nine active operations occurring 

on NPS lands. In addition, 31 oil and gas wells directionally drilled beneath the Preserve from 

adjacent lands are currently in operation. 

Another oil and gas management issue in the Preserve involves existing oil and gas pipelines and 

associated rights-of-way that traverse several Preserve units. These trans-park pipelines 

transport crude oil, natural gas, liquid petroleum gas and natural gas liquids, refined products, 

and produced saltwater through the Preserve units. Most of the pipelines are not associated with 

the development of nonfederal oil and gas rights within the Preserve. The only management 
15

units in the Preserve that do not have trans-park pipelines are the Loblolly and Beech Creek 

units. There are 71 pipeline segments crossing units of the Preserve within pre-existing rights-ofway totaling 101 miles of pipelines and occupying approximately 589 acres (NPS 2006). It is 

important to note that at present, no statutory authority exists for granting new trans-park 

pipeline rights-of-way within the Preserve. 

According to Schenk et al. (1999), additional oil and gas development will likely continue in the 

Preserve, and geologic formations that may be productive in the future include the Upper 

Cretaceous Tuscaloosa Formation, Upper Cretaceous Austin Chalk (Austin Group), the 

Paleocene-Eocene Wilcox Group, the Eocene Yegua Formation and other sandstones of the 

Claiborne Group, the Oligocene Vicksburg Formation, and the Oligocene Frio Formation. 

In an effort to establish a general framework for managing the development of nonfederal oil and 

gas in the Preserve over the next 15-20 years, the NPS prepared an Oil and Gas Management 

Plan and Environmental Impact Statement in 2005 (NPS 2006). The Big Thicket National 

Preserve Oil and Gas Management Plan identifies resources and values most susceptible to 

adverse impacts from oil and gas operations; establishes performance standards and impact 

mitigation measures to protect and prevent impairment of Preserve resources and values; 

establishes performance standards and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts on 

visitor use and enjoyment, and human health and safety; and provides pertinent information to 

oil and gas operators to facilitate planning and compliance with NPS and other applicable 

regulations. 

Vegetation

The landscape types of the Preserve are dispersed in a distinctive regional pattern throughout the 

Big Thicket that mirrors the north-to-south depositional sequencing of its geology and the 

availability of water at land surface: 

 

To the north -- the higher hill country and more permeable and older Willis and Bentley 

formations, where higher topography and sandier soil result in rapid drainage and 

subsurface percolation. The longleaf pine upland favors the well-drained soils of the 

northern formations. 

To the south -- the younger Montgomery and Beaumont formations have a high clay 

content that makes the surficial soils almost impermeable. Contiguous forests of longleaf 

pine give way to the pine savannah wetlands, with the exception of isolated patches of 

longleaf pines found locally in drier and better drained highlands. Most soils in the 

Preserve developed on these two formations, which are exposed at the surface in 

approximately 70 percent of the Preserve. 

In the flat and lower lying land of the pine savannah wetlands, in combination with 

impermeable clay soils, rainfall has no place to go, and results in standing water during 

rainy times of the year. Conversely, the impermeable soil prevents ground water from 

seeping upward, creating very dry soil conditions during dry spells. Thus, generally only 

annuals and certain trees with extensive root systems can thrive in the savannah wetlands. 
16

The placement of the Preserve’s landscape types is also a reflection of local-scale geologic 

features (porosity and structure): 

Perched high on old stream and river terraces that no longer flood are ancient sand hills 

left by earlier rivers and streams and coastal dune deposits from the times of higher sea 

level. Because water percolates through the deep sand, leaving a dry surface, only plants 

adapted to desert-like conditions can survive. 

At the bottom of these terrace bluffs or sand hills are seeps and springs that feed water 

into low spots of old river meanders or depressions, and where water collects in the 

bottom of a closed, poorly drained depression. Debris from surrounding vegetation seeps 

into the water, causing the water to become dark, clear, low in oxygen, and highly acidic. 

Generally speaking, the geologic sequencing of deposition and erosion has created an undulating 

landscape with varying levels of permeability at the surface – and distinct differences in the 

availability of moisture at land surface, whether as rain, stream/river flow, or groundwater – 

which (combined with other ecological factors such as climate and wildland fire frequency), has 

manifested itself into four general landscape types with somewhat distinctive vegetation: 

uplands, slopes, flatlands, and floodplains. Marks and Holcomb (1981) provide a detailed 

description of vegetation types discussed below for each landscape type: 

Uplands: The Sandhill Pine Forest is found on level, deep, sandy terraces associated with 

river bluffs. Upland Pine Forest is found on level to gently rolling hilltops with sandy 

surface soils. Wetland Pine Savanna occurs within the uplands on shallow, poorlydrained depressions with slow drainage due to a subsurface clay layer (clay pans). 

Longleaf Pine (Pinus palustris) is dominant in the upland types. In the Sandhill Pine 

Forest, P. palustris is widely scattered; however, the former has a subcanopy layer of 

Quercus incana (bluejack oak), and the latter has a ground layer of wetland herbs and 

shrubs. 

Slopes: In the slope forests, P. echinata (shortleaf pine) and P. taeda (loblolly pine) 

replace P. palustris as the dominant species. Southern red oak (Q. falcate), white oak (Q. 

alba), southern Magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) and American beech (Fagus 

grandifolia) are the principal understory hardwoods. Shortleaf pine, loblolly pine, and 

southern red oak contribute more than 50 percent of the basal area in Upper Slope Pine 

Oak forest. In the Mid Slope Oak forest, loblolly pine, white oak, and shortleaf pine 

dominate. In the Lower Slope Hardwood Pine forest, loblolly pine, American beech, 

magnolia, and white oak dominate. 

Flatlands: Flatlands are level, low-elevation inter-distributary flats or terraces associated 

with geological deposits of the ancient Trinity River. Surface drainage patterns are 

poorly developed because of the topography and fine soil texture, so that standing water 

is common after heavy rains. Basket oak (Q. michauxii), willow oak (Q. phellos), laurel 

oak (Q. laurifolia), loblolly pine, and green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica) are dominant 

trees in Flatland Hardwood Forest. This forest is also characterized by the presence of 

dwarf palmetto (Sabal minor). 
17

Floodplains: Collectively the vegetation types that occur in the floodplains are sometimes 

considered as bottomland hardwoods in the broadest sense. All of these vegetation types 

occur where moisture is prevalent. Floodplain Hardwood Pine Forest occurs in 

floodplains of smaller streams. Loblolly pine and American beech are dominant species. 

Shrubs are characteristically scarce in this vegetation type. Floodplain Hardwood Forest 

occurs in the floodplain of larger streams and the Neches River. Black oak (Q. nigra) 

and American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are dominant species. Many 

individuals of the overstory reach great girth, an appearance accentuated by the open 

understory. Arboreal vines are a conspicuous feature of these forests. Swamp Cypress 

Tupelo Forest occurs in the deeper backswamps, sloughs, oxbows, and other depressions 

and along the Neches River. Swamp cypress (Taxodium distichum) and water tupelo 

(Nyssa aquatica) predominate. These forests are the most structurally impressive forest 

stands in the Big Thicket. Wetland Baygall Shrub Thicket occurs frequently in 

depressions where water stands for much of the year. Overstory dominants include laurel 

oak and black tupelo (N. sylvatica). Depending on overstory density, the shrub layer may 

vary from open to nearly impenetrable. 

Hydrography

Big Thicket National Preserve lies primarily in the lower reaches of the Neches River Basin, 

with the exception of Menard Creek which is in the adjacent Trinity River Basin (Figure 6). 

More specifically, the management units of the Preserve lie within four watersheds: the lower 

reaches of the main stem Neches River, Big Sandy/Village Creek and Pine Island Bayou – both 

of which flow into the Neches River north of Beaumont, and Menard Creek – which flows into 

the Trinity River Basin near Romayor (Figure 6). Barring the Menard Creek Unit, water flows 

from almost anywhere in the Big Thicket towards the Neches River; organic material from the 

thicket is carried by the river into the marshes below Beaumont, nourishing the coastal estuarine 

ecosystem. 

In total, the Neches River flows southeast for approximately 416 miles from Van Zandt County 

to the Gulf of Mexico near Port Neches. A drainage area of 10,011 mi2

 and abundant rainfall 

over the entire Neches Basin results in an annual flow near the Gulf of approximately 6 million 

acre-feet. The tributary drainages generally follow dendritic patterns that are indicative of 

horizontal or near horizontal bedrock and gentle sloping topography. The tidal portion of the 

watershed extends from the confluence with Sabine Lake upstream into the southeast portion of 

the Beaumont Unit. Flows in the Neches River downstream of this area are also influenced by 

tides, water quality of the ocean, and discharges from the upper watershed. The tidal segment is 

highly developed, industrialized, and is dredged to maintain a navigation channel. 

A casual observer may conclude that there are two primary – and separate – structures that affect 

the Preserve’s interests along the Neches: B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir/Town Bluff Dam 

(operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and the Neches River Saltwater Barrier (Figure 

7; operated by the Lower Neches Valley Authority). Located 85 river miles apart, these 

structures form the approximate upstream and downstream endpoints of the Preserve’s Neches 

River corridor. These structures, along with the Sam Rayburn Dam (Figure 7), are operated in 
18

Figure 6. Major drainage basins of Texas (left) with a more detailed view of the major 

drainages that comprise Big Thicket National Preserve. Neches River Basin is shaded gray.

 

concert with each other for the purpose of maintaining a carefully calibrated water flow and 

stage regime in the river, thus ensuring delivery of water necessary to satisfy the water rights of 

end users – a large portion of which is passed through the Lower Neches Valley Authority 

(LNVA) Canal – and preventing saltwater intrusion from the heavily industrialized and dredged 

Sabine Lake estuary from fowling fresh water intakes. Thus, waters that pass through the 

preserve are operationally in route to satisfy water rights of agricultural, industrial, and 

municipal end users, to control saltwater intrusion, and also provide recreational opportunities. 

The Trinity River is a 710-mile long river that flows entirely within the State of Texas. It rises in 

extreme north Texas, a few miles south of the Red River. The Trinity River basin drains 

approximately 18,000 mi2

, encompassing parts of 34 counties before entering the Gulf of 

Mexico. It is the second longest river entirely within one state in the U.S., trailing only Alaska's 

Kuskokwim River. 

Surface Water Hydrology

Fluvial features and processes dominate the landscape at Big Thicket National Preserve. Fluvial 

processes such as channel migration, erosion, and flooding not only create a number of resource 

management issues, but significantly influence the community structure and composition of 

vegetation. For example, stream channel migration processes can cause the rivers and larger 

creeks, particularly the Neches River, to meander in and out of the park boundaries. Stream 

bank erosion and channel migration can threaten park resources and infrastructure. The extent, 

timing, and duration of flooding, in combination, are important in shaping the kinds of vegetative 

communities that exist within the floodplain.
19

Figure 7. Map showing the four major watersheds that comprise Big Thicket National Preserve and the 

locations of the Neches River Saltwater Barrier, BA Steinhagen Reservoir, and Sam Rayburn Reservoir. 

Flooding occurs most commonly in the summer during tropical storms and creates resource 

management problems in the Preserve. The severity of flood events may be exacerbated by river 

aggradation and debris loading of the rivers during storm events. High volume water releases 

from B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir (controlled by the US Army Corps of Engineers) occur 

intermittently and typically without notice to the NPS, resulting in incised channels, downstream 

aggradation, and flooding of the Neches River. 

Streams and rivers in the coastal plain are characterized by strong annual cycles, with high flows 

occurring in winter and spring when evapotranspiration is low and low flows occurring during 

the summer and fall when vegetation cover in the watersheds evapotranspires much of the 

precipitation that falls (Figure 8). Surface water hydrology, ranging from headwater creeks to 

the Neches River, plays a vital role in the ecological function of the Preserve. 

Although diversity and complexity of the streams in the Gulf Coast Plain make generalizations 

difficult, they are categorized as “warm water” streams which tend to have: (1) low gradients, (2) 

moderate to high discharge, (3) low turbulence, and (4) rubble-sand-mud substrates. There are 
20

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

NovDec

10

100

1000

10000

100000

river discharge

(cubic feet per second)

Neches River

at Evadale Trinity

River

at Romayor

Village Creek

at Kountze

Menard Creek

at Rye

Pine

Island

Bayou

at Sour Lake

Figure 8. Weekly-calculated median discharge rates for major monitored waterways in and near Big 

Thicket National Preserve, 1998-2007. Data Source: U.S. Geolgical Survey. 

strong seasonal variations of many properties of these streams which are related to the amount of 

runoff. Characteristically, there are distinct wet and dry seasons with lowest flow from August 

to October and highest flow from January to March (Felley 1992), and are divided into two 

types: 

• brownwater rivers -- The larger rivers that originate in the continental interior frequently 

carry high amounts of suspended sediments, and are therefore turbid, chocolate brown in 

color, and high in conductivity. These rivers are often referred to as “alluvial” or 

“brownwater” rivers. The Neches River is typical of high turbidity “brownwater” rivers 

in the Big Thicket, but also has high-organic carbon signature more characteristic of 

“blackwater” tributaries that flow into it. 

• blackwater streams -- The smaller streams that originate primarily within the outer 

coastal plain also fluctuate in flow volume, but their flow is more subject to local rainfall 

events. Those that drain areas of predominantly sandy, acidic soils are sometimes 

termed “blackwater” streams, owing to high concentrations of organic acids in the water 

and low turbidity. Of the streams in the study area, Village Creek is most nearly typical 

of blackwater streams. 

Menard Creek and Little Pine Island Bayou are small and of variable flow like blackwater 

streams, but are more turbid and of higher conductivity like alluvial streams. The higher 

turbidity and conductivity may be caused by the presence of finer-textured substrates such as 

silts and clays in their watersheds, some of which are in high calcium. 

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) monitors continuous water stage and flow along the Neches 

River at three locations – Town Bluff (since 1951; USGS Station 08040600), Evadale (since 

1921; USGS Station 08041000), and Beaumont (since 2003; USGS Station # 08041780), along 

Village Creek at Kountze (since 1939; USGS Station #08041000), along Pine Island Bayou at 

two locations – Beaumont (since 2004; USGS Station # 08041749) and Sour Lake (since 1965; 
21

USGS Station # 08041700), and Menard Creek near Rye (since 1965; USGS Station # 

08066300). Seasonally, as measured at Evadale, discharge in the Neches River peaks in late 

winter, between 10,000 and 20,000 cfs (cubic feet per second), and recedes during the summer 

and fall to a flow rate between 2,000 and 3,000 cfs (Figure 8). Most of the discharge volume on 

the Neches at Evadale occurs from January through June (Figure 9). This is also true for the 

Trinity River, but to a lesser extent or not at all for the smaller drainages (Figure 9). 

Rainfall

The Big Thicket’s location in East Texas on the western edge of the rainiest part of the 

continental United States east of the Mississippi -- Louisiana’s Gulf Coast region (Figure 10) – 

imparts it with a rather unique rainfall signature: 

• abundant annual rains. An average-annual rainfall of approximately 53 inches (1350 

mm) was recorded at the rain gage used in this study. Nationally, only the Pacific 

Northwest and Louisiana Gulf Coast regions have higher average annual rainfall. 

Statewide, Texas is defined by a steeply declining east-to-west rainfall gradient, making 

east Texas the rain-rich exception to an otherwise semi-arid and arid state. 

• even seasonal spread. Rain falls fairly consistently in all seasons but from different 

sources. Thunderstorms occur 60 days per year, primarily during the summer from 

convectional heating and sea-breeze fed storms from the Gulf of Mexico; and while 

sustained rainfall and flooding often take place in the winter and spring from fronts 

moving across the continent, the most intense rain events are associated with tropical 

storms and hurricanes in the summer and fall (NPS 1996). At the Town Bluff gage, fall 

is the rainiest season and summer the most susceptible to drought (Figure 11). 

Figure 9. Ten-year average annual and half-year (January through June; blue) flow volume comparison 

of Neches River (at Evadale; U.S. Geological Survey Station #08041000), Village Creek (at Kountze; 

USGS Station # 08041500), Pine Island Bayou (at Sour Lake; USGS Station #08041700), Menard Creek 

(at Rye: USGS Station # 08066300), and Trinity River (at Romayor; USGS Station # 08066500) in 

millions of acre-feet of water, 1998-2007. 
22

• rain-spiked peak flows. Winter rains and associated low evapotranspiration typically 

cause the preserve’s creeks and rivers to crest in winter. This seasonal trend is 

complimented along the Neches by inflows from its drier headwater region (estimated 35 

inches of annual rain). However, highest magnitude rains tend to occur in the summer 

and fall, resulting in dramatic flow and stage spikes in local creeks, which combined 

with the regions relatively poor drainage, has lead to severe flooding. In October of 

1994, the remnants of Tropical Storm Rosa caused flood waters to rise to a record of 

12.5 ft above flood stage on Pine Island Bayou. This flood caused 26 counties to be 

declared Federal Disaster Areas, regionally forced the evacuation of 14,000 people, and, 

caused over 700 million dollars in damage, and contaminated several areas by dispersing 

pollutants and mud (Lamar University 1996). 

2.5

5

10

20

30

40

60

80

100inches of rain

Average annual rainfall

for the United States

Source: NOAA

Figure 10. Average annual rainfall across the United States. 

10

15

20

summer

winter

spring

fall rainfall (inches)

75th %tile

25th %tile

50th %tile

Figure 11. Seasonal rainfall distribution at Town Bluff, 1982-2007. 
23

• drought-fueled recession to base flows. Summer dry spells and associated 

evapotranspiration lead to diminishing flows throughout the summer, baring major 

storms, during which riparian flows reflect “base flow” conditions, and in the case of the 

Neches River – upstream reservoir releases. Deeper and prolonged downturns in low 

flow conditions are not uncommon, either as a result of low rainfall years or multi-year 

drought cycles. 

 The rain gage at Town Bluff (maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) 

 averaged 55 inches of annual rain from 1982-2007. For eight of those years it either 

 exceeded 70 inches of annual rain or fell under 50 inches, underscoring the prevalence of 

 drought and flood years (Figure 12). 

It is the seasonal pattern of the abundant rainfall coupled with extended dry periods and 

unpredictable and torrential rains – and the region’s associated high temperatures and humidity 

that fuels the rapid growth and decay of the Big Thicket’s dense floodplain vegetation – which 

sets the stage for the flowing waters that course through the Preserve’s riparian channels, their 

inundation of floodplains, and, on occasion, property damage on adjacent lands. 

Figure 12. Annual and seasonal distribution of rainfall at Town Bluff, 1982-2007. Upper and lower dotted 

line highlight years with more than 70 and less than 50 inches of rain. 

Ground Water Hydrology (excerpted from NPS 2006) 

The Preserve is characterized by marine and non-marine fluvial and deltaic sedimentary deposits 

that are highly variable in lithology and hydraulic properties. These geologic deposits, generally 

consisting of alternating layers of clays, silts, sands and gravels, are hydrologically connected and 

compose the aquifers in the vicinity of the Preserve. Because aquifers generally consist of parts of 

more than one geologic formation, the sediment deposits are commonly grouped together and 

referred to as the Gulf Coast aquifer or Gulf Coast Aquifer System. The Gulf Coast aquifer forms a 

wide belt along the Gulf of Mexico, extending from Florida to Mexico, and is a major aquifer in the 

State of Texas (Figure 13). 

The Gulf Coast aquifer contains three separate aquifers, two of which are in the Preserve. The 

Evangeline aquifer (Figure 13), the deepest of the three aquifers, is within the upper sands of the 

Fleming Formation and the lower sands of the Willis Formation. It contains fresh to moderately 
24

saline water, and supplies a moderate amount of fresh water for municipal uses in Hardin and 

Liberty counties, and for parts of Newton, Jasper, and Tyler counties. 

Overlying the Evangeline aquifer, the Chicot aquifer (Figure 13) is a series of sand and clay beds 

within the Willis, Bentley, Montgomery, and Deweyville Formations, and Quaternary Alluvium. 

Separated by clay beds approximately 200 feet thick, the Chicot aquifer has been subdivided into 

upper and lower levels. The total thickness of the Chicot is roughly 425 feet, and both the thinner 

upper and thicker lower Chicot yield fresh to slightly saline water. The Chicot is the main source of 

groundwater in Orange County, although small to large quantities of fresh water are recovered in 

southern Liberty County. Most of the water used is drawn from the lower Chicot. 

Aquifers at surface pressures are referred to as water table aquifers or unconfined aquifers, and 

usually occur at or near the source of recharge (Lamar University 1996). Both the Evangeline and 

Chicot are water table aquifers near their recharge areas, but become artesian aquifers as the water 

migrates toward the coast. Water table conditions exist in recharge areas where surface deposits are 

permeable enough to allow infiltration of precipitation. Here, water levels in the aquifer fluctuate in 

response to the volume in storage and oftentimes are very close to the ground surface. Recharge to 

both aquifers occurs primarily from precipitation, and may also occur through streams, lakes, and 

Figure 13. General location of the Gulf Coast Aquifer in Texas and its component aquifers near 

Beaumont and the Preserve. 

lateral flow. More locally, recharge may occur as vertical flow between aquifers – where sands of 

one aquifer are in contact with sands of another aquifer (Blanton & Associates, Inc. 1998). 

Conversely, discharge occurs in topographically low areas such as springs, seeps, and streams, and 

in Hardin County, it represents a major loss of groundwater (Baker 1964). 

In both the Evangeline and lower Chicot aquifers, water occurs under artesian conditions 

(Williamson et al. 1990; Blanton & Associates 1998). This does not mean that water will flow to 

the surface, but rather that groundwater is under sufficient pressure to rise above the top of the 

aquifer when provided with a conduit. The presence of artesian conditions indicates that the 

hydraulic gradient in the area increases with depth. Consequently, the preferred direction of flow is 
25

from deeper zones to the surface. As mentioned above, these aquifers become artesian aquifers as 

water migrates downward toward the coast. 

This natural gradient can, and has been reversed in areas of extreme groundwater withdrawals. 

Overpumping water wells causes cones of depression to form, lowering the effective water level 

and may cause saltwater contamination. Cones of depression have been observed in the lower 

Chicot aquifer in the vicinity of Houston, Baton Rouge, and to a lesser extent, Beaumont 

(Williamson et al. 1990). Similarly, between 1941 and 1963, the industrial use of water in Orange 

County from the lower Chicot lowered the level of the water table approximately 45 feet 

(Thorkildsen and Quincy 1990). However, during a 10 year period beginning in 1977, decreased 

water use by industries in Orange County showed a water level increase of approximately 5 to 10 

feet (Thorkildsen and Quincy 1990). However, in spite of this reverse in gradient, there is no 

reference to impacts on the water table which is supported by the upper Chicot aquifer. This is 

likely because of the thick clay layer that separates the upper and lower Chicot aquifers, and the 

large recharge from precipitation on the surficial aquifer. 

Due to the composition and varying depths of the water-bearing formations, a wide range of 

water quality regimes may be encountered. Total dissolved solids values may vary from near 

fresh to saline and hypersaline at depth. In general, the freshest water is close to the surface and 

is likely encountered in the Quaternary Alluvium, near the water table present in the Bentley 

Formation, or in the sand lenses present in the Beaumont Formation. Water in the aquifers is 

generally of good quality, and receives chlorination only before use. 

Groundwater can be severely impacted by both natural and human causes. Natural contaminants 

in southeast Texas include salt from salt domes, sulfur and associated mineral deposits, naturally 

radioactive materials, and the chemicals associated with petroleum deposits (Lamar University 

1996). Human impacts on groundwater include: improper handling, storage, or transport of 

toxic, hazardous, or other contaminating substances; leaching from septic systems, sewage; 

agricultural runoff from fertilizer use; and contamination of water supplies by pathogenic 

(disease-causing) microorganisms. 

Water Quality

Rivers, streams, creeks, and bayous lie at the heart of the Preserve – it contains more than 250 

miles of waterways. Thus, a major aspect of managing the Preserve is to protect the water 

quality of these waterways. 

The Preserve’s narrow footprint – primarily located along or near riparian lands – makes waters 

within it vulnerable to agricultural, timber, oil and gas, and other industrial operations within the 

watershed. Increased runoff from deforestation, application of fertilizers and pesticides, leaks 

and spills from oil and gas operations (hydrocarbons, produced waters, chemicals, solvents and 

fuels), and wastewater return flows threaten to introduce sediments, nutrients, and other harmful 

chemicals into the water column. 

Water Quality Monitoring History

A relatively large amount of water quality data exists for the major drainages in the Preserve, 

either as a result of (a) studies that were either very limited geographically and/or temporally, or 
26

(b) more comprehensive monitoring programs undertaken by the USGS, NPS, and LNVA where 

more continuous data exists. 

The USGS started sampling water quality at six locations in Preserve waterways in 1967, 

coinciding with the same locations it monitored stage and flow (three on the Neches and one 

each on Menard Creek, Village Creek, and Pine Island Bayou); but this water quality monitoring 

has been discontinued except at Evadale. 

The NPS started sampling water quality at 21 locations in 1984, including Beech Creek, Mill 

Creek, Big Sandy Creek/Village Creek, Black Creek, Menard Creek, Pine Island Bayou, and 5 

locations on the mainstream of the Neches River. Between 1984 and 1994, nearly monthly 

measurements were made at 14 of the 20 stations resulting in 1,781 records of field parameters 

and 678 records of laboratory parameters (Hall and Bruce 1996). 

The NPS water quality sampling program culminated in a baseline water quality report by the 

NPS Water Resources Division (NPS 1995). This study analyzed and summarized 40,043 

observations from 493 parameters collected from 41 monitoring stations in and around Big 

Thicket from 1959 to 1993. Of the nine stations where long-term multiple observations were 

made, only two were within Preserve boundaries, both on the Neches River at Evadale and at 

U.S. Highway 96, east of Silsbee (Myers 2005). 

Despite its early success in establishing a water quality monitoring program, the Preserve’s onetime flagship program languished for over a decade or more following the 1995 report as a result 

of staffing and funding shortfalls. Water quality sampling within the Preserve (primarily Neches 

River tributaries – the Neches River in the Preserve has been monitored by LNVA) has been 

rejuvenated through funding from the NPS Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network in 

partnership with the Lower Neches Valley Authority. In 2007 LNVA began quarterly 

monitoring of six routine stations within the Preserve (Pine Island Bayou, Little Pine Island 

Bayou, Turkey Creek, Village Creek and Menard Creek). Besides this monitoring of Preserve 

waters, LNVA’s 2009 water quality monitoring program included 24 other stations with the 

Lower Neches River basin. In addition, Region 10 of the Texas Council for Environmental 

Quality (Beaumont) monitored 20 stations in the Lower Neches River basin, including sites in 

Village Creek and the Neches River. 

Generally, water quality studies across the Preserve have shown water quality to be fair to 

excellent, although in some areas water quality has degraded with respect to particular 

parameters (Harrel 1985; Flora 1984; Flora 1985; Hughes et al. 1987; Hall and Bruce 1996). 

Compared to other rivers in Texas, the Neches River generally has lower values for ion 

concentrations (especially bicarbonate and calcium), hardness, specific conductance, pH, and 

total dissolved solids. 

Hall and Bruce (1996) concluded the following: 

• Collectively, 15 parameters exceeded screening criteria (EPA and NPS-WRD threshold 

standards) at least once within the study area. Those parameters found to exceed EPA 

chronic or acute criteria for the protection of freshwater aquatic life include dissolved 
27

oxygen, pH, chloride, and several metals (cadmium, copper, lead, silver, zinc, and 

mercury). EPA standards for drinking water were exceeded for sulfate, cadmium, 

chromium, lead, nickel, silver, and mercury. In addition, total and fecal coliform 

concentrations and turbidity exceeded the NPS-Water Resources Division screening 

limits for primary-body contact recreation and aquatic life. 

• Rather than indicating widespread general conditions, these findings and the bulk of the 

surface water quality concerns observed reflect localized impacts of human activities 

within the watershed but outside the Preserve. 

• Sewage treatment plant discharge and septic tank usage, oil and gas production, timber 

harvesting, and agricultural practices on surrounding and upstream lands are all potential 

pollution sources. 

• The most consistent and chronic problems were associated with the Pine Island Bayou 

system and to a much lesser extent the Neches River, east of Silsbee at Highway 96. 

These findings have been validated and expanded upon by more recent monitoring efforts (Rizzo 

et al. 2000; see basin highlights at www.lnva.dst.tx.us): 

• Water quality in Big Sandy Creek, Turkey Creek, Village Creek, and the Neches River 

was generally good, but that water quality in Pine Island Bayou was impaired for much 

of the year. 

• Elevated nutrient levels in Pine Island Bayou, primarily nitrates and ammonium that 

likely came from agricultural practices, led to plankton blooms followed by chronically 

low levels of oxygen in the water, especially during periods of low water flow. The 

results also indicated that the chronically low dissolved oxygen condition in the Pine 

Island Bayou system has worsened over time, and that ammonium concentrations have 

increased significantly throughout the Preserve since the NPS (1995) report, likely as a 

result of accelerating agriculture and associated increased use of fertilizers. 

• Algal blooms of lesser extent than Pine Island Bayou also occur on the Neches River. 

However, higher flow through this large alluvial system coupled with considerably lower 

nitrate and ammonium levels prevent severe lowering of dissolved oxygen. 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found concentrations of dioxin exceeding the 

accepted risk level in fish tissue from the lower Neches River downstream from Evadale 

(1990). 

The Preserve contains three state-designated stream segments: Neches River – 0602; Big 

Sandy/Village Creek – 0608; Pine Island Bayou – 0607 (Figure 14). All other streams are 

classified as off-segment and are subject to the same controls as the mainstem segment. 

Designated uses for stream segments of the Preserve are primarily for contact recreation (e.g., 

swimming, boating), medium-to-high-quality aquatic habitat for protection of aquatic life and 

riparian vegetation, and for public water supply. In addition to designated uses, each stream 

segment has a water quality designation indicating the applicable regulatory framework. This 

may be either “effluent limited” which indicates that the segment is meeting its designated uses, 

or “water quality limited” which indicates failure to meet designated uses. 

Neches River – Segment 602: Past studies concluded that total dissolved solid concentrations 

were relatively low (less than 132 mg/L in 50 percent of samples), dissolved oxygen (DO) was 
28

generally close to saturation with a median concentration > 8 mg/L, and nutrient concentrations 

were relatively low (total nitrogen and total phosphorus were < 1.8 mg/L and < 0.2 mg/L, 

respectively). There were small declining trends in alkalinity and calcium, and a small 

increasing trend in sulfate concentration (Wells & Bourdon 1985). From 1995, specific 

conductance and chlorides appear to have decreased, and pH may have experienced a slight 

increase (NPS 1995). 

Seasonally, specific conductance, suspended sediment, and to some extent chloride 

concentrations alternately increased and decreased over the seasons, with high values in the fall 

and spring. DO concentrations were highest in the winter; alkalinity appeared to peak in the fall; 

and sulfate and manganese concentrations seemed to reach the highest levels in the spring (NPS 

1995). 

Designated uses for Segment 602 are contact recreation, high quality aquatic habitat, and public 

water supply. There are three permitted discharges along segment 602: two domestic outfalls, 

and one industrial outfall. 

 

Figure 14. State-designated, stream segment identifiers for Preserve waterways. 
29

EPA water quality criteria levels for zinc, cadmium, copper, and lead have been exceeded in 

some locations along Segment 602. Specifically, mean cadmium concentrations exceeded the 

chronic criterion in the river near Silsbee, causing nonsupport of the aquatic life designated use 

in that area of the river. Both total and dissolved lead exceeded EPA water quality criteria for 

drinking water in 12% and 56% of the samples, respectively. Additionally, sediments have been 

shown to be high in arsenic, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, and methylene chloride 

(Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 1996). 

Big Sandy/ Village Creek – Segment 0608: In 1981 (Flora et al. 1985), surface water quality in 

the Big Sandy/Village Creek watershed was reported as very good. Combined, oxygen and 

temperature regimes would support a diverse and healthy warm-water aquatic life population. 

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were consistently above state standards, indicating no 

substantial organic pollution. Total dissolved solids, specific conductance and chloride 

concentrations – all indicators of contamination from oil operations – were within a range typical 

of southeastern Texas streams. Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations ranged from slight to 

moderate with only a few violations of state water quality standards for contact recreation, with 

all of these occurring in the upper portion of the watershed. Nutrient levels (ammonium, 

orthophosphate, and nitrate) were all below levels of concern. 

The fish and macroinvertebrate populations indicated that Big Sandy/Village Creek was a 

healthy and unstressed environment, and as of 1981, there was no evidence that human activities 

were adversely affecting water quality. 

Preliminary screening of TCEQ and USGS data as of 1996 suggested both pH and dissolved 

oxygen as potential problem parameters within the watershed, and a 1994 basinwide assessment 

added fecal coliform as a potential problem (Lower Neches Valley Authority 1994; Hall and 

Bruce 1996). Data from 1978 identify nearly 3,800 residents in the Village Creek Watershed as 

utilizing individual septic systems. Areas of concentrated use are north of Lumberton, north of 

Silsbee, Honey Island, Village Mills, Hillister, and Doucette. The cities of Silsbee, Kountze and 

Woodville utilize wastewater treatment facilities (Hall and Bruce 1996). 

Designated uses for Segment 608 are contact recreation, high quality aquatic habitat, and public 

water supply. As of 1993, this segment contained 17 permitted NPDES wastewater discharges: 

10 municipal outfalls and seven industrial outfalls. 

Exceedances for EPA water quality criteria include total phosphorus (20 percent of the samples), 

and a sediment sample exceeded acute criteria for aluminum. Overall, indications are that 

regional water quality has declined somewhat, with the exception of improvements in turbidity 

and chlorides.

Pine Island Bayou – Segment 0607: Generally speaking, streams flowing through the Pine Island 

Bayou watershed are similar to other surface waters in Southeastern Texas in that seasonal flows 

are variable and total dissolved solids concentrations are relatively low (Flora et al., 1984). In 

addition to natural factors, land use practices in the watershed have influenced area water quality, 

generally contributing to its degradation. 
30

Hughes et al. (1986) summarized water quality monitoring results from 1975 to 1983, and 

showed that water quality in Little Pine Island-Pine Island Bayou Corridor Unit was moderately 

degraded with respect to specific conductance and chloride concentrations. An additional 

observation regarding water quality is that turbidity in Little Pine Island Bayou varied with 

discharge, from a low during low flows, to a high during high flows (Harrel and Darville 1978). 

Turbidity was lowest at the station near Sour Lake, attributed to contamination with oil field 

brine (saltwater), which precipitates suspended particles. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were 

frequently low in Little Pine Island Bayou (minimum of 0.3 mg/L); and were lowest in the 

summer and highest in the winter. 

Stream Segments, Uses, and Permits: Segment 607 is water quality limited due to violations of 

existing water quality standards. Designated uses for segment 607 are contact recreation, high 

quality aquatic habitat, and public water supply. Since Little Pine Island Bayou is an 

unclassified tributary to Pine Island, it is an off-segment stretch of Pine Island Bayou with the 

same designated uses. 

There are three NPDES permitted discharges in the water corridor unit for sewage treatment 

plant effluent from Pinewood Estates, Bevil Oaks and Lumberton. In 1992, eight NPDES 

municipal wastewater discharge permits and 11 domestic outfalls were recorded for Pine Island 

Bayou. 

The Texas Water Commission (1989) identified dissolved oxygen, pH, and fecal coliform as 

potential problem areas for water quality. Depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations and 

elevated fecal coliform counts, which occur primarily during summer conditions when stream 

flows are low and the water is warmer, have resulted in non-supported designated uses. 

Specifically, the middle 26 miles of the segment 607, located downstream of Sour Lake 

wastewater discharge, has not supported high quality aquatic habitat or contact recreation due to 

depressed dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform (Adsit and Hagen 1978). Sediment samples 

collected during the intensive survey by the Texas Water Commission at two sites, one in Pine 

Island Bayou, and the other in Little Pine Island Bayou, were analyzed for pesticides and metals 

at both sites, and also for PCBs at Little Pine Island Bayou. Survey results indicated elevated 

levels of arsenic, manganese, and mercury, but no state or federal standards were exceeded. 

Water quality of Little Pine Island Bayou was considered the worst in the region throughout its 

length (Hall and Bruce 1996). Little Pine Island Bayou water quality has long been impacted by 

saltwater (brine) in the Saratoga and Sour Lake area. An influx of brine into Little Pine Island 

Bayou, either from existing or abandoned oil field operations, increased specific conductance, 

chloride concentrations, pH, and TDS, and decreased turbidity and color (Kaiser et al. 1993). In 

July 1985, a pipeline rupture released brine which resulted in exceedingly high specific 

conductance readings (16,241 micromhos/cm) and a maximum chloride concentration that 

reached at least 1,400 mg/L in Little Pine Island Bayou. Effects of the spill were studied for 26 

months, but persisted beyond that time. Eventually, the brine settled to the bottom of the 

channel, reducing the specific conductance levels to approximately 2,000 micromhos/cm 

(Hughes et al. 1987). 
31

In 1978, a study determined that Pine Island Bayou complied with the fecal coliform standard of 

200 organisms/100 mL less than 50% of the time during the sampling period during high and 

low flow conditions (Commander 1978). Fecal coliform ranged between 0 to 5,880/100 ml, with 

spikes observed after heavy rains (Harrel and Darville 1978). 

Menard Creek Watershed -- Part of Trinity River Basin: Menard Creek is among a number of 

creeks in the Preserve that exhibit low alkalinity and turbidity (LNVA 1992). Additionally, total 

dissolved solids tended to increase on Menard Creek in the downstream direction. Periods of 

elevated chloride concentrations at Menard Creek have been attributed to contamination by 

waste brines from the Schwab oil field (Hughes et al. 1987). 

Seasonal discharge and stream temperatures were similar to those of Little Pine Island Bayou. 

Dissolved oxygen concentrations tend to be greater than 5 mg/L, but occasionally drop below 4 

mg/L which may be a natural occurrence in streams as influenced by high seasonal water 

temperatures, concurrent low flows, combined with natural organic loading (e.g., decaying 

vegetation) (LNVA 1992). Bacterial counts were not excessive (i.e., mean of 200 fecal 

coliform/100 mL), but were somewhat elevated. 

Data are not available for Menard Creek from water quality assessment reports published by the 

Trinity River Authority. 

As required under Sections 303(d) and 304(a) of the Clean Water Act, Table 3 identifies the 

water bodies in the Preserve for which effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement 

water quality standards, and for which the associated pollutants are suitable for measurement of 

total maximum daily loads (TMDL) – the so-called 303(d) listed streams. The TCEQ develops a 

schedule that identifies TMDLs that will be initiated in the next two years for priority impaired 

waters. Issuance of permits to discharge into 303(d)-listed water bodies is described in the 

TCEQ regulatory guidance document Procedures to Implement the Texas Surface Water Quality 

Standards (August 2002, RG-194). 

Table 3. The 303(d)-listed streams (defined by stream segment) within the Preserve as of 2008. 

Within each segment, specific locations (in italics) and the associated parameters that do not meet 

assigned water quality standards are listed. Category 5 generally refers to a water body that does not 

meet applicable water quality standards or is threatened for one or more designated uses by one or more 

pollutants. Three subcategories are recognized: category 5a - a TMDL is underway, scheduled, or will be 

scheduled; category 5b - a review of the water quality standards for this water body will be conducted 

before a TMDL is scheduled; and, category 5c - additional data and information will be collected before a 

TMDL is scheduled. Year First Listed is the assessment year that the pollutant or water quality condition 

in this water body initially did not meet water quality standards. 

SegID Stream 

Stream Segment 

Category Year First 

Listed 

0607 Pine Island Bayou 

 

Mouth to River Mile 5.7 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 1996 

River Mile 5.7 to Mile 12.1 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 1996 
32

River Mile 12.1 to Mile 35.4 at 

confluence with Willow Creek 

(0607C) 

 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 1996 

 Bacteria 5c 2008 

 

River Mile 35.4 at confluence with 

Willow Creek (0607C) to Mile 60.4 

 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 1996 

 

River Mile 60.4 to top of segment 

at FM 787 

 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 1996 

 

0607B Little Pine Island Bayou 

Lower 25 miles 

 Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 2000 

 Bacteria 5c 2006 

 

0608 Village Creek 

From FM 418 to Lake Kimble dam 

 pH 5b 2000 

0608A Beech Creek 

Lower 20 miles of water body 

 Bacteria 5c 2000 

0608B Big Sandy Creek 

 

Lower 30 miles downstream of US 

190 

 

Bacteria 5c 2000 

 

0608C Cypress Creek 

Entire water body 

Depressed dissolved oxygen 5b 2000 

Aluminum in water 5c 2004 

Bacteria 5c 2006 

 

0608E Mill Creek 

Entire water body 

Depressed dissolved oxygen 5c 2006 

 

0608F Turkey Creek 

Lower 25 miles of segment 

Bacteria 5c 2000 
33

Wetland and Riparian Areas

Wetlands represent transitional environments between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the 

water table is at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water (Cowardin et al. 

1979). Flora within these wetland systems exhibit extreme spatial variability, triggered by very 

slight changes in elevation. Temporal variability is also great because the surface water depth is 

highly influenced by changes in precipitation, evaporation and/or infiltration. 

Cowardin et al. (1979) developed a wetland classification system that is now the standard in the 

federal government. In this system, a wetland must have one or more of the following attributes: 

(1) at least periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is 

predominately un-drained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water 

or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. 

Natural riparian zones are some of the most diverse, dynamic, and complex biophysical habitats 

in the terrestrial environment (Naiman et al. 1993). The riparian zone encompasses that stream 

channel between low and high watermarks and that portion of the terrestrial landscape from the 

high watermark toward the uplands where vegetation may be influenced by elevated water tables 

or flooding and by the ability of the soils to hold water (Naiman and Decamps 1997). Thus, 

riparian zones may be classified as wetlands or, at the least, have a significant portion existing as 

wetland. Riparian zones are key systems for regulating aquatic-terrestrial linkages (Ward 1998) 

and they may provide early indications of environmental change (Decamps 1993). 

Physically, riparian zones control mass movements of materials and channel morphology 

(Naiman and Decamps 1997). Ecologically, riparian zones: 1) provide sources of nourishment – 

terrestrial inputs to rivers; 2) control nonpoint sources of pollution, in particular, sediment and 

nutrients in agricultural watersheds; and 3) create a complex of shifting habitats (both in time 

and space), through variations in flood duration and frequency and concomitant changes in water 

table depth and plant succession (Naiman and Decamps 1997). 

Wetlands, in general, and riparian habitat, in particular are important ecological components 

within Big Thicket National Preserve. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) maps for the Preserve have identified approximately 35,000 acres (40 percent 

of the Preserve) of primarily palustrine and riverine wetlands, and, to a much lesser extent, 

lacustrine wetlands (NPS 2006; Table 4). The wetland acreage for the Preserve as determined 

from the NWI maps is probably underestimated. NWI wetland mapping is difficult in large areas 

with mineral soils, facultative vegetation, and minor topographic relief, conditions similar to 

those found in the Preserve. The wetland boundaries on NWI maps are estimates because the 

area of the Preserve was mapped from a single air photograph for each topographic map; 

photographs taken during each of the seasons may produce different wetland boundaries. 

The majority of wetlands in the Preserve are palustrine wetlands that are dominated by trees, 

shrubs, or persistent emergent vegetation. The palustrine wetlands of the Preserve contain 

nonwoody aquatic plants such as rushes (Juncus spp.), arrowheads (Sagittaria spp.), sedges 

(Carex spp.), grasses, vines, pitcher plants and other plants. The palustrine forested and scrubshrub wetlands are also referred to as riparian wetlands. The forested and scrub-shrub wetlands 

are characterized by a dominance of woody vegetation including bald cypress, tupelo gum 
34

Table 4. Wetland types (after Cowardin et al. 1979) and acreage within Big Thicket National Preserve 

(modified from NPS 2006). Wetland acres in recently added units to the Preserve are not included in this 

table. 

 Wetland Type Acres in Preserve 

Palustrine 31,710 

Riverine 3,125 

Lacustrine 60 

Total 34,895 

(Nyssa aquatica), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), oaks (Quercus spp.), river birch (Betula nigra), 

sweetgum, sweetbay (Magnolia virginiana), sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), American 

hornbeam, baygall holly (llex coriacea), red maple (Acer rubrum), and red bay (Persea 

borbonia). The wetlands are sustained by a high water table and flooding. 

Forests within the floodplain terraces adjacent to the streams are often referred to as the 

Bottomland Hardwoods. These ecosystems are found wherever streams or rivers at least 

occasionally cause flooding beyond their channel confines, and are often identified by the 

presence of flaring trunks and aerial roots. In the Preserve the bottomland forests consist of two 

types – Floodplain Hardwood Forests and Floodplain Hardwood Pine Forests. Floodplain 

Hardwood Forest occurs on the low terraces along the Neches River and in strips along Little 

Pine Island Bayou, Village Creek and its tributaries, and Menard Creek. Floodplain Hardwood 

Pine Forest occurs along smaller streams. 

The riverine wetlands are the wetlands and deepwater habitat within stream channels. The 

majority of the riverine wetlands lie within the Neches River corridor, including the Jack Gore 

Baygall and Neches Bottom Unit. 

Floodplains 

Area topography, soils, and climate all combine to produce a unique flood regime in southeast 

Texas. The most notable of these factors is the Preserve’s proximity to the Gulf of Mexico 

moisture source, as well as the effects of tropical storms and easterly waves (Patton and Baker 

1977). Intense storms result in large magnitude runoff events; however, flood peaks are 

attenuated by broad flat valleys that produce slow-moving, long-duration floods. 

In the southern part of the Preserve, the land surface is nearly level and slopes are generally less 

than one percent. In addition, the high clay and silt content of soils in the area is a major factor 

contributing to the accumulation of surface runoff. The problems of poor drainage on flatlands 

cannot be separated from flooding problems. 

Floodplains comprise roughly 50 percent of the Preserve, and most of the Preserve’s wetlands 

are located in floodplains. Similarly, the water corridor units and riparian corridors are located 

in floodplains and consist primarily of floodplain forests. 
35

Air Quality

The Preserve is designated a Class II area under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA). Although the Preserve does not receive the 

highest level of protection afforded Class I areas, CAA provisions requiring regulated 

development of new sources of air pollution, as well as attainment of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), are applicable and are intended to ensure healthy air for both 

humans and ecosystems. Despite this protection, air quality is sometimes significantly impaired 

in the Preserve. Air pollutants from both nearby industrial and urban areas, as well as from more 

distant regional sources are carried into the area where they cause reduced visibility and 

unhealthy levels of ozone. Air pollution may also harm aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems in the 

Preserve. 

The Preserve is north of the Beaumont/Port Arthur/Orange airshed and northeast of the 

Houston/Galveston airshed. Air pollutant emissions from these areas are dominated by volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) from vehicles and oil and gas production and refining, and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx) from powerplants, vehicles, and industry. VOCs and NOx combine in the presence 

of sunlight to form ozone, which is harmful to both human health and vegetation. Air quality is 

not monitored within the Preserve, but nearby monitors provide data. A monitor at Beaumont, 

TX, indicates that while ozone concentrations have decreased since the early 1990s (Figure 15), 

they have remained relatively unchanged from 1998-2007. Both the Beaumont/Port 

Arthur/Orange airshed and the Houston/Galveston airshed continue to have ozone levels that 

exceed the NAAQS, currently set at 75 ppb and are classified as ozone Nonattainment Areas. 

Part of the Preserve is in the Houston Nonattainment Area (Liberty County), while part is in the 

Beaumont-Port Arthur Nonattainment Area (Jefferson, Hardin, and Orange counties) (Figure 

16). The Lake Charles, LA petrochemical complex, a nearby pulp and paper mill, and sources 

within the Preserve also contribute to air pollution in the area. 

Figure 15. Trends in ozone concentrations, Beaumont TX. The ozone standard, currently set at 

75 ppb, is expressed as the 3-year average of the annual 4th highest 8-hour ozone concentration.
36

Figure 16. Map showing location of Big Thicket National Preserve and counties designated 

nonattainment for the ozone standard. 

Recently available scientific information indicates that the current primary and secondary ozone 

standards of 75 ppb are not sufficiently protective of human health or welfare. In January 2010, 

the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed strengthening the standards, 

revising the “primary” standard to protect public health to a value in the range of 60-70 ppb. The 

State of Texas will be required to develop more stringent emissions control strategies to meet the 

new standard. EPA also proposed establishing a distinct “secondary” standard to protect 

sensitive vegetation and ecosystems. The secondary standard would be expressed as a 

cumulative index that is considered more biologically relevant than the 8-hour average used for 

the primary standard. 

Ozone has been shown to reduce growth, reproduction, and water use efficiency in plants, as 

well as causing visible injury like stippling or bleaching (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

2007). Common trees in the Preserve sensitive to ozone include Liquidambar styraciflua

(sweetgum), Sassafras albidum (sassafras), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), and Fraxinus

pennsylvatica (green ash). A more complete list of ozone-sensitive vegetation in the Preserve is 

available from the NPSpecies Database. Although vegetation in the Preserve has not been 

evaluated for ozone injury, a 2004 assessment concluded that the risk of ozone injury to 

vegetation in the Preserve was high (Kohut 2007). 

Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is formed when gases like NOx and SO2 transform to nitrates and 

sulfates in the atmosphere. In addition, carbon, ammonium, organics, dust, and heavy metals 

contribute to PM2.5. In 1996, PM2.5 was monitored in the Preserve as part of a special study by 

the Texas Council on Environmental Quality, NPS, and Mexico to increase understanding of the 

transport of pollution to the Big Bend area of Texas. Of the 18 sites monitored during a two-
37

month period on both sides of the U. S. – Mexico border, the Preserve exhibited the highest 

levels of PM2.5. PM 2.5 contributes to haze, which reduces how far and how well one can see, as 

well as causing respiratory problems. Preliminary results showed that air arriving at Big Bend 

National Park from the Big Thicket area contained some of the highest levels of PM2.5 of the 

study sites. 

Biological Resources

Biological resources include the commonly referenced wildlife and vegetation. Stated more 

clearly, and scientifically, these resources include genes, species, and biological communities 

(assemblages of species). Biological resources are best placed in a management context through 

ecological settings. These can include the health and fitness of individual organisms in response 

to environmental conditions, competition and other interactions among species themselves, the 

response of populations to management within specific geographic boundaries, and the 

patterning of communities across landscapes in response to physical site conditions and abiotic 

processes such as floods and fire. The latter plays a significant part in defining “the Thicket” as 

an extraordinary ecological system. Normally, baseline information in the form of species 

inventories would be presented here. In the case of the Preserve, several older inventories have 

been conducted, but will only be summarized because the Preserve is in the process of 

conducting an All-Taxa Biological Survey (ATBI) that will improve on the depth of older 

surveys through updated collection and sampling techniques, and the breadth of older surveys by 

comprehensively addressing a wide range of taxa, including invertebrates. 

A report on Preserve natural resource information provides a baseline (Cooper et al. 2004) for 

developing work in inventory, monitoring and planning. Excerpts from Cooper et al. are 

presented below. The entire report can be found at 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/guln/docs/NRS/BITH_finalreport.pdf). 

The area in and adjacent to the Preserve is characterized by diverse habitats due to high 

precipitation, warm temperatures and geologic, soil, and water gradients. These present 

conditions for species from three converging ecosystems: the eastern hardwood forest, the Gulf 

coastal plains, and the Midwest prairies. The Preserve has been designated as an International 

Biosphere Reserve, in part, for the genetic stock of its varied biological resources. The Preserve 

also has been designated as a Globally Important Bird Area by the American Bird Conservancy. 

The plant communities and vegetation types found in the Preserve have been documented and 

described in many reports. These studies varied in focus from general diversity and community 

structure to documentation of new species for the area, and have been conducted in the Big 

Thicket region as well as the Preserve. The Preserve is composed of five main forest types with 

subcategories within -- upland pine forest (pine sandhill, pine forests, pine savanna wetland), 

slope forest (upper slope pine oak, mid-slope oak pine, lower slope hardwood pine), floodplain 

forest (stream floodplain forest, river floodplain forest, cypress-tupelo swamp), flatland forest 

(flatland hardwood pine, flatland hardwood), and baygalls. Various classification frameworks 

have been applied to assessing vegetation, and efforts are now being made by both the NPS and 

State of Texas to develop classification products (including maps) of vegetation. Fuel 

classifications for wildland fire management are also available, but products are still being 

adapted to new fuel model classifications. Preserve managers do have current information on 

major system-level terrestrial resources via the Land/Fire program. These systems and rare 
38

communities, listed below, provide managers with the knowledge to distinguish systems and to 

address specific information and management needs of those resources. 

Ecological Systems 

Matrix Systems1: 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain Upland longleaf pine forest and woodland 

• Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain floodplain systems 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain longleaf pine savanna and flatwoods 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain pine-hardwood forest 

1 Matrix -- Communities or systems that form extensive and contiguous cover, occur on 

the most extensive landforms, and typically have wide ecological tolerances. 

Large Patch Systems2

: 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain pine-hardwood flatwoods 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain seepage swamp and baygall 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain mesic hardwood forest 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain southern calcareous prairie 

• Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain swamp systems 

2 Large Patch -- Types that form large areas of interrupted cover and typically have 

narrower ranges of ecological tolerances than matrix types. In contrast small patches are 

types that form small, discrete areas of vegetation cover typically limited in distribution 

by localized environmental features. 

Linear Systems3 (Note: Some of these areas also classified as Large Patches): 

• Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain floodplain systems 

• Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain small stream riparian systems 

• Gulf and Atlantic Coastal Plain swamp systems 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain stream terrace sandyland longleaf pine woodland 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain upland longleaf pine forest and woodland 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain flatwoods pond 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain large river floodplain forest 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain near-coast large river swamp 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain nonriverine wet hardwood flatwoods 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain small stream and river rorest 

• West Gulf Coastal Plain herbaceous seepage bog 

3

Linear -- Types that occur as linear strips and are often ecotonal between terrestrial and 

freshwater ecosystems. 

Vulnerable Biological Communities 

For the biological communities below Global or G-ranks are designations that reflect both the 

unique nature and status: 
39

G1 species have fewer than 6 occurrences worldwide and are critically imperiled; 

G2 species have 6-20 occurrences worldwide and are imperiled and vulnerable to extinction 

throughout its range; G3 species have 21-100 occurrences worldwide and are either rare and 

local throughout their ranges or found locally in a restricted range (a single state or ecoregion), 

or having other factors making it vulnerable to extinction throughout its range. 

• Bigelowia nuttallii - Krameria lanceolata - Aristida dichotoma -Sporobolus silveanus

Herbaceous Vegetation (East Texas Catahoula Barrens) G1 

• Fagus grandifolia - Magnolia grandiflora - Quercus alba / Carpinus caroliniana - 

Ostrya virginiana - Ilex opaca var. opaca Forest G1?

• Fagus grandifolia - Magnolia virginiana - (Pinus palustris) / Chasmanthium 

sessiliflorum Sandhill Streamhead Forest G2G3

• Fagus grandifolia - Quercus alba / Acer (barbatum, leucoderme) / Solidago auriculata

Forest G2G3

• Fraxinus caroliniana Seasonally Flooded Forest G2G3? 

• Magnolia virginiana - Nyssa biflora - Acer rubrum – Liquidambar styraciflua / Myrica 

heterophylla Forest G2G3?

• Panicum hemitomon - Gratiola brevifolia Herbaceous Vegetation? G2G3? 

• Pinus palustris - Quercus stellata - Quercus incana / Tetragonotheca ludoviciana

Woodland G2

• Pinus palustris / Eryngium integrifolium - Rhynchospora spp. - (Ctenium aromaticum)

Woodland G2G3

• Pinus palustris / Quercus incana - Quercus margarettiae / Vaccinium arboreum / 

Cnidoscolus texanus - Stylisma pickeringii var. Pattersonii Woodland G2G3

• Pinus palustris / Quercus incana / Schizachyrium scoparium – Croton argyranthemus

Woodland G2G3

• Pinus palustris / Quercus incana / Schizachyrium scoparium – Liatris elegans - Opuntia 

humifusa var. humifusa Woodland G1?

• Pinus palustris / Quercus marilandica / Ilex vomitoria / Schizachyrium scoparium

Woodland G2

• Pinus palustris / Quercus marilandica / Schizachyrium scoparium - Silphium laciniatum - 

Ruellia humilis Woodland G1

• Pinus palustris / Quercus marilandica / Schizachyrium tenerum - Muhlenbergia expansa 

- Bigelowia nuttallii Woodland G1

• Pinus palustris - Quercus stellata - Quercus marilandica - Carya texana / Tragia urens 

Woodland G2

• Pinus palustris / Rhynchospora elliottii - Lobelia flaccidifolia - Platanthera nivea - 

(Helenium drummondii) Woodland G2G3

• Pinus palustris / Schizachyrium scoparium - Bigelowia nuttallii / Cladonia spp. 

Herbaceous Vegetation G1G2

• Pinus palustris / Schizachyrium scoparium - Rudbeckia grandiflora var. alismifolia

Woodland G2G3

• Pinus palustris / Schizachyrium scoparium - Schizachyrium tenerum - Silphium gracile

Woodland G2

• Pinus palustris / Schizachyrium scoparium - Liatris pycnostachya Woodland G2G3
40

• Pinus taeda - (Pinus echinata) - Quercus alba - Carya alba / Acer barbatum - (Acer 

leucoderme) Forest G2G3

• Quercus alba - Quercus nigra /Ostrya virginiana / Sabal minor Forest (Upper West Gulf 

Coastal Plain Subcalcareous White Oak - Dwarf Palmetto Forest) G2G3

• Quercus laurifolia - Quercus phellos - Quercus nigra / Sabal minor - Sebastiania 

fruticosa Forest G2G3?

• Quercus phellos - Quercus nigra / Viburnum dentatum - (Sebastiania fruticosa) / Carex 

glaucescens Upper West Gulf Flatwoods Forest G2G3

• Quercus pagoda - Liquidambar styraciflua / Ulmus crassifolia – Celtis laevigata / Carex

cherokeensis Forest G2G3

• Quercus stellata - Carya texana - (Pinus palustris) / Chasmanthium sessiliflorum - 

Ranunculus fascicularis Woodland G1

• Rudbeckia missouriensis - Grindelia lanceolata - (Liatris mucronata) Herbaceous 

Vegetation G1

• Sarracenia alata - Rhynchospora gracilenta - Rudbeckia scabrifolia - Schoenolirion 

croceum Herbaceous Vegetation G2G3

• Schizachyrium scoparium Taxodium distichum West Gulf Coastal Plain Lakeshore 

Woodland G2G3? 

Species

Current species lists (include some historic and unconfirmed records) that are certified for park 

and Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network use include (with number of species): 

Amphibians (30) 

Birds (306) 

Fish (111) 

Mammals (67) 

Reptiles (59) 

Plants (1346) 

Vulnerable Species 

While NPS policy avoids species-specific approaches to management, sometimes certain species 

require attention. Examples of such species include those known to be rare or imperiled; 

declining; narrowly endemic to the park and surroundings; of widely disjunct distribution; as 

well as, migratory species with specific vulnerabilities to habitat fragmentation. Still, other 

species should be addressed individually because they play critical ecological roles (such as 

connecting food webs; or as triggers to characteristic disturbance processes). Species that may 

warrant additional management attention are listed below: 

 

Federally listed species currently known in the Preserve are: 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted/Monitored 

Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened 

Wood stork Mycteria americana Endangered 

Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Endangered 

Texas trailing phlox Phlox nivalis texensis Endangered 
41

Louisiana black bear Ursus americanus luteolus Threatened 

Louisiana pine snake Pituophis ruthveni Candidate 

Red wolf Canis rufus Endangered 

Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered 

State threatened species include: 

Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis 

Swallow-tailed kite Elanoides forficatus 

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum 

White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi 

Blue sucker Cycleptus elongatus 

Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus 

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 

Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii 

Northern scarlet snake Cemophora coccinea copei 

Timber/Canebreak rattlesnake Crotalus horridus atricaudatus 

Alligator snapping turtle Macrochelys temminckii 

Texas horned lizard Phrynosoma cornutum

Louisiana pigtoe Pleurobema ridellii 

Sandbank pocketbook Lampsilis satura

Southern hickorynut Obovaria jacksoniana

Texas heelsplitter Potamilus amphichaenus

Texas pigtoe Fusconaia askewi

Triangle pigtoe Fusconaia lananensis 

Rare species known to the Big Thicket region are: 

Animals

Louisiana pine snake (Pituophis ruthveni) G2? 

Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) G5T2 

Blackbelted crayfish (Procambarus nigrocinctus) G1G2 

Southern hickorynut (Obovaria jacksonia) G2 

Big Thicket emerald dragonfly (Somatochlora margarita) G2 

Hiliard's toothpick grasshopper (Achurum hilliardi) 

Plants

Chapman fringed orchid (Platanthera chapmanii) G2 

Long-sepaled dragon-head (Physostegia longisepala) G2G3 

Navasota false-foxglove (Agalinis navasotensis) G1 

Nodding yucca (Yucca cernua) G1 

Panicled indigobush (Amorpha paniculata) G2G3 

Small-headed pipewort (Eriocaulon koernickianum) G2 

Texas screwstem (Bartonia texana) G2 

Texas trailing phlox (Phlox nivalis var. texensis) G4T2 
42

Texas trillium (Trillium texanum) G2 

White firewheel (Gaillardia aestivalis var. winkleri) G5T2 

Aquatic Biology

Cooper et al. (2004) stated that little documented information exists on the herpetofauna of the 

Preserve. The one general survey is dated (> 30 years old); it documented 54 species of 

herpetofauna. NPS (1996) stated that 92 herpetofaunal species could occur in the Preserve. 

Several additional studies (e.g., Ford 1996; Irwin and Dixon 1996; Rudolph et al. 2003) have 

studied the ecology and distribution of reptilian species or groups of species in the Preserve area 

but there have been no individual studies on amphibian species in the Preserve. Aside from 

Lewis et al. (1999; 2000) studies on Big Sandy Creek that documented 40 species, there have 

been no recent herpetological surveys. Cooper et al. (2004), based on the estimates of others, 

stated that 85 species could exist in the Preserve. Snakes represent the most diverse group with 

over one-half of the Texas species inhabiting the Preserve. 

Conner (1977) stated that the fish fauna of the closely associated Sabine and Neches river 

systems is the richest of all western Gulf of Mexico drainages between the Mississippi and Rio 

Grande drainages. Nine fishes reach their apparent southwestern range terminations in these 

drainages. 

Suttkus and Clemmer (1979) conducted surveys during 1971 and 1977-1979 and documented 85 

species of fish in the Preserve. Species lists were developed for each of the waterways. Suttkus 

(1982) documented 45 fish species from the Preserve for a 1982 sampling period. More recently 

the NPS (2000) declared a total of 92 species of fish in the waters of the Preserve. 

Hubbs et al. (1996) examined the changes that occurred in the Big Thicket fish community since 

1953. They found that the species existing within the various streams were very similar to one 

another but varied drastically from those of the Edwards Plateau in Central Texas. Changes that 

occurred were attributed to dredging, impoundments and hypolimnetic reservoir discharges. 

Harcombe (1996) and Harcombe and Callaway (1997b) documented two state threatened species 

of fish, creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus) and blue sucker (Cycleptus elongates) and one 

state endangered and federal species of concern, paddlefish (Polyodon spathula) in the Preserve. 

Cooper et al. (2004) itemized studies that included fish for individual units of the Preserve, 

including Neches River, Village Creek, and Big Sandy Creek. 

Moring (2003) most recently collected over 4,800 fish representing 68 species at 15 stream sites 

in the Preserve during 1999-2001. This study establishes benchmark biological monitoring at 15 

sites throughout the Preserve to assess baseline biological conditions in streams and to 

supplement historical and ongoing water quality monitoring at these sites. Minnows 

(Cyprinidae) were the most abundant group. Four blue suckers were collected in a highergradient section of the Neches River in the tailwaters of the Steinhagen Lake Dam. Most fish 

species were from the downstream Neches River reach to the Neches River in the Beaumont 

Unit near Beaumont. The least number of fish species occurred in two Menard Creek reaches. 
43

Abbot et al. (1997) stated that the waters of the Preserve represent the western distributional 

limit for several aquatic invertebrates and contain a diverse assemblage of rare aquatic fauna. 

The Big Thicket area with its unique habitats, is home to nearly half (249 species) of the 511 

species of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Odonata (dragonflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies), and 

Trichoptera (caddisflies) presently known to occur in Texas. Three species in these groups are 

endemic to the Big Thicket region and several species, especially Trichoptera are endemic to the 

entire western Gulf Coastal Plain area. 

Cooper et al. (2004) determined that a number of studies have examined the aquatic 

invertebrates of the Preserve-- these studies have documented 151 taxa in Village Creek; 172 in 

Beech Creek; 125 in Menard Creek; 107 in Turkey Creek; and, 171 in Big Sandy Creek. 

According to the Preserve oil and gas management plan (NPS 2006), 249 species of aquatic 

invertebrates have been documented during comprehensive surveys in the Village Creek 

drainage. 

Many studies have examined the water quality within the Preserve by assessing the benthic 

macroinvertebrate community (e.g., Harrel and Darville 1978; Flora et al. 1985; Barclay and 

Harrel 1985). Others conducted water quality surveys sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates 

for particular units/waterways: Village Creek (Lewis and Harrel 1978; Turkey Creek Unit 

(Commander 1980); Neches River (Harrel 1975; Harrel and Hall 1991); Beech Creek (Harrel 

1976; Menard Creek (Bass 1979; Bass and Harrel 1981); Little Pine Island and Pine Island 

Bayous (Harrel and Darville 1978; Darville Harrel 1980); and Big Sandy Creek Unit (Harrel and 

Newberry 1981; Newberry 1982). Generally speaking these studies found a diverse benthic 

fauna with high water quality but some results indicated a moderately stressed benthic 

community. 

Most recently, Moring (2003) collected a total of 9,238 benthic macroinvertebrates that make up 

301 unique taxa among 14 reaches in the Preserve sampled for invertebrates -- 242 were aquatic 

insects, and 59 were non-insect taxa. The most frequently collected insect was the riffle beetle 

(Stenelmis spp). Of the 10 most commonly collected taxa, six were midges of the Chironomidae. 

The aquatic insect community proved to be more variable and dissimilar than the fish 

communities in the same 14 reaches. A Village Creek site had the largest number of aquatic 

insect taxa and the Neches River below Steinhagen Dam had the fewest number of taxa. 

Futhermore, Moring found that the benthic communities were not significantly correlated with 

land use or habitat. 

Moring (2003) assessed ecological health using the benthic macroinvertebrate-based 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) index. This commonly used index is 

sensitive to changes in water quality and is less variable seasonally and perennially than other 

metrics. The EPT index was largest for a Neches River reach and smallest for a Little Pine 

Island Bayou reach – one of two waterbodies in the Preserve that is on the State 303(d) 

impairment list. 

Howells (1997) described the status of freshwater mussels (Unionidae) found in the Big Thicket 

region, broadly defined. He found that 42 of the 52 species found in Texas have been 

documented in the Big Thicket. For the Neches River system he reported 35 species with two of 
44

those introduced. Several of these species (8) were rare and classified as endangered, threatened 

or of special concern by the American Fisheries Society. Howells et al. (1999) surveyed the 

mussels in Steinhagen Reservoir. Steinhagen Reservoir and the Neches River immediately 

downstream of Town Bluff Dam support one of the most abundant and diverse unionid 

assemblages remaining in Texas. Village Creek contained a significant unionid population 

(Strecker 1931) which endured until at least 1980 (Vidrine 1990). A resurvey in 1996 found at 

least eight species at five locations still surviving in Village Creek. Historical pollution in Pine 

Island Bayou reportedly reduced bivalve populations in the past (Harrel 1993) and very few 

living unionids were found in 1994. 

Hobbs and Whiteman (1987) described a new crayfish found in the Neches River. Hobbs (1990) 

examined crayfish within the Neches River and described three new species. 

In 2006 the Preserve and the Big Thicket Association (BTA) founded the Thicket of Diversity 

All Taxa Biodiversity Inventory (ATBI). This partnership program brings together taxonomists, 

volunteers, and data managers to document and inventory taxonomic groups that have often been 

understudied, plus conduct contemporary inventories of previously surveyed groups. Projects 

currently underway include vascular plant inventories of newly acquired lands, pyrenomycetous 

fungi, parasites of aquatic ectotherms, aquatic true bugs, bryophytes, and tardigrades.
45

Fundamental Natural Resources and Values

It is important for NPS units to identify the fundamental resources and values critical to 

achieving the park’s purpose and maintaining its significance. The reasons for identifying 

fundamental and other important resources and values are: 

1) To define and understand the most important resources and values that support the park’s 

purpose and significance. If these resources and values are degraded or eliminated, they then 

jeopardize the park’s purpose and significance. 

2) To ensure that the park and public understand the key elements that sustain the park’s 

purpose and significance. 

3) To help planning and management activities focus on larger issues and concerns regarding 

protection of those resources and values that support the park’s purpose and significance. 

4) To facilitate development of alternative management concepts by estimating how they will 

influence the fundamental resources and values of the park. 

5) To become the building blocks in creating a future vision and management strategy for the 

park while being responsive to the park’s needs. 

During the workshop in August, 2008, the following fundamental resources and values were 

identified for the Preserve: 1) Cultural Resources; 2) Visitor Experience; 3) The Thicket; 4) 

Scientific Value; 5) Scenic Resources; and 6) Flowing Water and Associated Dependent 

Systems. The identification of these fundamental resources and values at the Preserve helps 

ensure that all planning is focused on what is truly most significant about the Preserve. For 

every fundamental or other important resource and value, some basic analysis is needed to 

identify current conditions and potential threats, the level of stakeholder interests, and existing 

policy and planning guidance. This analysis is needed to identify basic management strategies 

that are in place and to identify issues to be addressed in a GMP process or possibly another 

planning process. In the following sections, the analysis for those natural resource-based 

fundamental resources and values identified in the August, 2008 workshop (i.e., The Thicket; 

Scientific Value; Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems) will answer the following 

questions: 

1) What is the importance of these fundamental resources and values? 

2) What are the current state or conditions and the related trends of these fundamental resources 

and values? 

3) What are the current and potential threats to these fundamental resources and values? 

4) Who are the stakeholders who have an interest in these fundamental resources and values? 

5) Which laws and policies apply to these fundamental resources and values, and what guidance 

do the laws and policies provide? 

Fundamental Resource: Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems

The opening paragraph of the enabling legislation for the Preserve does not contain any direct 

reference to aquatic or hydrologic terminology. In fact, the only inclusion of water-oriented 

language in the entire enabling legislation is the use of the terms “stream corridor” and “stream 

banks,” but in both instances those terms are invoked from a geodetical standpoint, as reference 

markers delineating the boundaries of the Preserve. 
46

However, the Preserve contains 240 miles of riparian waterways -- many of which are 

destinations and pathways for visitors to enjoy by foot or boat. Even to the casual visitor whose 

experience is limited to the visitor center, water is showcased as a major, if not central, force in 

shaping the unique ecology and diversity of the Big Thicket, and serving as a geographic unifier 

for the Preserve as well. Water has clearly served as a primary interpretive and outreach theme 

for showcasing the Preserve to the public since its establishment. In particular, riverways are 

highlighted for their ecological and historical role in ‘the thicket.’ Hence, despite only an 

insignificant reference to water-oriented terminology in the narrative portion of the Preserve’s 

enabling legislation, water is a dominant and unifying theme of Big Thicket National Preserve. 

What is the Importance of Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems to the 

Preserve?

The presence and rate of flowing water in the Preserve is most simply explained as a balance 

between rainfall and evapotranspiration. 

A relative even spread of rainfall throughout the year belies a distinct seasonal regime of flowing 

water in the Preserve’s riparian corridors (Figure 17). River and stream waters typically rise to a 

winter peak and recede during the summer into a fall baseflow condition on an average-annual 

basis, despite slightly higher rains in the summer and fall period. 

This seasonal trend is reflective of the significant role that evapotranspiration plays in the region. 

Absent evapotranspiration, winter rains are more likely to recharge the shallow ground water and 

augment river/stream flows. Similar quantities of rain in the late spring and summer either 

directly evaporate or fuel the rapid vegetation growth that is characteristic of the Big Thicket. 

0

5

10

15

20

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

AugSep

Oct

NovDec

0

5000

10000

15000

average-weekly

Neches River

discharge

average

monthly

rainfall

river discharge

(cubic feet per second)

rainfall in inches

River and Rainfall comparison

at Town Bluff, Texas

(1982-2008)

Figure 17. Comparison of average weekly discharge in the Neches River and average monthly rainfall at 

Town Bluff, TX (1983-2008). 

Prolonged absence of rain or its short-term abundance can interrupt or enhance the seasonal 

balance between evapotranspiration and rainfall. Rainless summers hasten the desiccation of 

vegetation, expose wetland flats, parch floodplains, and reduce stream flows. Torrential 
47

downpours any time of the year can result in sudden and dramatic flow and stage spikes in local 

creeks, which combined with the region’s relatively poor drainage, can lead to severe flooding. 

The data from the Town Bluff rain gage underscores the prevalence of drought and flood years: 

it averaged 55 inches of annual rain from 1982-2007, but for eight of those years it either 

exceeded 70 inches of annual rain or fell under 45 inches (see Figure 12).

It is a seasonal pattern of the abundant rainfall coupled with extended dry periods and 

unpredictable and torrential rain – and the region’s associated high temperatures and humidity 

that fuels the rapid growth and decay of the Big Thicket’s dense floodplain vegetation – which in 

turn sets the stage for the waters that flow through the Preserve’s stream channels and on to its 

floodplains (Figure 18). 

Perhaps the most defining characteristic and process of all the waterways in the Preserve are the 

floodplain/riparian areas and the associated flood pulse. 

Floodplains include the broad, flat terraces between the bluffs of the Neches River and along 

some of the major streams. Floodplain Hardwood Forest occurs on low terraces along the 

Neches River in strips along Pine Island Bayou, Village Creek and its tributaries, and Menard 

Creek. This forest type is dominated in the overstory by sweetgum and water oak, often with a 

dense subcanopy layer formed by the small ironwood tree. Smaller stream floodplains support 

Floodplain Hardwood Pine Forest, with American beech and loblolly pine as important 

dominants, but also containing ironwood (C. caroliniana) as an important subcanopy tree. 

Swamp Cypress Tupelo Forest occurs in deep sloughs and oxbow lakes of major floodplains and 

Figure 18. Calendar graph of weekly rain recorded at B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir depicting extreme flood 

and drought events, 1981- present. Weekly rainfall totals are coded by color (yellow, black, and red) and 

size. 
48

is dominated by bald cypress and water tupelo. Wetland Baygall Shrub Thicket occurs at all 

physiographic positions, including floodplains, slopes, and uplands. This type forms in response 

to the presence of near-surface seepage water (subsurface drainage). Dominant species include 

black tupelo, laurel oak, red maple, and sweet bay. Floodplain Hardwood Forest is the 

predominant corridor type. This forest type is most frequently referred to in the scientific 

literature as Bottomland Hardwood Forest. 

The rise and fall of river stage and flow sets the rhythm of the Preserve’s floodplain habitats: its 

bottomlands, the cypress sloughs, and the baygalls (Figure 19). It happens along all the creeks of 

the Preserve, but is most pronounced and at a larger scale along the main stem of the Neches. 

Water stage and flow, sediment load within the water column, and its flooding duration and 

seasonal timing all play important roles in maintaining the structure and function of the riparian 

corridor. Plants and animals that live in the river and floodplain have adapted to routine floods 

and the rhythm of soaking and drying out. 

river/creek

channel

bottomland

hardwoods

cypress

slough

baygall

river floods 

for most 

of year

river 

floods

seasonally

river

infrequently 

floods

flowing 

water

year

round

floodplain uplands

flatlands

slopes

poor

drainage

good

drainage

Not to scale

Figure 19. Cross-sectional view of the floodplain along riparian corridors of Big Thicket National 

Preserve. 

Low ridges, backwater sloughs, oxbow lakes, and terraces break up the overall flatness of the 

floodplain. It is these slight changes in the topography of the floodplain, coupled with the 

magnitude of the flood pulse that are key determinants to the ecology of the riparian corridor. 

Closest to the river’s edge is the bottomland forests. Water moves quickly in and out of the 

bottomlands, scouring the forest floor and leaving it with a sparse under story. The closed 

canopy filters sunlight, further discouraging ground cover. 

Slightly higher in the floodplain are the swamp forests of cypress and tupelo trees, commonly 

called cypress sloughs. The sloughs retain water for most or all of the year, but regular flooding 

flushes away organic debris preventing cypress sloughs from becoming acidic. 

Bogs or seeps occur where water sinks through porous sandy soils and then hits an impermeable 

clay layer causing water to seep out to the surface. Leaching of the saturated soils creates acidic 

conditions. These acid bogs or acid seeps are usually open, grassy and rich in plant species, 

including the four kinds of carnivorous plants that occur in Texas. 

Where conditions are right, seep-fed creeks that drain bogs flow into forested swamps thick with 

evergreen shrubs (hollies and magnolias) – the baygalls. Baygalls are the highest-perched of the 
49

floodplain wetlands, but are considered a low-lying feature relative to the sandy uplands. River 

water infrequently floods into baygalls, where it sits there like a bowl. Often found at the 

outermost reaches of the floodplain, baygalls may also receive ground water inflow from 

adjacent uplands or spring seepage from the base of adjacent terraces. Whatever its source, 

water sits in a baygall until it dissipates through evaporation or gradual lowering. The largest 

baygalls are located in the Neches Bottom and Jack Gore Baygall units. 

Wetland savannas or wet grasslands occur on claypan soils (Montgomery Formation) that trap 

rainwater but dry out in the summer, creating unique conditions. In such wetland savannas, 

stands of longleaf pines grow with evergreen shrubs, sedges and grasses, orchids, and 

carnivorous plants. These wetland savannas combine flatter terrain with lower elevation and 

include the highest numbers of plant species measured in any natural community in Texas 

(www.texasep.org/cpft/etbogs.html) – they are one of the rarest types of habitat in Texas. 

Riparian corridors within the Preserve exhibit unique characteristics as a function of local 

hydrographic and geologic influences. As a result they show regional differences across the 

Preserve: 

• Sloughs are most common and wetter in the southern part of the Preserve, and may 

become subject to some degree by tides and freshwater ponding behind tidal structures; 

• Cypress sloughs become more expansive and deeper along the southern portion of the 

Neches; 

• The palmetto-hardwood flat is a unique floodplain type found almost exclusively in the 

Pine Island Bayou and Little Pine Island Bayou units. Its terrain is level and floods 

frequently and its soil is the impermeable clay of the Beaumont Formation. It floods for 

most of the year, but incredibly poor drainage resulting (from its placement on the 

impermeable clay) means evaporation is its only outlet, giving it fewer flowering plants 

than in other better drained floodplains; 

• Larger rivers that originate in the continental interior frequently carry high amounts of 

suspended sediments, and are therefore turbid, chocolate-brown in color, and high in 

conductivity. There rivers are often referred to as alluvial or brown-water rivers; and, 

• Smaller streams that originate within the outer coastal plain are termed blackwater 

streams due to a high concentration of organic acids in the water and low turbidity. 

Floodplain ecology is dependent on the quantity, timing, and duration of various stages of flood 

pulses (Figure 20), and in particular the dynamic interaction between the water and the natural 

in-stream and floodplain woody structure, such as snags and other fallen debris, and water 

quality. 

The riparian flood pulse is a fundamental hydrologic process to the Preserve. Researchers at the 

University of North Texas and Rice University are studying the effects of hydrologic changes in 

flood pulses along the Neches River that have occurred as a result of the upstream dams. They 

hope to determine the effects of these hydrologic changes on the vegetation communities and the 

overall organic carbon budget along the Neches River floodplain – important research, as there 

are several proposals for more dams upstream of the Preserve. See Appendix A for further 

discussion of the flood pulse concept and other unifying concepts in river ecology. 
50

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

5

10

15

20 Neches River near Evadale

peak weekly river stage

(ft mean sea level)

Figure 20. Peak weekly stage of Neches River near Evadale, 1995-2007. Gray encloses maximum and 

minimum, the red band encloses the 25th and 75th percentiles, the blue line shows the median weekly 

peak stage, and white line shows average weekly peak stage.

As an example of the above research, Stamatis (2007), compared the abundance of total organic 

carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), and particulate organic carbon (POC) in the 

Neches River and associated waters of its floodplain. She found: 1) a distinct seasonal pattern in 

the DOC and POC values did not emerge; 2) organic carbon levels generally increased as 

discharge increases; and 3) longitudinal (upstream-downstream) and horizontal (river through 

floodplain) differences in organic carbon. Based on her data, she recommended that a flood 

pulse structure be replicated in the Neches River dam releases. Such a structure would allow 

organic matter to accumulate within the forest floor during low releases and allow for organic 

matter to wash into sloughs during larger dam releases. This scenario would essentially replicate 

the dam releases that took place prior to and after Hurricane Rita, where a minimum of 20,000 

cfs would allow for a continuous flow between the floodplain and main river channel. 

The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) identifies ecologically unique stream segments 

throughout the State. Such identified stream segments are evaluated on five criteria including 

biological function; hydrologic function; riparian conservation areas; high water 

quality/exceptional aquatic life/high aesthetic value; and threatened or endangered 

species/unique communities. This designation means that a state agency or political subdivision 

of the state may not finance the actual construction of a reservoir in a specific river or stream 

designated as an ecologically unique stream segment. TWDB has identified virtually all of the 

major stream segments in the Preserve for consideration as ecologically unique stream segments: 

• Big Sandy Creek – identified based on biological function (nominated for inclusion in the 

Texas Natural Rivers System based on its outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife 

values); riparian conservation area (i.e., presence in the Preserve); and exceptional 

aesthetic value. 

• Neches River – identified based on biological function (extensive freshwater wetland 

habitat); riparian conservation area; exceptional aesthetic value; and threatened or 

endangered/unique communities (e.g., presence of state threatened paddlefish and creek 
51

chubsucker; most abundant unionid assemblage in state; largest known population of 

sandbank pocketbook mussel in state; and one of largest populations of rare, endemic 

Texas heelsplitter freshwater mussel). 

• Village Creek – identified based on biological function (nominated for inclusion in the 

Texas Natural Rivers System as having outstandingly remarkable fish and wildlife 

values; riparian conservation area; high aesthetic value (rated number one scenic river in 

East Texas); unique communities (unique, exemplary and unusually extensive natural 

community). 

• Beech Creek – identified based on riparian conservation function and high water 

quality/exceptional aquatic life/high aesthetic value (ecoregional reference stream; 

diverse benthic macroinvertebrate community). 

• Turkey Creek – identified based on riparian conservation function.

• Menard Creek – identified based on biological function (bottomland hardwood habitat 

displays significant overall habitat value and high diversity of freshwater mussels) and 

riparian conservation area. 

• Pine Island Bayou -- identified based on riparian conservation function. 

• Little Pine Island Bayou -- identified based on riparian conservation function. 

There is no guidance on how many of the criteria need to be met as a prerequisite for 

consideration for designation as an ecologically unique stream segment. However, those 

Preserve streams above that meet three or more of the criteria will probably be evaluated further. 

What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends of Flowing Water and 

Associated Dependent Systems Within the Preserve?

The “black-water” creeks in the preserve can be described as “free flowing.” The quantity and 

timing of freshwater flows in these water ways is directly proportional to rainfall within their 

local watersheds and, during low water times of the year, ground discharge in the form of 

baseflow. Riparian-level activities such as stream bed clearing (to lessen local flooding), 

construction of retention ponds, or erosion and watershed-wide activities such as logging, 

farming, oil and gas exploration and production, or land development activities may have altered 

this relationship to varying degrees over time. 

Of the streams in the Preserve, Village Creek is most nearly typical of blackwater streams. 

Flows (Figure 21) are unimpeded by diversions or retention along its entire 53-mile length. 

Menard Creek and Little Pine Island Bayou are small and of variable flow like blackwater 

streams, but are more turbid and of higher conductivity like alluvial streams. The higher 

turbidity and conductivity may be caused by presence of finer-textured substrates such as silts 

and clays. 

The quantity and timing of freshwater flow in the Preserve’s only “brown-water” river –the 

Lower Neches Valley – is influenced by weather in the upper reaches of the Neches River Valley 

and by structural controls with pre-date and lie outside of the Preserve’s bounds (Figure 22). 

A casual observer may conclude that there are two primary – and separate – structures that affect 

the Preserve’s interests along the Neches River: Town Bluff Dam and the Neches River 

Saltwater Barrier. Both of these structures are operated by different districts of the U.S. Army 
52

Jan FebMarAprMayJun Jul AugSepOctNovDec

100

1000

10000

Flow Rate

(cfs) 75th %tile

25th %tile

maximum

minimum

average

median

(1983-2007)

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

1

2

full year

half year Discharge Volume

(million acre feet)

Figure 21. Annual flow rate summary (left) and historic discharge volume (right)of Village Creek at 

Kountze. Data source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Corps of Engineers. These structures are located 85 river miles apart, forming the approximate 

upstream and downstream endpoints of the Preserve’s Neches River corridor. 

In actuality these structures, along with the Sam Rayburn Dam, are operated in concert with each 

other for the purpose of maintaining a carefully calibrated water flow and stage regime in the 

Neches River, thus ensuring delivery of water necessary to satisfy the water rights of end users – 

a large portion of which is passed through the Lower Neches Valley Authority (LNVA) Canal – 

and preventing saltwater intrusion from the heavily industrialized and dredged Sabine Lake 

estuary from fowling fresh water intakes. 

1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

0

4

8

12

full year

half year

Discharge Volume

(million acre feet)

Jan FebMar AprMay Jun Jul AugSep Oct NovDec

1000

10000

Flow Rate

(cfs) 75th %tile

25th %tile

maximum

minimum

average

median

(1983-2007)

Figure 22. Annual flow rate summary (left) and historic discharge volume (right) of the Neches River at 

Evadale. Data source: U.S. Geological Survey. 

Thus, waters that pass through the Preserve are operationally in route to satisfy water rights of 

agricultural, industrial, and municipal end users, to control saltwater intrusion, and also provide 

recreational opportunities. 

Water development of the lower half of the Neches River developed under a federal/state 

partnership between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the LNVA that dates back to the 
53

early part of the twentieth century in response to the area’s economic awakening following 

discovery of oil at Spindletop (south of Beaumont). 

Spindletop transformed east Texas into the cradle of the modern oil and gas industry. As the 

Beaumont-Port Arthur area became the oil refining capitol of the world in the decades that 

followed, access to world wide markets for products from these refineries necessitated the 

deepening and straightening the Neches River for ocean-going vessels to and from the Gulf of 

Mexico. 

In turn, channel dredging served as the initial catalyst for water resource development on the 

Neches River. Deepening and straightening of the river altered the brackish water balance at the 

river’s mouth, particularly during times of low flow, allowing saltwater to threaten the 

freshwater supply further upstream, running the risk of fowling freshwater intakes of the cities, 

industries and farms. 

This problem created the need to systematically protect the freshwater supply from downstream 

saltwater, and increase upstream freshwater availability through storage and distribution systems. 

To accomplish this, the Texas Legislature created the LNVA in 1933 – giving it the distinction 

as the state’s second river authority (preceded by only the Brazos River Authority in 1929). 

LNVA’s approach called for construction of (1) a large reservoir on the Neches River near 

Rockland, (2) a regulated dam near Town Bluff for the purpose of storing water and regulating 

the flow of the river, and (3) a canal system to transport water from these reservoirs to consumers 

within Jefferson, Liberty and Chambers counties; however, this approach was eventually 

morphed into a more far-reaching U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s plan which called for two 

major dams – one in the Neches at Rockland and another at McGee Bend on the Angelina River 

– and two smaller regulating reservoirs just downstream of the two major reservoirs. 

Five dam and reservoir projects have been authorized by Congress in the Angelina-Neches 

Rivers basin; only three of which have been built: 1) B.A. Steinhagen Lake behind Town Bluff 

Dam – originally called just “Dam B” -- completed in 1953; 2) Sam Rayburn Dam and Reservoir 

completed in 1965; and, 3) Neches River Saltwater Barrier completed in 2003. The two other 

projects – "Dam A" and "Rockland" – have been authorized, but never built. A separate dam and 

reservoir project called the Blackburn Crossing Dam (and the upstream Palestine Lake) is 

located over 150 river miles north of Town Bluff Dam in the upper reaches of the Neches River 

Basin. 

These projects are operated in concert to provide freshwater to the Lower Neches Valley 

Authority (LNVA) canal, pumps, and distribution network, in addition to meeting other water 

management needs. 

 

Town Bluff Dam (Figure 23) is located along the main stem of the Neches River at the upstream 

boundary of the Preserve. Town Bluff Dam and its reservoir were authorized by the River and 

Harbor Act of 1945. Construction was started in 1947 and completed in 1953. In 1967, "Dam 

B" was renamed Town Bluff Dam and B. A. Steinhagen Lake. 
54

The Robert D. Willis Hydropower Project at Town Bluff Dam started in 1987 and the 

hydropower facilities became available for commercial operation in 1989, funded in partnership 

with the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency. The hydropower project is named in memory 

of Willis who served as executive director of the agency from 1980 to 1988. 

Sam Rayburn Dam (Figure 23) is located remotely from the Preserve– some 20 miles northeast 

along the Angelina branch of the Neches (in the piney woods region of southeast Texas), but it 

factors in largely to the fate and movement of waters through the Preserve. 

Authorized by Congress in 1955 for the purposes of flood control, hydroelectric power 

generation, and conservation of water for municipal, industrial, agricultural, and recreational 

uses as the second phase of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers development plan for the Neches 

River Basin, construction of the dam began in 1956 and the conservation pool level (elevation 

164.4 ft msl) was reached in 1966. 

Figure 23. Locations of current dams and saltwater barriers in or adjacent to the Lower Neches River 

System. 
55

The Neches River Saltwater Barrier (Figure 23) is located on the Neches mainstem just 

downstream of Pine Island Bayou and outside of the Preserve. The Neches River is especially 

vulnerable to taking on saltwater during times of low river flow or drought, a situation that has 

been worsened by dredging towards the river’s mouth at Sabine Lake, near Port Arthur. 

Historically, saltwater intrusion was prevented by flushing the river with freshwater flows from 

Sam Rayburn and seasonal installation of temporary saltwater barriers, installed 36 times from 

1940 to 2000. Those old temporary barriers, located within the Preserve, had many problems, 

including construction of access roads to install and remove the temporary barriers, erosion at the 

shoreline caused by the temporary barriers, water pollution, disruption to fish migration, and 

navigation-based obstruction. The temporary barriers cost one million dollars per installation. 

From a water management standpoint, saltwater barriers also became less and less effective as 

time progressed because: 

• repeated and periodic deepening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway to Beaumont for deep 

draft navigation increased the surge and frequency of saltwater up the Neches River; 

• seasonal droughts tend to coincide with the summer growing season when irrigational, 

industrial, and municipal withdrawals are at their peak; and, 

• overdraft of Sam Rayburn Reservoir during periods of drought diminishes the water 

supply available for salinity control releases. 

The permanent barrier was originally authorized under the Water Resources Development Act of 

1976, but its planning phase -- and coordination between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and 

LNVA -- did not occur in earnest until the 1990s. Construction began in 2000 and was 

completed three years later in 2003. 

Delivery of fresh surface water by the distribution system is performed by withdrawal of the 

water from the lower Neches River and Pine Island Bayou by 21 large pumps via the LNVA 

Canal. From there, the water is lifted into the canal system to a height that permits its delivery 

throughout most of the 400-mile canal system without further pumping. Water deliveries are 

made to cities, industries and farms on a continuous, 24-hours a day, 7 days a week basis. The 

canal system covers an area of approximately 700 square miles, principally within Jefferson, 

Liberty and Chambers counties.

The pumps can deliver between 20,000 and 110,000 gallons a minute (44.5-235 cfs) and can 

pump a total of over one billion gallons of water a day (3,070 acre feet). The pumps are driven 

by huge, natural gas-fueled engines in providing the freshwater to eight cities and water districts, 

26 industries and over 100 irrigated farms (from www.lnva.dst.tx.us/). 

Presently, the Neches River flow is controlled and diverted by Sam Rayburn Dam, Town Bluff 

Dam, Neches River Saltwater Barrier, and the LNVA Canal. These projects are operated 

individually and in unison to meet a multi-use set of water demands. Multi-use demands include 

providing flood control, satisfying water rights (to agricultural, industrial, and municipal end 

users), generating electricity, preventing saltwater intrusion, delivering flows to the estuary, and 

creating recreational opportunities. In recent times efforts have been undertaken to add 
56

additional storage to the river and develop more comprehensive instream flow and estuarine 

discharge requirements. 

With regard to the Sam Rayburn Dam/Reservoir, management and operational decisions must be 

made in accordance with the multi-use mission, which in part explains why the lake levels 

fluctuate so frequently. When substantial rains create the potential for flooding, incoming waters 

from the Angelina River watershed (Figure 21) are retained within Sam Rayburn Reservoir's 

flood pool, and the lake level rises. Once the threat of downstream flooding is reduced, flood 

waters are released into the Angelina/Neches Rivers, which maintains higher flows (but below 

flood stage) in the rivers until the levels in Sam Rayburn are reduced. 

The purposes of Town Bluff Dam/B. A. Steinhagen Lake are to re-regulate the intermittent 

power releases of Sam Rayburn Dam, provide storage for hydroelectric power and diversion into 

a water supply canal, and provide some water storage. The Southwestern Power Administration, 

U. S. Department of Energy, markets the power and energy generated by the hydropower plant to 

the Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency for distribution to its customers in Jasper, Liberty, 

and Livingston, Texas and Vinton, Louisiana. Water releases are utilized by the Lower Neches 

Valley Authority in Beaumont, Texas, for rice culture, salinity control, pollution abatement, 

municipal, and industrial uses. 

 

LNVA is authorized to draw from B.A. Steinhagen a maximum of 2,000 cfs. This water 

allotment is available to the agency whenever needed, and in the instances of demand, the water 

is taken directly through the Town Bluff Dam tainter gates. However, if the lake's normal pool 

capacity is not adequate to satisfy the requirements over an extended period of time, Sam 

Rayburn Dam can release conservation water into B. A. Steinhagen Lake, which will in turn 

release the water to meet downstream demands. 

The Lower Neches Saltwater Barrier is operated to maintain the differential in water from 

upstream to downstream during low flow conditions. This results in a slight slackwater pool (or 

reservoir) on the upstream side of the barrier, but essentially the barrier passes all water that 

flows from upstream to it. This even applies during times of low water. An average minimum 

discharge of 400 cfs is passed through the barrier to ensure downstream water quality and stream 

health. 

The LNVA has state-approved rights to the use of essentially the entire dependable freshwater 

yield of Sam Rayburn Reservoir. The water is delivered through the LNVA Canal (primary 

canal → pumps → feeder canal network). LNVA’s water allotment of 820,000 acre feet (267 

billion gallons) is deemed sufficient for current and future basin needs. In comparison, the 

Neches River discharges at an average annual rate of 6 million acre feet per year (as measured at 

Evadale). Thus, 1/6th of the river’s annual flow volume is allocated to LNVA water rights (not 

factoring in return flows, often in the neighborhood of 50 percent). 

All four projects are subject to routine and aperiodic maintenance activities that may disrupt 

normal operations. One example would be the recent drawdown of B.A. Steinhagen Lake (2006-

2007) in an attempt to control a noxious aquatic plant that had taken hold in the lake. The 

drawdown was performed in cooperative effort with the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department, the 
57

LNVA, and the Southwestern Power Administration. The drawdown was extended to perform 

maintenance work on the dam and nearby bridges. The drawdown exposed the vegetation to 

summer heat and winter frost which, with the addition of herbicide treatments, is expected to 

reduce vegetation growth in the lake for several years. Thus, it can be assumed that future 

drawdowns may be required, both at B.A. Steinhagen and Sam Rayburn. 

What Are the Current and Potential Threats to Flowing Water and Associated Dependent 

Systems Within the Preserve?

Waters and aquatic resources of Big Thicket National Preserve are subject to basin-wide and 

watershed-specific stressors – both of which lie outside the jurisdiction of the Preserve’s 

predominantly riparian buffer – and riparian corridor stressors for stream reaches that lie outside 

but deliver waters into the preserve. 

Basin-level Threats: Control and utilization of water is a major issue of state-wide importance in 

Texas. The flashy and unpredictable nature of its rainfall, combined with an uneven distribution 

of waters across the state – often least abundant where people and commercial needs lie – has 

resulted in a cycle of periodic floods and droughts in all areas of the state. 

Recent times have been hit with the reality that water supply development may be approaching 

its feasible limit, with the prospect of a new breed of water issues emerging in the future, 

including limited water supplies, expanding populations, imbalance of water between water-rich 

and water-poor sections, transboundary water disputes, and potential for a drier future due to 

global climate change. Residents in river basins estimated to have their fifty year future needs 

already met fear that this excess will be diverted to the nearest metropolitan centers in other 

basins. 

The Preserve is located in the water-rich Lower Neches River Basin, and as such, must be 

actively engaged in how water policies and projects handed down from the state level can affect 

its waters, both positively and negatively, and be poised to advocate and protect its water 

interests accordingly. This has special relevance for Preserve land and waters along the Neches 

River. 

Two new reservoirs and expansion of an existing one are being considered for the Neches River; 

if built, they could divert water that currently flows through the Preserve, disrupting native plant 

communities, affecting wildlife, and compromising recreational opportunities. 

Since the 1940s, regional planners have periodically discussed the prospect of building a dam 

and reservoir on the Neches River 25 miles upstream of B.A. Steinhagen Lake. Most recently, 

LNVA raised the dual possibility of building the Rockland Dam (Figure 24) project in tandem 

with enlarging B.A. Steinhagen Lake (Figure 23). The agency is proposing the dam to the Texas 

Water Development Board as a regional effort to increase water supplies for the state. The 

expansion of B.A. Steinhagen Reservoir is often mentioned in association with the Rockland 

Dam proposal, but presumably the expansion could be considered as a project by itself. 

The projects would enlarge Steinhagen Reservoir from 13,000 surface acres to 21,000 surface 

acres and create a 100,000-surface-acre reservoir at Rockland. Combined, they would inundate a 
58

Figure 24. Existing and proposed dams and reservoirs on the Neches River. 

12,000-acre Texas Parks and Wildlife Management Area above Town Bluff Dam and submerge 

most of Martin Dies, Jr. State Park, a heavily used recreation site that compliments recreational 

river use at the Preserve. 

Opponents of the plan argue that not only would the reservoirs directly impact landowners 

through inundation of public and private lands; they would negatively alter downstream river 

flows. Additionally, they argue that the dams are not needed – 50-year water projections are 

already met. It is speculated that water would be sold out of the basin. 

Since the early 1960s, plans to provide increased water to Dallas-Fort Worth – where the 

population is expected to double in the next 50 years – have routinely included proposals to build 

a dam along the upper main stem of the Neches River, about 60 miles upstream of Town Bluff 

Dam. 
59

The proposed Fastrill Reservoir (Figure 24) would inundate an estimated 27,000 to 32,000 acres 

of prime hardwood bottomland habitat. It is usually mentioned in tandem with the proposed 

Marvin Nichols Dam, located in northeast Texas that in total would flood 100,000 acres of land 

and require 310 miles of water pipe. 

The Fastrill Dam project was dealt a serious setback by a U.S. Fish and Wildlife initiative to 

create a 25,000-acre national wildlife refuge along 38 miles of the Upper Neches River within 

the proposed Fastrill Area – a move that was contested in court by the TWDB, but upheld in 

favor of the proposed refuge. Proponents of the refuge argue that (1) this stretch of river is vital 

to a wide variety of species; (2) the City of Dallas can meet its projected water needs through a 

combination of existing sources and basic conservation measures; and, (3) the dam/reservoir 

would modify habitat and river flows in one of the last “wild rivers” in Texas. 

The Preserve’s ability to manage its lands and waters along the Neches River requires an 

understanding of the whole river system, and being able to advocate its interests in operational, 

regulatory, and planning aspects of basin and river management schemes. The Preserve has 

traditionally focused on Town Bluff Dam as the direct source of water entering the Preserve, but 

releases and storage of water from Town Bluff are performed in concert with operations at Sam 

Rayburn and the Neches River Saltwater Barrier. While annual flow volumes appear to be 

relatively unchanged before and after dam building, timing and magnitude of spring peak flows, 

summer base flows, and aperiodic flushing events have been altered. These changes may impact 

river water quality, sediment load, and riparian/floodplain habitats to varying degrees. 

Prior to dam building, the Neches River typically peaked at 10,000 – 12,000 cfs in late 

winter/early spring and dropped to a low-water base flow rate of 500 cfs during the summer and 

early fall (Figure 25). After dam construction in 1953, median year spring flows have tended to 

be repressed in magnitude with low-water base flows increased to fend off downstream saltwater 

intrusion and delivery of water rights. 

Ecosystems are often framed relative to the last major disturbance, whether the result of a natural 

event (such as Hurricane Rita) or an anthropogenic one (such as recent drawdown of B.A. 

Steinhagen Lake), or a combination of the two. The modern day infrastructure tends to dampen 

the magnitude of seasonal and extreme flood and drought events, but also causes them on 

occasion, such as reservoir drawdown. 

Aperiodic high flow events, where short-term flow rates exceeded 50,000 cfs, also played a 

larger role prior to dam building (Figure 26). They occurred at frequency of once every five 

years prior to 1950, but have been non-existent at that magnitude since the mid 1950s, during 

which the Neches River achieved a weekly peak discharge of between 20,000 – 30,000 cfs. 

Thus, it stands to reason that floodplain ecology has been modified by the absence of higher 

order flood events. In turn, the loss of extended periods of drought has changed oxbow and 

wetland dynamics and other floodplain characteristics. Regardless, even under the dam-altered 

hydrologic regime, extreme events continue to make a lasting mark on the river corridor and 

floodplain. 
60

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0

4000

8000

12000

16000

1983-2008

1957-1982

1922-1947

Weekly average flow rate (cfs)

25-year median seasonal flow regime

Figure 25. Hydrograph showing weekly median flow for the 25-year periods before and after construction 

of Town Bluff Dam on the Neches River.

Texas is considering two broad categories of environmental flows: instream flows and freshwater 

inflows, both of which come into play for the Preserve. Instream flow is the amount of water 

needed in rivers and streams to support fish and wildlife in and along our waterways. These 

flows also support various recreational and commercial activities, like canoeing, hunting, and 

fishing and protect water quality. Freshwater inflow is the amount of river and other flows of 

freshwater needed to maintain acceptable salinity conditions in estuarine areas. 

This process started in 2003 through Senate Bill 1639, which established the Study Commission 

on Water for Environmental Flows. The Commission was charged to provide recommendations 

on how to ensure protection for environmental flows in the water permitting process. The Senate 

Bill 3 process for the Sabine and Neches rivers and Sabine Lake Bay recently produced a final 

report from the Basin & Bay Expert Science Team (BBEST) to TCEQ and the Stakeholder 

Committee (available at: http://www.sratx.org/BBEST/RecommendationsReport/). 

Studies have been initiated on a basin by basin process that factor in seasonal and inter-annual 

variability to determine the amount of freshwater needed to maintain healthy and productive 

riverine and estuarine systems. However, the focus of both is on meeting minimum requirements 

– not peak events, which ecologically can be just as important, if not more so. 

Downstream of Beaumont the Neches River becomes increasingly industrialized and more 

influenced by tides, a condition which has been artificially enhanced through historic dredging 

and deepening of a navigational channel in the lower Neches. Arguably this issue has been 

resolved by installation of a permanent saltwater barrier at the downstream end of the Preserve. 

However, it should be pointed out that this structure is operated in concert with upstream river 

releases and is a vital part of supply allocations to industrial, agricultural, and municipal 

interests. A newly proposed unit of the Preserve would be located downstream from, and not 

protected by, the permanent barrier. 
61

 

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

flow (cubic 

feet per second)

Neches River at Evadale

Village Creek at Kountze

Figure 26. Peak weekly flow rates for the Neches River (at Evadale) and Village Creek (at Kountze).

Watershed-level Threats: The Preserve is defined in part by the multi-use nature of its lands and 

the watershed that surrounds it. The watershed that envelops the preserve units is rapidly 

changing. Sensitive habitats and visitor experiences along the boundaries of the Preserve have 

been and will be affected as adjoining lands are cleared for a variety of purposes such as pastures 

and residential yards or are paved for commercial development. 

A case in point is the relatively recent development in 2001 and 2002, in which two of the largest 

landowners – Louisiana-Pacific and International Paper Company – sold much of their land. 

Around 2 million acres of timber company land surrounding the park have been sold or put up 

for sale as a result. Conversion of land to residential development is generally regarded as a 

greater and more permanent threat than retaining land as timber or agriculture. Thus, a key 

challenge for the Preserve is to develop a greater understanding of how changes in the watershed 

affect its land and water interests, and what can be done to mitigate them. 

Oil and gas operations may result in contamination of ground and surface waters, either as a 

result of spills, legacy infrastructure, or historical contamination sources. In many instances this 

contamination may not be visible to the naked eye, or may occur suddenly by accident or acts of 

nature. 
62

While hurricanes are a natural part of the ecosystem, their destructive force can alter natural 

regimes dramatically, and in the presence of an already altered watershed, cause unexpected and 

long-lasting effects to the areas within the preserve, with Hurricane Rita (2005) being the most 

impacting and Hurricane Ike (2008) the most recent example. There is also concern that global 

warming could be increasing storm strength and frequency, thereby contributing to saltwater 

intrusion, as was demonstrated with Hurricane Ike. 

Riparian-level Threats: The riparian flood pulse is an integral process to sustaining and 

protecting the unique aquatic flora and fauna of the preserve. However, the Preserve’s desire to 

maintain the floodplain of Neches (and Trinity) River tributaries in a primitive state often 

generates negative publicity in the surrounding communities during instances of high flows and 

extensive overflow of riparian waters into the floodplain. 

Communities have expressed a desire to keep channels clear to maximize their drainage capacity, 

and in turn, these community outcries have often been met with funding from the state to help 

clear the channels. Instances within the Preserve have historically required a concerted level of 

public debate, but in lands adjacent, just outside of, or in remote corners of the Preserve may be 

cleared without Preserve knowledge. 

In other instances, problems may be encountered in maintaining a dynamic riparian corridor in 

relation to a static boundary. For example, the position and width of the Neches River channel is 

in a constant flux, and over time has migrated away from its original alignment with Preserve 

boundaries, either lessening the protective buffer, or in some instances taking the river outside of 

that protective zone. 

Small-scale dams and water control structures can impact the hydrology, water quality, and 

aquatic communities of tributaries streams in the Preserve. These structures also pose 

management threats associated with water quality and risk of failure. 

Substantial impairment of either quality or quantity of water in the corridors, or major alterations 

in the timing of flows, will significantly affect the ability of the Preserve to maintain its current 

ecosystem function and exhibit its current biological diversity. Alterations to river flow via 

dams, clearing of river channels to lessen flooding, or serving other water or recreational needs, 

and degradation of water quality in the riparian corridor pose a threat to the Preserve’s ecological 

health. 

The enabling legislation of the Preserve has a clause that allows for the possibility of expansion 

beyond its original boundaries through land donation. The Big Thicket National Preserve 

Addition Act of 1993 authorized the Preserve to acquire lands along portions of Village Creek 

and the Neches River (about 11,000 acres). This acquisition legislation was passed before large 

land divestitures by timber companies, and could not take into account the effects these changes 

in ownership would have. A proposed expansion plan on the horizon – the Brady Bill – proposes 

to enlarge the Preserve boundary through willing seller provisions in order to connect, preserve, 

and revitalize the Preserve and the surrounding communities (Figure 27). 
63

Who Are the Stakeholders Who Have an Interest in Flowing Water and Associated 

Dependent Systems?

While there are many stakeholders with vested interests and/or controlling authority of the water 

that courses through the Preserve, there are a few substantial ones that play an overarching role, 

and warrant being listed first. Major stakeholders of the State are listed first because of the 

prominent role that the State of Texas plays in every sphere of water development. 

State of Texas: Management of Texas waters is overseen state-wide by three agencies, often 

referred to as the Tri-Agency, with a fourth agency – a trans-county river authority called the 

Lower Neches Valley Authority – representing the state within the jurisdiction of the basin. They 

are the: 

Big

Sandy

Creek

Unit

Menard

Sandy

Creek

Unit

Loblolly

Unit

Lance

Rosier

Unit

Pine Island

Little Pine Island

Creek Unit

Beaumont

Unit

Lower 

Neches

River

Corridor

Unit

Village

Creek

Unit

Turkey

Creek

Unit

Hickory

Creek

Savannah

Unit

Upper

Neches

River

Corridor

Unit

Beach

Creek

Unit

Jack

Gore

Baygall

Neches

Bottom

Unit

Big Sandy 

Creek 

Corridor

Unit

Canyonlands

Unit

Kountze

Beaumont

Liberty

Woodville

Jasper

Lumberton

Silsbee

Pine Island

Bayou

Little

Pine

Island

Bayou

Big Sandy Creek

Hickory

Creek

Beech

Creek

Turkey

Creek

Village

Creek

BA

Steinhagen

Lake

Neches

River

Trinity

River

Menard

Creek

Liberty

County

Jefferson

County

Hardin

County

Polk

County Tyler

County

Orange

County

Jasper

County

10

10

90

287

287

287

69

69

190

96

92

5 miles

N

Current boundary

towns

streams/rivers

roads

Proposed boundary adjustment

announced April 26, 2008 by

Congressman Kevin Brady

Figure 27. Generalized map of proposed additions to the Preserve as introduced under H.R. 5891 by 

Congressman Kevin Brady on April 26, 2008. 

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB)

TWDB is the planning and development arm of the Tri-Agency. Its mission is to provide 

leadership, planning, financial assistance, information, and education for the conservation and 

responsible development of water for Texas. Its primary tasks are to (1) prepare and update a 

state water plan, (2) collect and maintain water data and technical support, and (3) administer 

various funds designed to help finance state and local water projects – it is often referred to as 

the “water bank” of Texas.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

TCEQ is the environmental compliance arm of the Tri-Agency, and is responsible for 

administering water rights. TCEQ has 16 regional offices throughout the state. Its primary tasks 
64

are to administer the state’s water quality program including granting of permits to discharge 

effluents into Texas waters, determine and allocate water rights to state waters, regulate dams, 

administer the oil and hazardous spill program and license hazardous waste disposal facilities, 

regulate water drillers, administer the National Flood Insurance Program, train and certify 

wastewater treatment operators, and establish water and sewer rates. 

Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife (TDPW)

TDPW is the fish and wildlife resources arm of the Tri-Agency. It manages and conserves the 

natural and cultural resources of Texas and to provide hunting, fishing and outdoor recreation 

opportunities for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

State water interests, as laid out by the Tri-Agency, are administered on a regional level by the 

23 river authorities. Texas’ river authorities are trans-county political jurisdictions delineated 

along hydrographic boundaries that were modeled loosely after the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

Each of these river authorities have the license to conserve, store, control, preserve, utilize, and 

distribute the waters of its respective area for the benefit of its residents. For the Preserve the 

river authority is the: 

Lower Neches Valley Authority

Most of the Preserve, with exception of the Menard Creek unit, falls within the Lower Neches 

Valley Authority (LNVA). The State Legislature, in 1933, granted authority to LNVA to operate 

within Tyler, Hardin, Liberty, Chambers and Jefferson counties, located within the Neches River 

Basin and the Neches-Trinity Coastal Basin. 

The primary duties of the LNVA are to: 

1) develop and manage a system that will meet the present and long-term freshwater needs 

of municipal, agricultural and industrial consumers; to protect water quality; to insure its 

affordability; and to establish conditions which will enhance economic development 

throughout the Authority's jurisdiction. 

2) act as local sponsor of Sam Rayburn and B.A. Steinhagen reservoirs which are operated 

by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Water stored in Sam Rayburn Reservoir for use by 

LNVA is released to Lake B.A. Steinhagen, flows into the lower Neches River, and on to 

the LNVA freshwater intakes. 

3) act as local sponsor and operator of the Neches River Saltwater Barrier at Beaumont, a 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers project. The saltwater barrier protects freshwater intakes 

from saltwater migrating upstream from the deep draft navigation channel to Beaumont. 

4) deliver state-approved water rights – these water rights include both run-of-river rights 

and storage rights in the three Federal projects that total 1,201,876 acre-feet per year. 

Delivery of fresh water is made by diverting water from the Neches River and Pine Island 

Bayou through two primary lift stations; two secondary lift stations pump the water into a 

400-mile canal system where most deliveries are made without additional pumping. The 

canal system covers an area of approximately 700 mi2

 within Jefferson, Liberty and 

Chambers counties. 
65

Federal: There are two primary federal stakeholders that play a day-to-day role in development, 

monitoring, and protection of waters in the Preserve. They include the following: 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

The USACE is a major player in water development. It owns and maintains approximately 24 

flood control dams in Texas and provides 9 million acre-feet of water storage, and manages them 

in collaboration with the Texas Water Development Board via local river authorities. Two of 

these structures – Town Bluff Dam, which forms the B.A. Steinhagen Lake and the Neches River 

Saltwater Barrier – are located on upstream and downstream ends of the Preserve, but are 

managed by the Fort Worth and Galveston districts of USACE, respectively. The water 

controlled by both structures is classified as waters of the state, and as such, is managed by the 

Lower Neches Valley Authority. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

USGS has sustained a long track record of performing water resources monitoring and 

investigations in the Preserve, the foundation of which is its historic stream gage network which 

extends back a quarter of a century before the Preserve was established. Currently, the USGS 

monitors stream discharge in Preserve water ways, including stations along the mainstem of the 

Neches and stations on three tributaries. While all the stream flow gages are still active, routine 

water quality sampling is performed only along the Neches at Evadale. 

Other Stakeholders: Other agencies play supporting and/or behind the scene roles as planners, 

protectors, and providers of water, and do not factor in as directly or routinely as the major 

stakeholders listed above. In several instances, water is only a fraction of their responsibilities – 

or is vetted through one of the major stakeholders. These agencies include: 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The EPA develops standards for protecting the nation’s water, which in the case of the Preserve 

as a riparian national park service unit, makes it a major player. The EPA also provides 

guidance to the states in terms of protecting water quality and meeting standards. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

FEMA’s mission is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the nation from all hazards, 

including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other man-made disasters, by leading and 

supporting the nation in a risk-based, comprehensive emergency management system of 

preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. On March 1, 2003, the FEMA 

became part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

Floodplain maps are a product of FEMA. While the maps will show your property's relationship 

to the flood plain, you should also consider hiring a surveyor to determine the elevation of your 

home relative to the base flood (100-year) elevation. This information is useful in determining a 

property's risk of flooding and in determining flood insurance requirements and rates. 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)

The BOR, under the Department of Interior, has five dams providing water storage for over a 

million acres of water storage, none of which lie within the Neches or Trinity River basins. 
66

U.S. Forest Service 

The U.S. Forest Service manages approximately 675,000 acres of public land in Texas. This land 

is divided into four National Forests in east Texas and the Caddo-Lyndon B. Johnson National 

Grasslands in northeast Texas. These public lands are administered under multiple-use 

management to protect and obtain the greatest benefit from all forest resources: recreation, 

timber, range, fish and wildlife, soil and water and minerals. 

U.S. Coast Guard

The Coast Guard’s activities in the Southeast Texas/Western Louisiana operating area focus on 

the Service’s four principal missions: maritime safety, maritime law enforcement, environmental 

protection, and national security – including in response and preparedness for tropical storms and 

hurricanes. 

National Weather Service

The National Weather Service provides weather, marine, fire and aviation forecasts, warnings, 

meteorological products, climate forecasts and information about meteorology for all parts of the 

United States. 

Alabama-Coushatta Reservation 

Texas also shares water across interstate and international political entities. While this does not 

apply to the Preserve, it does share a border with a Native American reservation. The AlabamaCoushatta Reservation is located on 4,600 acres, home to 500 members of the AlabamaCoushatta Tribe of Texas. Once separate entities, the two tribes are both members of the Upper 

Creek Confederacy of Indians and are of the Muskogee Nation. 

Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) 

DSHS enforces federal standards for drinking water and monitors the quality of water distributed 

by all public systems. 

Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC)

The RRC is the lead agency for spills and discharges from all activities associated with the 

development of oil and gas resources under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 

85.042, 91.101, and 91.601 of the Texas Natural Resources Code. Permits issued for oil and gas 

operations generally prohibit the discharge of any material that would in any way alter the 

quality of surface or subsurface waters, or contribute to a violation of a water quality standard. 

However, within the RRC’s Statewide Rules, there are provisions for disposal of certain wastes. 

State Soil and Water Conservation Board (SSWCB)

The SSWCB oversees a voluntary program for reduction of agricultural and silvicultural 

(forestry) nonpoint source pollution through the identification of problem areas by the state 

board or local soil and water conservation districts. Under this program, the SSWCB reviews 

and certifies water quality management plans – typically prepared by the Board, local soil and 

water conservation districts, or private entities. Approximately ten percent of these plans are 

checked for voluntary compliance each year (Larry Gibbs, SSWCB, pers. comm.). Within the 

area of the Preserve, there are seven soil and water conservation districts. 
67

State Parks 

State parks adjacent to the Preserve include Village Creek State Park and Collier Landing. 

Texas General Land Office (GLO) 

GLO is the oldest state agency in Texas. The Republic of Texas Congress established the 

General Land Office in 1836 shortly after Texas won its independence from Mexico. The 

General Land Office was originally responsible for managing the public domain by collecting 

and keeping records, providing maps and surveys and issuing land titles. Since then the GLO's 

duties have evolved, but its core mission is still the management of state lands and mineral-right 

properties totaling 20.3 million acres. Included in that portfolio are the beaches, bays, estuaries 

and other "submerged" lands out to 10.3 miles in the Gulf of Mexico, institutional acreage, 

grazing lands in West Texas, timberlands in East Texas, and commercial sites in urban areas 

throughout the state. In managing that property, the land office now leases drilling rights for oil 

and gas production on state lands, producing revenue and royalties which are funneled into the 

state's Permanent School Fund. 

Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 

The TxDOT works cooperatively to provide safe, effective and efficient movement of people and 

goods. The Preserve lies within the Beaumont District of TxDOT. The Beaumont District plans, 

designs, builds, operates and maintains the state transportation system in the following counties: 

Chambers, Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Newton, Polk, Orange, and Tyler. 

Local Water Suppliers 

Most of the local water suppliers fall into one of four categories: cities, municipal utility districts 

(MUDs), water supply corporations (WSCs), and private water suppliers. Cities play a vital role 

in planning and developing water supplies in the state. They generally own and operate wells 

and reservoirs, as well as treatment and distribution facilities. Many cities buy water from river 

authorities or from other water suppliers. 

Municipal Utility Districts (MUDs)

In addition to city water suppliers, there are over 1,000 MUDs in Texas. They are tax-exempt 

political subdivisions of the state and have authority to issue bonds. MUDs develop and sell 

water by building reservoirs, drilling water wells, and distributing water to customers. They can 

also construct and operate water treatment and wastewater treatment plants. 

Roy E. Larsen Sandyland Sanctuary 

The sanctuary, 5,561 acres owned by The Nature Conservancy, harbors a variety of plant 

communities, including one of the last remaining longleaf pine communities in Texas. A rare 

combination of swamp, open-floor forest and Southern pinelands create a preserve with 

remarkable diversity, sustaining 727 plant species and 234 animal species. The sanctuary is part 

of a comprehensive effort to protect and restore the longleaf pine ecosystem on the West Gulf 

Coastal Plain. 

Which Laws and Policies Apply to Flowing Water and Associated Dependent Systems, 

and What Guidance Do the Laws and Policies Provide? 

Big Thicket National Preserve was established in 1974, along with Big Cypress National 

Preserve, as the first preserve units of the national park system. 
68

Big Thicket National Preserve’s opening paragraph of its enabling legislation, Public Law 93-

439, and as amended by P.L. 94-578, P.L. 98-489, and P.L 103-46 is shown below. Importantly, 

the opening paragraph does not contain any direct reference to aquatic or hydrologic 

terminology: 

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United states of 

America in Congress assembled, That (a) in order to assure the preservation, 

conservation, and protection of the natural, scenic, and recreational values of a significant 

portion of the Big Thicket area in the State of Texas and to provide for the enhancement 

and public enjoyment thereof, the Big Thicket National Preserve is hereby established.” 

In fact, the only inclusion of water-oriented language in the enabling legislation is the use of the 

terms “stream corridor” and “stream banks,” but in both instances those terms are invoked from a 

geodetical standpoint, as reference markers delineating the boundaries of the preserve: 

... In establishing such boundaries, the Secretary shall locate stream corridor unit 

boundaries referenced from the stream bank of each side thereof and he shall further 

make every reasonable effort to exclude from the units hereafter described any improved 

year-round residential properties which he determines .... 

However, it should be noted that 11 of the 15 management units listed in enabling legislation 

include riparian terminology: including creek, creek corridor, baygall, bayou, Neches (river) 

bottom. 

Despite the absence of water-oriented language in the enabling legislation, flowing water is 

omnipresent, thereby establishing water as a central focus and as a unifying theme for the 

Preserve. 

Federal: 

• The National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 created the NPS and includes a significant 

management provision stating that the NPS shall promote and regulate the use of the federal 

areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations by such means and measures as 

conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which 

purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein 

and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave 

them unimpaired for future generations. The Organic Act also authorizes the NPS to regulate the 

use of national parks and develop rules, regulations and detailed policies to implement the broad 

policies provided by Congress. Rules and regulations for the national park system are described 

in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 36). 

• The General Authorities Act of 1970 strengthened the 1916 Organic Act, stating that lands in 

all NPS units, regardless of title or designation, shall have a common purpose of preservation. 

All water resources in the national park system, therefore, are equally protected by federal law. It 

is the primary duty of the NPS to protect those resources unless otherwise indicated by Congress. 

• The Redwood National Park Act of 1978 amended the General Authorities Act of 1970, 

identifying the high public value and integrity of the national park system as reason to manage 
69

and protect all park system units. The act further stated that no activities should be allowed that 

will compromise the values and purposes for which these various areas have been established, 

except where specifically authorized by law or provided for by Congress. 

• The National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 outlined a strategy to improve the 

ability of the NPS to provide high-quality resource management, protection, interpretation and 

research in the national park system by: 

o Fostering the collection and application of the highest quality science and information to 

enhance management of units of the national park system; 

o Authorizing and initiating cooperative agreements with colleges and universities, including but 

not limited to land grant schools, along with creating partnerships with other federal and state 

agencies, to construct cooperative study units that will coordinate multi-disciplinary research and 

develop integrated information products on the resources in national park system units and/or the 

larger region surrounding and including parks; 

o Designing and implementing an inventory and monitoring program of national park system 

resources to collect baseline information and to evaluate long-term trends on resource conditions 

of the national park system, and; 

o Executing the necessary actions to fully and properly apply the results of scientific study to 

park management decisions. Additionally, all NPS actions that may cause a significant adverse 

effect on a park resource must conduct unit resource studies and administratively record how 

study results were considered in decision-making. The trend in resource condition in the national 

park system shall be a critical element in evaluating the annual performance of the NPS. 

• Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 3001 et seq.) applies to developed public drinking water 

supplies. It sets national minimum water quality standards and requires testing of drinking water. 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: These policies cover water supply systems; wastewater 

systems; and recreational waters. Specific guidance is provided by Director’s Order 83: Public 

Health and its associated Reference Manuals – 83A1 (Drinking Water Standards); 83A2 (Cross 

Connection Control); 83A3 (Water System Security); 83B1 (Wastewater Systems); and 83B4 

(Sewage Spill Response Notification). 

• The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, strives to 

restore and maintain the integrity of U.S. waters. The Clean Water Act grants authority to the 

states to implement water quality protection through best management practices and water 

quality standards. It is in the discussion of water quality standards that the concepts of 

Outstanding Natural Resource Waters and anti-degradation are discussed. Section 404 of the act 

requires that any dredged or fill materials discharged into U.S. waters, including wetlands, must 

be authorized through a permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which administers 

the Section 404 permit program. Additionally, Section 402 of the act requires that pollutants 

from any point source discharged into U.S. waters must be authorized by a permit obtained from 

the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). All discharges and storm water 

runoff from major industrial and transportation activities, municipalities, and certain construction 

activities generally must be authorized by permit through the NPDES program. NPDES 
70

permitting authority typically is delegated to the state by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

 

Section 303 discusses the requirement that states provide a regular, updated listing of its 

impaired waters and the reasons for impairment. This section also discusses the Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) process that is implemented to improve impaired waters. 

 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: The NPS will determine the quality of park surface and 

ground water resources and avoid, whenever possible, the pollution of park waters by human 

activities occurring within and outside of parks. 

-Work with appropriate governmental bodies to obtain the highest possible standards available 

under the Clean Water Act for the protection of park waters. 

- Take all necessary actions to maintain or restore the quality of surface waters and ground 

waters within the parks consistent with the Clean Water Act and all other applicable federal, 

state, and local laws an regulations; and 

- Enter into agreements with other agencies and governing bodies, as appropriate, to secure their 

cooperation in maintaining or restoring the quality of park water resources. 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: The NPS will manage watersheds as complete hydrologic 

systems, and will minimize human disturbance to the natural upland processes that deliver water, 

sediment, and woody debris to streams. The NPS will protect watershed and stream features 

primarily by avoiding impacts on watershed and riparian vegetation and by allowing natural 

fluvial processes to proceed unimpeded. 

• Executive Order 11990: Wetlands Protection requires the NPS to 1) exhibit leadership and act 

to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands; 2) protect and improve wetlands 

and their natural and beneficial values; and 3) to refrain from direct or indirect assistance of new 

construction projects in wetlands unless there are no feasible alternatives to such construction 

and the proposed action includes all feasible measures to minimize damage to wetlands. 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: The NPS will manage wetlands in compliance with NPS 

mandates and the requirements of Executive Order 11990 (Wetland Protection), the Clean Water 

Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, and the procedures described in 

Director’s Order 77-1. The service will 1) provide leadership and take action to prevent the 

destruction, loss, and degradation of wetlands; 2) preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial 

values of wetlands; and 3) avoid direct and indirect support of new construction in wetlands 

unless there are not practicable alternatives and the proposed action includes all practicable 

measures to minimize harm to wetlands. The NPS will implement a “no net loss of wetlands” 

policy. 

• Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management has a primary objective ...to avoid to the 

extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and 

modification of floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development 

wherever there is a practicable alternative. For non-recurring actions, the order requires that all 

proposed facilities must be located outside the boundary of the 100-year floodplain. Barring any 
71

feasible alternatives to construction within the floodplain, adverse impacts are to be minimized 

during the design phase of project planning. NPS guidance for this executive order can be found 

in D.O. 77-2. 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: In managing floodplains on park lands, the NPS will 1) 

manage for the preservation of floodplain values; 2) minimize potentially hazardous conditions 

associated with flooding; and 3) comply with the NPS Organic Act and all other federal laws and 

executive orders related to the management of activities in flood-prone areas, including 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), NEPA, applicable provisions of the Clean 

Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. Specifically the NPS will: 

- Protect, preserve, and restore the natural resources and functions of floodplains; 

- Avoid the long- and short-term environmental effects associated with the occupancy and 

modifications of floodplains; and 

- Avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development and actions that could adversely 

affect the natural resources and functions of floodplains or increase flood risks. 

When it is not practicable to locate or relocate development or inappropriate human activities to 

a site outside and not affecting the floodplain the NPS will: 

- Prepare and approve a statement of findings, in accordance with procedures described in 

Director’s Order 77-2 (Floodplain Management); 

- Use nonstructural measures as much as practicable to reduce hazards to human life and 

property while minimizing the impact to the natural resources of floodplains; 

- Ensure that structures and facilities are designed to be consistent with the intent of the standards 

and criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program (44 CFR Part 60). 

o 2006 NPS Management Policies: Natural shoreline processes (such as erosion, deposition, 

dune formation, shoreline migration) will be allowed to continue without interference. Where 

human activities have altered the nature or rate of natural shoreline processes, the NPS will, in 

consultation with appropriate state and federal agencies, investigate alternatives for mitigating 

the effects of such activities or structures and for restoring natural conditions. New developments 

will not be placed in areas subject to wave erosion or active shoreline processes unless 1) the 

development is required by law; or 2) the development is essential to meet the parks’ purposes, 

as defined by its establishing act of proclamation, and 

- No practicable alternative locations are available, 

- The development will be reasonably assured of surviving during its planned life span, without 

the need for shoreline control measures, and 

- Steps will be taken to minimize safety hazards and harm to property and natural resources. 

• The Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended in 1990) regulates airborne emissions of a variety of 

pollutants from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The amendments to the act were added 

primarily to fill gaps in earlier regulations pertaining to acid rain, ground level ozone, 

stratospheric ozone depletion and air toxics, and also to identify 189 hazardous air pollutants. 
72

The act directs the EPA to study these pollutants, identify their sources, determine the need for 

emissions standards and develop and enforce appropriate regulations. 

 • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act affords protection to water resources, and fish and wildlife. 

 This Act applies to major federal water resources development plans (impounding, diverting, 

 deepening the channel, or otherwise controlling or modifying streams or other bodies of water). 

 The Act requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS and applicable state agencies 

 whenever such plans result in alteration of a body of water. In addition, the Act requires that 

 wildlife conservation receive equal consideration with other features of water resource 

 development, and it also triggers coordination with the USFWS upon application for a 404 

 permit. 

• Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 affords protection to shorelines and navigable waterways, tidal 

waters, and wetlands. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 prohibits the 

unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable waterway of the United States. In order 

to obstruct or alter the waterway, a person must obtain a permit from USACE. Activities 

requiring a permit include constructing structures in or over any waters of the U.S., excavating 

material from the water, conducting stream channelization, and depositing materials in such 

waters. 

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that any action proposed by a 

federal agency that may have significant environmental impacts shall utilize a systematic, 

interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences 

and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact 

on man’s environment. 

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires the NPS to identify all federally listed 

endangered, threatened and candidate species that occur within each park unit and promote their 

conservation and recovery. The act requires that any activity funded by federal monies that has 

the potential to impact endangered biota must be consulted through the Secretary of Interior. It 

requires agencies to protect designated critical habitats upon which endangered and threatened 

species depend. Although not required by law, it also is NPS policy to identify, preserve and 

restore state and locally listed species of concern and their habitats. 

• Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112): enhances and furthers the existing authority of the 

federal government to assist in preventing and controlling the spread of invasive species. 

State of Texas: 

• Texas Water Code 

The Texas Water Code is the compendium of laws by which waters in the state of Texas are 

managed. The Texas Water Code was developed to resolve systematic weaknesses in the 

common law mix of riparian and prior appropriation doctrines. While some states have 

supplemented common law on a piecemeal approach – resulting in an uneasy mix of old and new 

– Texas undertook a comprehensive reform with its water code which replaces the common law 

and also continues to evolve. 
73

 Title 1: General Provisions 

 Title 2: Water Administration (e.g., water rights, water wells, groundwater, 

 water development, water quality control) 

 Title 3: River Compacts 

 Title 4: General Law Districts (e.g., irrigation districts, navigation districts, 

 municipal utility districts) 

 \Title 5: Special Law Districts (river authorities) 

 Title 6: Surface Water Authorities 

• Water Rights Adjudication Act of 1967 

The act’s immediate purpose was to legally verify all surface-water claims on a state-wide basis. 

The act achieved this by authorizing all surface waters to be claimed by the state to be held in 

trust for the use of its people. Water rights were then allocated according to a first in time first in 

right, subject to certain clauses, as could be submitted and proved by the claimants. A water 

right comes with a rate, a volume, location, and time – with the earliest claims dating back to 

1913. 

Water in the rivers, streams, underflow, creeks, tides, lakes and every bay and arm of the Texas 

portion of the Gulf of Mexico is considered state water. Its use may be acquired through 

appropriation via the permitting process established in Texas Water Code, Chapter 11, and Title 

30, Texas Administrative Code. Anyone wishing to use surface water must receive permission 

from the state in the form of a “water right,” but which is subject to requirements (to be upheld 

by the claimant) and availability. 

The broader purpose of the act was to put the responsibility of managing Texas waters in the 

hands of Texas – from both a legal and water development standpoint. Otherwise it was feared, 

economic stagnation would ensue or federal intervention by the USACE and BOR would play a 

greater role. The act set the stage for efficient management of its waters – both through an 

orderly system of allocating the water pie during times of drought and water development 

projects to expand the water pie by capturing flood runoff. 

Although considered comprehensive and integrated, Texas water rights depend on whether the 

water is ground or surface water, with a third category – called diffuse flow falling under a 

separate category of lesser importance. This arrangement is not uncommon in the West, and is 

called a bifurcated system, and was originally founded under the premise that ground waters had 

unbounded potential, whereas surface water supplies were finite, and should be awarded to the 

claimant first in time who put those waters to use, in lands often times removed from the river 

channel. Thus, ground water falls under a riparian code. The basic concept is that private water 

rights are tied to the ownership of land bordering a natural river or stream. 

Ground water is governed by the rule of capture, which grants landowners the right to capture 

the water beneath their property. The landowners do not own the water but have a right only to 

pump and capture whatever water is available, subject to reasonable use clauses, regardless of 

the effects of that pumping on neighboring wells. Riparian owners retain the right to use water 

so long as they own the land adjacent to the water. In the case of ground water, this means that 

the water belongs to the owners of the land above it and may be used or sold as private property. 
74

Texas courts have adopted, and the legislature has not modified, the common law rule that a 

landowner has a right to take for use or sale all the water that he can capture from below his land. 

Texas courts have consistently ruled that a landowner has a right to pump all the water that he 

can from beneath his land regardless of the effect on wells of adjacent owners – thus supporting 

the riparian code, under the legal presumption in Texas is that all sources of ground water are 

percolating waters as opposed to subterranean rivers. 

More recently, however, as it has become increasingly apparent that ground water is a finite 

resource, interconnected with streams and subject to diminishment by larger and deeper pumps – 

the so called “law of the biggest pump” – thus there has been a growing concern that all Texas 

waters – not just surface water – be merged under a common system. 

Fundamental Resource: The Thicket

 

What is the Importance of the Thicket to the Preserve?

The Thicket as a construct defines the Preserve. Yet, challenges exist to standing NPS 

perspectives regarding the Thicket. A summary of the confusion regarding a definition or 

delineation of the Big Thicket as an ecological or geographical entity can be found in Diggs et al. 

(2006). These authors adopt a working definition of the Thicket to further their analyses of the 

Thicket as a unique resource in East Texas: 

The Big Thicket is thus the biological boundary at the southwestern extreme of the southeastern 

U. S., humid subtropical in climate, geologically and hydrologically complex, rich in species 

and characterized by a loblolly pine-white oak-beech-magnolia forest with many associated 

and often very distinct vegetation types. 

This represents a more narrow description of the Thicket compared to the designation of units for 

the Preserve, which in fact may be more appropriately representative of the broader Pineywoods 

ecoregion or vegetation area in East Texas (Diggs et al. 2006). The term “thicket” may have 

developed from early travelers who made accounts of the difficulty in crossing baygall and 

swampy areas. While these vegetative communities were never so expansive to warrant the 

name thicket for an entire region, they were likely pervasive enough for travelers to frequently 

encounter them, leading to the perspective of impenetrable thickets. Historical studies show that 

the area described as the Thicket was always a complex of ecological systems ranging from 

prairie to dense forest (Diggs et al. 2006). A related issue regarding perspective and reality is the 

role of the Thicket as a biological “cross-roads” given the unique biological community 

combinations resulting from species ranges overlapping from at least three ecoregions, and some 

species found from more arid parts of Texas persisting in the Thicket. More recent analyses 

determined that species and communities found in the Thicket are predominantly shared with 

those of the southeastern coastal plain (MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2007). What can be said is 

that the Thicket consists of high alpha- (within patch) and beta- (among patch) diversity (Marks 

and Harcombe 1981), and that many species and communities are at the edge of their ranges 

(mostly southern and western edges of ranges) (MacRoberts and MacRoberts 2007). 

Biodiversity is the variety of life and its processes: this encompasses compositional (what is 

there), structural (how it is distributed in space and time) and functional (what it does) elements 

of ecosystems, each being manifest at multiple levels of interconnected organization ranging 
75

from genes to species, communities and ecosystems and landscapes (Noss 1990). It is the 

biodiversity then that becomes the essence of “the Big Thicket.” 

The geologic history and processes of the Big Thicket region, coupled with the past and current 

climatic regime, served as the foundation which has given rise to the Preserve’s rich biodiversity 

and unique plant community associations characterized as a “biological crossroads.” The 

region’s varying topography and soils have been significantly influenced by its geologic history 

and processes, and the surficial geologic processes continue today to shape the landscape, 

particularly with respect to fluvial geomorphic features along the Neches River and its 

tributaries. Soil conditions ranging from relatively impermeable clays, such as those found in 

association with the Beaumont Formation, to relatively deep coarse sands found in areas of 

fluviatile terrace deposits, contribute significantly to the floristic diversity of the Preserve. 

Taken together, the interplay of geology, topography, climate, water, and soils causes abrupt 

transitions in vegetation community composition. As presented by Callicott et al. (2006), 

topographic and soil conditions powerfully influence the local segregation of this rich 

concentration of plant species into distinctive plant communities. The longleaf pine ecosystem, 

one of the most threatened in North America and also one of the most diverse, occurs on three 

main landforms: (1) uplands that are dry because of coarse soils and relatively steep terrain; (2) 

especially dry deep sands of old stream terraces where one can view cacti, yuccas and other 

plants commonly thought of as desert plants in association with the pines; and (3) wet, poorly 

drained flats where longleaf pine savannas occur together with a herb-rich ground layer of sedges 

and grasses, including carnivorous plant species. In uplands and some stream bottoms with 

sandy-loam soils that are well-drained, but moist most of the year, one can find magnificent 

sands dominated by southern magnolias and American beach. Bottomland-hardwood forests of 

oaks and gums are found in floodplains along rivers and creeks, and sloughs and oxbows of river 

and creek floodplains are dominated by bald cypress and tupelo swamps. The wetland baygall 

vegetation communities in the Preserve are compositionally distinct, and are poorly defined by 

topography and drainage; however, seepage water may be a key factor in their locations because 

they often occur at the base of bluffs in floodplains (Harcombe and Marks 1979). Harcombe and 

Marks (1979) discussed the general relationship between topography, soils, and vegetative 

communities in Preserve management units. 

 

What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends of Natural Resources in 

the Thicket?

Section 4(a) of the Preserve’s enabling legislation directs that the Preserve’s lands, through the 

NPS, will be administered “in a manner which will assure their natural and ecological integrity in 

perpetuity...” Although a formal current condition assessment has not been conducted, and 

measures have not been assessed for ecological integrity of Preserve resources, clear indicators 

of degraded resources exist. At this time, it is estimated that about three percent of the remaining 

habitat in East Texas is considered intact. Urban development was a major cause of habitat loss 

in the early part of this century, as was logging. Bottomland forests along many rivers have been 

completely converted. Longleaf pine areas have been converted to loblolly or slash pine 

plantations or severely fire suppressed. Preserve units are fragmented on the landscape, top 

predators in food webs are absent, biological invasions are rampant, and extraction activities 

within and near the Preserve, no matter how carefully conducted, are incompatible with natural 

area resource persistence. Positive trends are the establishment of invasive plant control, re-
76

establishment of fire on portions of the fire-adapted landscape, preparation of an Oil and Gas 

Management Plan (NPS 2006), the reinvigoration of science manifested in resource inventories 

(including the All-Taxa Biological Inventory), status and trend monitoring of select resources, 

and the continued encouragement of research at the Preserve. 

While limited research and monitoring data are available that documents the current conditions 

and trends of the geologic resources in the Preserve, anecdotal information suggests that that 

such resources are in a fairly good and stable condition over much of the Preserve. Natural 

processes of weathering, and fluvial erosion and deposition are the predominant forces affecting 

geologic resources in the Preserve. 

However, geologic resources, primarily soils, have been degraded in specific locations as a result 

of nonfederal oil and gas exploration, production and transportation. Radian Corporation (1985) 

conducted natural resource site assessments at 125 abandoned oil and gas wells in the Preserve, 

ranging from 0.25 to 4.0 acres in size, and conducted similar assessments on an estimated 15 

miles of abandoned access roads. Radian noted many of the abandoned well sites and access 

roads require restoration action, including removal of imported non-native surface material (e.g., 

crushed oyster shell, gravel, etc.) and debris (e.g., pipes, drums, cable, concrete footing, lumber, 

etc), aerating compacted soils, remediating contaminated soils, and reestablishing natural 

contours. Fountain and Rayburn (1987) conducted a study on the impacts of oil and gas 

development on vegetation and soils of the Preserve, and determined that the presence of foreign 

material (such as boards, plastic, crushed shell) on 12 of 45 abandoned oil and gas well pads 

investigated was a primary impediment to the reestablishment and succession of natural 

vegetation species. In addition, soils at select locations in the Preserve have also been subject to 

contamination resulting from the release of produced oil and saltwater at specific well sites and 

as a result of pipeline ruptures. The frequency of contaminant releases at active oil and gas well 

sites in the Preserve is diminishing due to park staff monitoring of producing oil and gas wells 

and strict application of the 36 CFR 9B regulations. However, the aging pipeline infrastructure 

in the Preserve is cause for concern. 

Nonfederal oil and gas development continues in the Preserve, and future geophysical 

exploration, exploratory well drilling, well production, and product transportation will likely 

occur in the future. A total of 40 active oil and gas operations exist in the Preserve; nine 

operations on NPS lands, and approximately 31 wells directionally drilled beneath the Preserve 

from well pads located on adjacent lands. Recent trends indicate that the majority of future oil 

and gas wells in the Preserve may likely be drilled from external surface locations due to 

advances in directional drilling technology coupled with the presence of numerous narrow 

corridor management units in stream floodplains. However, geologic factors alone indicate that 

additional oil and gas exploration and production operations will be proposed in the Preserve. 

With respect to fluvial geomorphic processes occurring along the Neches River, park staff has 

observed that bank erosion and stream channel migration at specific locations has caused the 

river to encroach upon, and in some cases transgress, boundaries of the Preserve. Geomorphic 

processes of the Neches River have also exposed the oil and gas well casing of three abandoned 

wells; these abandoned wells are now in the river. In addition, bank erosion at specific sites is 
77

also exposing previously buried segments of active oil and gas pipelines. These are important 

management issues for the Preserve. 

The Miocene and Pleistocene paleontological resources in the Preserve are presumed to be in 

fairly good condition because the dense vegetative cover precludes extensive exposures of fossilbearing deposits. However, as previously noted, several natural erosional areas of the park 

including river banks, bluffs, and gullies afford access to these deposits. Areas of particular 

concern include the Upper Neches River Corridor Unit near Town Bluff and the Menard Creek 

Corridor Unit near the Trinity River. Unauthorized collection of fossils could be occurring in 

these areas, and perhaps in other areas of the Preserve as well due to the high level of public 

interest in such irreplaceable resources. 

What Are the Current and Potential Threats to the Thicket Within the Preserve?

Land use legacies may have led to potential irreversible conditions. There are extirpated species 

from the thicket – red wolf, mountain lion, red-cockaded and ivory-billed woodpeckers, 

Louisiana pine snakes, and passenger pigeons. The lack of top predators is rarely offset by 

hunting, because of the effects predators have on prey behavior. Forests are secondary growth, 

leading to less structural and compositional heterogeneity. 

Biological invasions represent a significant threat to the Preserve, as they can not only negatively 

affect individual species, but can influence ecosystem properties such as fire, and thereby change 

the entire nature of the Thicket. Invasive species can be native or non-native. Native species 

such as the southern pine beetles (Dendroctorus frontalis) might be considered a natural process, 

except that the current restricted and fragmented state of host species and their communities 

demands a “hands-on” approach to managing poorly understood outbreaks. For example, 

suppression of the population is recommended if it is within 1⁄4 mile of private land or if it 

threatens to kill cavity trees of red-cockaded woodpeckers (Cooper et al. 2004). High priority 

non-native invaders are: Chinese tallow, Chinese privet, Japanese climbing fern, Japanese 

honeysuckle, kudzu, golden bamboo, Chinaberry, Chinese wisteria, Nandina, Mimosa, water 

hyacinth and giant salvinia. Including spring annuals, possibly a third of plant species now 

found in the Thicket area are non-native. Emerging plant species of concern are cogon grass and 

deep-rooted sedge (Eric Worsham, Big Thicket National Preserve, pers. comm. 2009). Nonnative animals include nutria, grass carp, zebra mussels, and the imported red fire ant. Feral 

populations of animals represent a subset of invasions. Cats and dogs are known to disrupt 

wildlife behavior and predate on birds and young of other wildlife groups. Feral hogs disrupt 

soils and understory communities via rooting while foraging. 

Fragmentation of the landscape is a continued threat. Landscape processes such as fires and 

floods, and predation and herbivory patterns of wide-ranging species will not occur within a 

natural range of variation. Many operational problems for Preserve staff stem from the 

fragmented nature of the Preserve: 

• Increasing number of landowners on the boundary with whom Preserve staff must 

coordinate with and inform of management actions. New land uses on adjacent lands 

must also be addressed. 

• Encroachment 
78

• Confusion over landownership – there are 560 linear miles of boundary and not enough 

staff to patrol. 

Oil and gas activity along the boundary as well as within the Preserve will continue to disturb 

wildlife and threaten water quality. Additionally, oil and gas activity, operation and maintenance 

of trans-preserve pipelines, illegal fossil collecting, and adjacent land use and development are 

current and potential threats to geologic resources. 

Nitrates, ammonium, and sulfates from the atmosphere can deposit into ecosystems through rain, 

snow, or dryfall, and cause acidification or eutrophication (unnatural enrichment) of waters and 

soils. Although soils and waters are likely to be well-buffered from acidification in the Preserve, 

nitrogen from nitrates and ammonium may cause unwanted fertilization of ecosystems in the 

Preserve. Excess nitrogen alters competitive interactions that may cause native plant species to 

be lost, with subsequent decrease in species richness and biodiversity. Wetlands often contain a 

disproportionately high number of rare plant species that have evolved under nitrogen-limited 

conditions. Species better able to utilize excess nitrogen, including invasive species, may 

displace native species (EPA 2008). Atmospheric nitrogen deposition is monitored by CASTNet 

(http://www.epa.gov/castnet) in Hardin County, Texas. Total inorganic nitrogen deposition at that site 

is estimated to be 4.5-5.0 kg/ha/yr, significantly elevated above preindustrial deposition of about 

0.5 kg/ha/yr, the deposition at which many native plant species evolved. 

Atmospheric deposition of mercury has the potential to harm fish and wildlife in the Preserve. 

Burning of coal in powerplants is the primary source of mercury to the atmosphere and, once 

deposited into ecosystems, mercury may be transformed into a very toxic form, methylmercury. 

Conditions in the Preserve, including extensive wetlands and high dissolved organic matter, 

promote mercury methylation and subsequent uptake and bioaccumulation in aquatic organisms. 

A 2007 survey by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) found high levels of 

mercury in fish from Village Creek in the Preserve and concluded that consumption of black 

crappie, gar, and largemouth bass from the creek posed an apparent hazard to human health 

(http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/seafood/PDF2/Risk%20Characterization/VillageCreekRC2007.pdf). Texas DSHS 

recommended that pregnant women, women who may become pregnant, and women who are 

nursing an infant, should eat no crappie, gar, or largemouth bass from Village Creek; that small 

children (those at or below 12 years of age or who weigh less than 75 pounds) should limit 

consumption of crappie, gar, and largemouth bass to two four-ounce meals per month from 

Village Creek; and that adult men and women past childbearing should limit consumption of 

crappie, gar, and largemouth bass to two 8-ounce meals per month from Village Creek. 

Who Are the Stakeholders Who Have an Interest in the Thicket?

The following stakeholders will likely have an interest in the Thicket and its representation in the 

Preserve: 

• Lamar University 

• Rice University 

• Stephen F. Austin State University 

• Sam Houston State University 

• University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology 
79

• Texas A&M University 

• University of North Texas 

• Big Thicket Association 

• Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas 

• Texas Memorial Museum 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• Oil and gas operators 

• Trans-park pipeline operators 

• Natural Resources Conservation Service 

• U.S. Geological Survey 

• Residents along waterways 

• Adjacent landowners 

• Timber companies 

• Texas Railroad Commission 

• Texas General Land Office 

• Texas Historical Commission 

• Texas Department of Transportation 

• Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission 

• Texas Water Development Board 

• Texas Forest Service 

• Researchers – geology and paleontology 

• Sierra Club 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Coast Guard (navigable waters) 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (pipelines) 

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• U.S. Department of Transportation (pipelines) 

• National Parks and Conservation Association 

Which Laws and Policies Apply to the Thicket, and What Guidance Do the Laws and 

Policies Provide?

• National Park Service Organic Act: see page 68

• General Authorities Act: see page 68

• Redwood National Park Act: see page 68

• National Parks Omnibus Management Act: see page 69

• NPS 2006 Management Policies: see pages 69-71

• Clean Air Act: see page 71

• Executive Order 13122 Invasive Species: see page 72

• Endangered Species Act: see page 72

Park System Resources Protection Act (PSRPA): This act affords protection to any living or 

non-living resource that is located within the boundaries of a unit of the National Park System, 

except for resources owned by a nonfederal entity. The Park System Resource Protection Act 

makes any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any park system resource strictly 

liable to the United States for response costs and for damages resulting from such destruction, 
80

loss, or injury. A park system resource includes any living or non-living resource located within 

the boundaries of a NPS unit, except for resources owned by a non-federal entity. Because the 

statute imposes strict liability the only defenses arise when an act of nature or war caused the 

damage, a third party who constituted neither an employee or nor an agent of the owner/operator 

solely caused the damage, or an activity authorized by federal or state law caused the damage. 

The PSRPA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to request the Department of Justice to file a 

civil action for the costs of replacing, restoring or acquiring the equivalent of a park system 

resource; the value of any use loss pending its restoration; replacement, or acquisition, the cost of 

damage assessments; and the cost of response including actions to prevent, to minimize, or to 

abate injury. Response costs include actions taken by the NPS “...to prevent or minimize 

destruction, loss of, or injury to park system resources; to abate or minimize the imminent risk of 

such destruction, loss or injury; or to monitor ongoing effects of incidents causing such 

destruction, loss or injury.” 

Antiquities Act of 1906: This act affords protection to cultural, historic, archeological and 

paleontological resources. The Antiquities Act constituted the first general act providing 

protection for archeological, historic and prehistoric ruins or monuments, and paleontological 

resources on federal lands. The act prohibits excavation, destruction, injury or appropriation of 

such resources without the departmental secretary’s permission. It also authorizes the President 

of the United States to proclaim as national monuments public lands having historic landmarks, 

historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or of scientific interest. The 

Antiquities Act also authorizes the President to reserve federal lands, to accept private lands, and 

to accept relinquishment of unperfected claims for that purpose. 

Paleontological Resources Protection Act: This act requires federal agencies to 1) promulgate 

regulations as soon as practicable; 2) develop plans for fossil inventories, monitoring, and 

scientific and educational use; 3) manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land 

using scientific principles and expertise; 4) establish a program to increase public awareness 

about the significance of paleontological resources; 5) manage fossil collection via specific 

permitting requirements; 6) curate collected fossils in accordance with the Act’s requirements; 7) 

implement the Act’s criminal and civil enforcement, penalty, reward and forfeiture provisions; 

and 8) protect information about the nature and specific location of fossils where warranted. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA): This act implements various treaties and conventions 

between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of migratory 

birds. Unless permitted by regulations, under the MBTA a person cannot attempt or succeed at 

pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, possessing, offering to sell, selling, bartering, 

purchasing, delivering, shipping, exporting, importing, transporting, carrying or receiving any 

migratory bird, body part (e.g. feathers), nest, egg, or product. 

Oil Pollution Act (OPA): This act expands the federal role in spill response, establishes 

contingency planning requirements for vessels and certain facilities, establishes the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund, increases liability for spills of oil or hazardous substances from vessels and 

facilities, creates requirements for double hulls on new tankers, and increases requirements for 

research and development of spill response technologies. The OPA imposes liability for removal 

costs and damages resulting from discharge of oil into the U.S.’s navigable waters, its adjoining 
81

shorelines, or the exclusive economic zone. Damages incurred include injuries to natural 

resources, loss of natural resources, and loss of use of natural resources. Natural resources 

include land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other 

resources belonging to the U. S., state, local, foreign governments or Native American tribes. 

The OPA provides new requirements for government and industry oil spill contingency planning. 

The “National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan” was expanded to 

encompass a three-tiered approach. The federal government directs all public and private 

response efforts for certain types of spill events. Area committees, composed of federal, state, 

and local government officials, must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans. 

Owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment 

must prepare their own facility response plans. 

The OPA may require operators of nonfederal oil and gas operations in units of the National Park 

System to develop contingency plans. Contingency plans developed to meet the requirements of 

OPA may also satisfy the NPS 9B requirement for a contingency plan. NPS would determine if 

the OPA required plan meets NPS requirements as part of the 9B plan approval process. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): This act seeks to promote the protection of 

health and the environment and to conserve valuable material and energy resources. RCRA 

regulates the management of hazardous waste from generation to final disposal. The law 

consists of nine subtitles. 

The requirements of Subtitle C apply if the waste falls under EPA's criteria governing hazardous 

waste. EPA codified the regulatory criteria for hazardous waste at 40 C.F.R. Parts 260 and 261. 

EPA codified a list of hazardous wastes (known as listed wastes) in Subpart D of Part 261. 

Subpart C of Part 261 establishes the criteria for determining whether a solid waste constitutes a 

hazardous waste by exhibiting a characteristic of corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or toxicity 

(known as characteristic waste). EPA can regulate a solid waste because it either appears on the 

hazardous waste lists or displays a characteristic of a hazardous waste. 

The 1980 amendments to RCRA excluded certain oil, gas, and geothermal drilling and 

production wastes from the hazardous waste requirements of Subtitle C. The amendments 

specifically exempt drilling fluids, produced water, and other drilling and production wastes. In 

1988, the EPA decided to keep the exemption for oil and gas exploration and production wastes. 

State agencies regulate the exempted wastes under the less strict Subtitle D governing 

nonhazardous waste. 

In addition, the RCRA exemption from Subtitle C for oil and gas drilling and production waste 

does not exclude these wastes from the operation of RCRA section 7003. Section 7003 allows 

EPA to compel any person who contributed or contributes to the handling, storage, treatment, 

transportation or disposal of the hazardous waste in a manner that causes an imminent and 

substantial danger to take any action to protect human health and the environment. Because this 

can include expensive cleanup actions to protect human health and the environment, operators 

should handle waste from their operations in such a way that it does not contaminate the 

environment either now or in the future. 
82

Regardless of oil and gas exploration and production wastes’ exemption from Subtitle C 

regulation, the NPS will likely require operators to dispose of all wastes associated with the oil 

and gas operation outside of the park. NPS requirements for waste disposal in an operator's plan 

of operations will provide for the strict protection of park resources and values. 

Fundamental Value: Scientific Value

 

What Is the Importance of Scientific Value to the Preserve?

Scientific value continues to be an important role for all protected areas. The development of 

science is one of the driving objectives of Biosphere Reserve designations. In short, the quest to 

understand nature has always accompanied the appreciation of nature in efforts to protect 

“special places.” The Preserve provides access to scientific research in a region where there is so 

few public lands. The Preserve’s status as a collection of protected areas within a working 

landscape provides opportunities to test numerous hypotheses in conservation biology and 

ecology. The types of research that the Preserve is particularly amenable to include:

• restoration of communities and ecosystems; 

• exotic plant biology and ecology; 

• ecosystem resistance and resilience to natural and anthropogenic disturbance -- of 

interest to managers is how resources respond to disturbances -- generally, it is helpful to 

know the range of variation of “natural” disturbances; 

• population ecology of species at the edge of their respective ranges, and in combination 

with other species within assemblages; this is directly relevant to climate change research 

and modeling; 

• landscape ecology -- this includes analyses of connectedness, fragmentation, corridors 

and reserve design; 

• ozone emissions from local (oil and gas development) sources and effects on biota; 

• recreational opportunities and impacts; 

• effects (in both directions) of timber harvest activities and protected area activities; 

• climate change response; and 

• flood-pulse concept, natural flows, and flow variability. 

What Are the Current State or Conditions and the Related Trends of Scientific Research 

in the Preserve?

Trends for bringing science into the Preserve are improving after a period of little activity and 

loss of some research projects. The NPS Fire Program has been collecting fire effects data, the 

All Taxa Biological Inventory and status and trend monitoring are underway, and researchers are 

coming back to the Preserve. Biosphere Reserve oriented research has not been developed, but 

renewed interest in the Man and the Biosphere program in the U.S. may result in additional 

coordination support for this work. Additional work should be pursued with partners to study 

natural ecosystem dynamics, management actions, and ecological restoration. There is also the 

issue of researchers not complying with the conditions of their permits (e.g., staying within the 

limits of their permits, turning in reports, etc.). 

Like any NPS unit, management efforts in the Preserve are enhanced by a baseline of historical 

data and hindered to varying degrees by gaps of key resource information. Hydrologic 
83

monitoring is relatively robust, and the biological inventory is making progress, but many 

information gaps and uncertainties require further attention. For example, clear boundary 

descriptions are needed, as well as, information on historic land use. Formal land surveys and 

acquisition of historical aerial imagery are necessary for understanding and planning. Imagery 

exists, and dates to the 1930s but it is extremely expensive – the whole suite of images costs 

about $140,000 just for the 1930s, when most of the logging damage was done at this point. 

Environmental histories are effective in rounding out datasets to provide context to known shifts 

in resource patterns, conditions and processes.

What Are the Current and Potential Threats to Scientific Value Within the Preserve?

While there is never a threat to the need for more knowledge, there is always a concern that 

budget restrictions will lead to lower prioritization for research. This does not mean that staff 

may care less about science, but they may not have the capacity to facilitate science. 

The primary threat to the scientific value of the Preserve is the inability of science and 

conservation to keep up with the rapid pace of agricultural, industrial, residential, and water 

development growth in the Big Thicket region, and compete against the economic incentives for 

this growth. Economic development has resulted in loss, degradation, and fragmentation of the 

Big Thicket’s ecology and large spatial extent. Conservation efforts have been successful to 

varying degrees in counteracting these effects, and a growing body of scientific knowledge has 

provided support to conservation measures, but lack of funding, the disparate nature of the 

threats, and complexity of the ecosystem makes it an on-going and difficult task. There is a need 

to foster a regional outlook for advocating science and conservation within the Big Thicket 

region in this regard, to both better protect and restore natural areas and processes within the 

Preserve and throughout the Big Thicket region.

Who Are the Stakeholders Who Have an Interest in the Scientific Value of the Preserve?

Big Thicket’s national recognition as a unique physiographic region has motivated a wide array 

of governmental, academic, educational and conservation organizations (and others) to 

implement and steward scientific and conservation efforts both within and surrounding the 

Preserve. Baseline collection of scientific and conservation information is considered 

particularly important in the Preserve because it puts the larger context of the Big Thicket – and 

the role that the Preserve plays in it – in perspective, and provides a foundation for guiding 

specific scientific and conservation efforts. Such collection includes the following: 

• U.S. Geological Survey measures stream flow along major and tributary water ways 

within the Big Thicket region. Such measurements are valued not only for their 

functionality towards tracking flow and stage levels in real-time flow, thereby assessing 

flood and drought severity, but also as a historic baseline for better understanding natural 

hydrology prior to water control efforts, and utilization by a wide range of researchers. 

• The Big Thicket Association has partnered with the Preserve to develop an All Taxa 

Biodiversity Inventory of the Preserve. This effort draws on a wide range of experts, 

usually assembled in taxonomic working groups, and will result in a comprehensive 

baseline for understanding and guiding future management and research in the Preserve. 

• The National Park Service’s Gulf Coast Inventory and Monitoring Network has partnered 

with Lower Neches Valley Authority to monitor water quality in tributary waters of the 
84

Preserve that when combined with historical data provides an invaluable water quality 

baseline. 

Other research and conservation efforts also form key pieces to understanding the scientific and 

conservation aspects of the Big Thicket, but in most cases have not maintained the historic 

continuity of the primary baseline efforts listed above. Examples include: 

• Local and regional universities 

• Local public schools 

• Local residents 

• Recreation groups 

• Consulting firms 

• Big Thicket Association 

• Mycological Society 

• BEST – “Butterfly Enthusiasts from SE Texas” 

• Black Bear Task Force 

• The Nature Conservancy (owns easements and property within the Preserve’s 

• administrative boundary – the intent is to eventually pass property to Preserve) 

• The Conservation Fund

• Houston Wilderness 

• Sierra Club 

• Texas Parks and Wildlife 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

• Timber investment firms 

• Oil and Gas operators 

Which Laws and Policies Apply to the Scientific Value of the Preserve, and What 

Guidance Do the Laws and Policies Provide?

• The Preserve’s enabling legislation 

• National Parks Omnibus Management Act: see page 69 

• NPS Management Policies of 2006: see pages69- 71

• Executive Order 13122 on Invasive Species: see page 72

• Endangered Species Act: see page 72 
85

Climate Change and Big Thicket National Preserve [adapted 

from Twilley et al. (2001)] 

Twilley et al. (2001) explored the potential risks of climate change to Gulf Coast ecosystems 

through an understanding of the most likely ecological consequences. The two climate scenarios 

used in their report both predict warmer temperatures and an increase in the rate of sea-level rise 

over the next 100 years. Summer high temperatures are projected to rise between 3 and 7o

 F and 

winter low temperatures to warm by as much as 5o F in the east to 10o F in the western gulf. 

Sea-level rise along the Gulf Coast is projected to range from over 8 to almost 20 inches. 

Considering regional subsidence, this range expands to 15 inches along most of the Gulf Coast to 

as much as 44 inches along the Mississippi Delta. 

Global warming will have particularly important impacts on the region’s water resources. Gulf 

coast ecosystems are linked by the flow of water from the uplands through freshwater lakes, 

rivers and wetlands to the coast. Vast wetland areas require periods of flooding to maintain 

healthy habitats and sustain food webs. While there remains uncertainty about how global 

warming will affect rainfall, stream flow, soil moisture and overall water availability, human 

consumption of water resources is almost certain to increase as a result of the region’s population 

growth. If climate change results in reduced runoff and lower groundwater levels for parts of the 

year, the consequence could be a shortage of water to satisfy both ecosystem needs and the 

growing and competing human demands. Other impacts could include: 

• The increasing drawdown of surface water systems and underground reservoirs could 

combine with sea level rise to increase saltwater contamination of aquifers. The risk of 

saltwater intrusion increases especially if these underground freshwater levels are 

declining because of greater human consumption and lower recharge rates. This risk is 

greatest if climate turns drier, but it will remain significant even if the climate grows 

wetter, because of human water use and sea-level rise are certain to increase. 

• Changing surface runoff patterns driven by changes in rainfall could alter river 

ecosystems. Changes in flooding patterns could also significantly affect river 

ecosystems. Flooding periodically rejuvenates floodplains by erosion and deposition and 

is essential to the health of river ecosystems. From an ecological perspective, flood 

pulses are not disturbances, but rather essential processes that define the biology and 

water quality of river ecosystems. If climate change results in more intense rainfall 

events, humans are likely to try to reduce flooding by increasing channelization of rivers 

and building dams, levees and reservoirs, all of which are functionally less effective in 

flood control than maintaining floodplain habitats that can receive and slow overbank 

flows. 

• In freshwater streams, warmer temperatures and a longer growing season could reduce 

habitat for cool-water species. In very shallow water systems, higher temperatures could 

lead to oxygen depletion and cause potentially massive die-offs of fish and invertebrates. 

Low-oxygen conditions would become more extensive in a warmer climate with longer 

periods of low flow, and the consequences for stream ecosystems could be severe. 

• Primary productivity in freshwater wetlands would increase with higher concentrations of 

CO2 and modestly warmer temperatures, as long as precipitation is not reduced. This 

may mean increased accumulation of organic matter, enhanced rates of soil formation, 
86

and – for systems close to the coast – an increased ability to cope with sea-level rise. 

However, increased plant growth in response to higher CO2 varies among species, and 

higher CO2 could change the mix of species and interactions within aquatic communities. 

• Changes in climate will influence the spread of invasive species that threaten freshwater 

systems, affecting native plants, fish and shellfish and associated recreation and 

commercial fisheries. 

Gulf Coast upland ecosystems are particularly sensitive to potential changes in the water cycle 

and fire frequency. Variations in soil moisture are important factors in forest dynamics and 

composition: many natural pine forests can tolerate low soil moisture while oak-pine and oakgum forests require medium to high soil moisture. Over time, increasing temperature and 

decreasing soil moisture would almost certainly change the distribution of trees and other plant 

species in these systems. 

If droughts become more frequent or intense, the risk of wildfire could increase. In ecosystems 

not fire-adapted, recovery from catastrophic fires can take decades or longer. In contrast, 

wildfires are critical for grassland communities such as coastal prairies and bogs which are well 

adapted to natural cycles of burning. 

Any increase in storm and hurricane frequency could hasten forest turnover, possibly resulting in 

the accelerated replacement of canopy trees with different, more competitive species. 

Climate changes such as warmer temperatures, fewer freezes and changes in rainfall or storm 

frequency will tend to shift the ranges of plant and animal species and alter the makeup of 

biological communities. With increasing temperatures, many invasive tropical species are likely 

to extend their ranges northward. Native plants and animals already stressed and greatly reduced 

in their ranges could be put at further risk by warmer temperatures and reduced freshwater 

availability. 

Twilley et al. (2001) use the Preserve as a specific case study. Climate change has the potential 

to impact the Preserve’s diverse plant communities by altering the growth rates of species, 

changing the intensity and frequency of disturbance, and potentially facilitating invasion by 

exotic plant species. Historically, fire played a critical role in determining the dominant 

vegetation in the Preserve by preventing encroachment of hardwood saplings into pine forests 

and allowing successful recruitment of young pines. Fire frequency is likely to increase if 

climate change leads to drier conditions in the area. With greater demand for water in the 

Neches River and higher moisture deficits, invasion by Chinese tallow trees is likely to intensify. 

Climate change will also influence the spread of pests, especially the southern pine beetle. 

Moreover, any barriers to dispersal or migration by plants and animals would hinder their ability 

to respond to changes in climate. 

Long-term monitoring at the Preserve is helping to understand coastal forest response to climate 

change (Guntenspergen and Burkett 1997). Data collected from permanent study plots suggest 

that increases in drought associated with changing climate may significantly alter understory 

seedling populations in bottomland forests and recruitment into the sapling layers, and ultimately 

influence overstory canopy structure. 
87

Increased disturbance associated with flooding and storms may favor early successsional shadeintolerant species at the expense of shade-tolerant species. More importantly, increased 

disruptions to the forest canopy will provide recruitment opportunities for exotic woody species, 

enhancing their rate of invasion into natural stands.

89

Literature Cited

Abbott, J. and K. Stewart. 1996. A preliminary account of the aquatic insects of the Big Thicket. 

Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain 

Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 10-13 October. 

Adsit, W. and L. Hagen. 1978. Intensive surface water monitoring survey for segment 0607 

(Pine Island Bayou). Texas Dept. Water Resources. Austin, TX. 

Allan, J. 1995. Stream ecology – structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hall, 

New York, NY. 

Aronow, S. 1975. Outline of the physical setting of the Big Thicket in The Big Thicket: 

Participants handbook for the contemporary science seminar. Houston Museum of 

Natural Science and University of Houston in cooperation with Big Thicket 

Association. 

Aronow, S. 1981. Notes on the Geologic Units, Big Thicket National Preserve. Final Report to 

Big Thicket National Preserve, National Park Service. Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. 

Baker, E. 1964. Geology and ground-water resources of Hardin County, Texas. Texas Water 

Commission, Austin. 

Barclay, C. and R. Harrel. 1985. Effects of pollution effluents on two successive tributaries and 

Village Creek in Southeastern Texas. Texas Journal of Science 37:165-188. 

Bass, D. 1979. Physiochemical conditions, fecal bacteria, and benthic macroinvertebrates of 

Menard Creek in the Big Thicket National Preserve. Thesis. Lamar University, Beaumont, 

TX. 

Bass, D. and R. Harrel. 1981. Water quality of a Southeast Texas stream. Hydrobiologia 76:69- 

79. 

Bayley, P. 1995. Understanding large river-floodplain ecosystems. BioScience 45:153-158. 

Blanton and Assoc., Inc. 1998. Environmental assessment of a proposed three-dimensional 

seismic survey within the Beaumont Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Prepared 

for Duncan Energy Co. Houston, TX. 

Blum, M., R. Morton, and J. Durbin. 1995. Deweyville terraces and deposits of the Texas Gulf 

Coastal Plain. Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies 45:53-60. 

Bureau of Economic Geology. 1968. Geologic atlas of Texas, Beaumont sheet, 1:250,000 scale. 

University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. 
90

Callicott, J., M. Acevedo, P. Gunter, P. Harcombe, C. Lindquist, and M. Monticino. 2006. 

Biocomplexity in the Big Thicket. Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (1): 21-45. 

Commander, D. 1978. An evaluation of the fecal coliform loads and instream densities of 

coliform organisms in Pine Island Bayou. Lower Neches Valley Authority Tech. 

Rept. No. 78-3. 

Commander, D. 1980. Physiochemical conditions, fecal bacteria, and macrobenthos of streams in 

the Turkey Creek Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Lamar University, Beaumont, 

TX. 

Conner, J. 1977. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes in western gulf slope drainages between the 

Mississippi and the Rio Grande. Ph. D. dissertation, Tulane University. New Orleans, LA. 

Cooper, R., S. Cederbaum, and J. Gannon. 2004. Natural Resource Summary for Big Thicket 

Preserve. Warnell School of Forest Resources University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Cowardin, L., V. Carter, F. Golet, and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater 

habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C. 

Darville, R. and R. Harrel. 1980. Macrobenthos of Pine Island Bayou in the Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas. Hydrobiologia 69:213-223. 

DeCamps, H. 1993. River margins and environmental change. Ecol. Appl. 3:441-425. 

Deshotels, J. 1978. Soil survey of Big Thicket National Preserve. Soil Conservation Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. 

Diggs, G., Jr., B. Lipscomb, M. Reed, and R. O'Kennon. 2006. Illustrated Flora of East Texas. 

Botanical Research Institute of Texas, Fort Worth, TX. 

Dwyer, K. 2005. Rhino’s river. Beaumont Enterprise newspaper, Beaumont, TX. May 21, 2005. 

Enprotec, Inc. 1998. Plan of operations: proposed 3-D geophysical exploration program, 

Beaumont Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Continental Geophysical Services 

and Duncan Energy Company. 

Fay, L. 2008. Geologic resources inventory scoping summary, Big Thicket National Preserve. 

Geologic Resources Division, National Park Service, Denver, CO.14 pp. 

Felley, J. 1992. Medium-low-gradient streams of the Gulf Coastal Plain. Pp. 233–269, In C.T. 

Hackney, S.M. Adams, and W.H. Martin (Eds.). Biodiversity of the Southeastern United 

States: Aquatic Communities. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 
91

Flora, M. 1984. Development of a water quality monitoring program for the Big Thicket 

National Preserve, TX. National Park Service Water Resources Field Support Laboratory, 

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 

Flora, M., S. Lawrence, and M. Cavendish. 1985. A summary of water quality for the Big Sandy 

Creek Unit, Beech Creek Unit, and Turkey Creek Unit of Big Thicket National Preserve, 

Texas (1975-1981). National Park Service, Water Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO. 

Ford, N. 1996. Evaluation of habitat modification on amphibian and reptile populations in East 

Texas. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf 

Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 10-13 October. 

Guntenspergen, G. and V. Burkett. 1997. Coastal wetlands and global change: overview. U.S. 

Geological Survey, FS-089-97. 

Gunter, P. 1971. The big thicket: a challenge for conservation. Viking Press, NY. 

Hall, R. and K. Bruce. 1996. Characterization of water quality in the water corridor units of the 

Big Thicket National Preserve. Rice University, Houston, TX. 

Harcombe, P. 1996. Characterization of the biological resources of the water corridor units of the 

Big Thicket National Preserve. Rice University, Houston, TX. 

Harcombe, P. and G. Callaway. 1997a. Management assessment of the water corridor units of 

the Big Thicket National Preserve - final report. Rice University, Houston, TX. 

Harcombe, P. and G. Callaway. 1997b. Water corridors management assessment: management 

assessment of the water corridor units of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Rice 

University and Ekistics Corporation, Houston, TX. 

Harrel, R. 1975. Water quality and salt water intrusion in the lower Neches River. Texas Journal 

of Science 26:107-117. 

Harrel, R. 1976. Preliminary limnological survey of streams in the Big Thicket National Preserve 

(April 21, 1975-February 1, 1976). Lamar University, Beaumont, TX. 

Harrel, R. 1985. Effects of a crude oil spill on water quality and macrobenthos of a Southeast 

Texas Stream. Hydrobiologia 124:223-228. 

Harrel, R. 1993. Origin and decline of the estuarine clam Rangia cuneata in the Neches River, 

Texas. American Malacological Bulletin 10:153-159. 

Harrel, R. and R. Darville. 1978. Water quality monitoring in the Big Thicket National Preserve 

(June, 1977-August, 1978). Southwestern Region, National Park Service, Santa Fe, NM. 
92

Harrel, R. and W. Newberry. 1981. Water quality monitoring in the Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Big Sandy Creek Unit. Southwestern Region, National Park Service, Santa Fe, 

NM. 

Harrel, R. and M. Hall. 1991. Macrobenthic community structure before and after pollution 

abatement in the Neches River Estuary (Texas). Hydrobiologia 211:241-252. 

Hawkes, H. 1975. River zonation and classification. Pages 213-274 in B. Whitton, ed., River 

Ecology, Blackwell, Oxford, England. 

Hobbs, H. 1990. On the crayfishes (Decapoda, Cambaridae) of the Neches River basin of Eastern 

Texas with the descriptions of 3 new species. Proceedings of the Biological Society of 

Washington:573-597. 

Hobbs, H. and M. Whiteman. 1987. A new, economically important crayfish (Decapoda, 

Ambaridae) from the Neches River basin, Texas, with a key to the subgenus 

Fallicambarus. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 100:403-411. 

Howells, R. 1997. Status of freshwater mussels (Family Unionidae) of the Big Thicket Region of 

Eastern Texas. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and Ecology of the West 

Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 10-13 October. 

Howells, R., C. Mathers, and J. Bergmann. 1999. Impacts of dewatering and cold on freshwater 

mussels (Unionidae) in B. A. Steinhagen Reservoir, TX. Big Thicket Science Conference, 

Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 7-10 

October. 

Hubbs, C., E. Marsh-Mathews, W. Mathews, and A. Anderson. 1996. Changes in the fish fauna 

in Big Thicket streams since 1953. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and 

Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 10-13 October. 

Hughes, J., M. Cavendish, and M. Flora. 1986. A summary of water quality for the Menard 

Creek Corridor Unit, Lance Rosier Unit and Little Pine Island Bayou Corridor Unit of Big 

Thicket National Preserve, TX (1975-1983). Water Resources Report No. 86-88. National 

Park Service, Water Resources Division. Fort Collins, CO. 

Hughes, J., M. Flora, and J. Woods. 1987. Big Thicket National Preserve: water quality report 

1984-1986. National Park Service, Ft. Collins, CO. 

Illies, J. and L. Botosaneanu. 1963. Problems et methods de la classification et de al sonation 

ecologique des eaux courantes, considerees surtout du point de vue faunistique. Mitt. Int. 

Ver. Theor. Angew. Limnol. 12:1-57. 

Irwin, K. and J. Dixon. 1996. Preliminary observations on timber harvest effects on a bottomland 

hardwood forest herpetofaunal community. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity 

and Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 10-13 October. 
93

Johnson, B. W. Richardson, and T. Naimo. 1995. Past, present and future concepts in large river 

ecology. BioScience 45:134-141. 

Junk, W., P. Bayley, and R. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain systems. 

Can. Spec. Publ. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 106:110-127. 

Kaiser, R., S. Alexander, and J. Hammitt. 1993. Study of the adequacy of Texas water quality 

standards for protection the water and water-related resources of the nine units of the 

National Park System in Texas. Draft Report prepared for the National Park Service, 

Southwest Region, Santa Fe, NM. 

Kenworthy, J., V. Santucci, and C. Visaggi. 2007. Paleontological resource inventory and 

monitoring, Gulf Coast Network. National Park Service TIC#D-750. 

Kohut, R. 2007. Ozone risk assessment for vital signs monitoring networks. Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, and Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail. NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRTR – 

2007/01. National Park Service, Fort Colllins, CO. 

Lamar University. 1996. In: a guidebook for the Southwestern Association of Student Geological 

Societies field trip, R. Cooper, J. Stevens, D. Owen, and J. Westgate, eds. Lamar 

University Geological Society and Department of Geology. Beaumont, TX. 

Lewis, S., and R. Harrel. 1978. Physiochemical conditions and diversity of macrobenthos of 

Village Creek, TX. Southwest Naturalist 23:263-272. 

Lewis, D., R. Fleet, and F. Rainwater. 1999. Herpetofaunal assemblages of four forest types in 

the Big Thicket of southeastern Texas. Big Thicket Science Conference, Biodiversity and 

Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 7-10 October. 

Lewis, D., R. Fleet, and F. Rainwater. 2000. Herpetofaunal assemblages of four forest types in 

the Big Sandy Creek Unit of the Big Thicket National Preserve. Texas Journal of Science 

52:139-150. 

Lower Neches Valley Authority. 1992. Regional assessment of water quality, Lower Neches 

River basin and Neches-Trinity Coastal basin. Prepared in cooperation with the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission under the Authorization of the Clean Rivers 

Act. 

Lower Neches Valley Authority. 1994. Regional assessment of water quality, Lower Neches 

River basin and Neches-Trinity Coastal basin. Prepared in cooperation with the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission under the Authorization of the Clean Rivers 

Act. 

Lundelius, E., Jr. and B. Slaughter. 1976. Notes on American Pleistocene tapirs in Churcher, C. 

S. Athlon: Essays on palaeontology in honour of Loris Shano Russell. Royal Ontario 

Museum, Toronto. Life Sciences Miscellaneous Publication: 226-240. 
94

MacRoberts, M. and B. MacRoberts. 2007. Phytogeography of the Big Thicket, East Texas. 

Journal of Botanical Research Institute of Texas 1:1149-1155. 

Marks, P. and P. Harcombe. 1981. Forest vegetation of the Big Thicket, Southeast Texas. 

Ecological Monographs 51:287-305. 

Minshall, G., R. Petersen, K. Cummins, and others. 1983. Interbiome comparisons of stream 

ecosystem dynamics. Ecol. Monogr. 53:1-25. 

Moring, J. 2003. Baseline assessment of fish communities, benthic macroinvertebrate 

communities, and stream habitat and land use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999- 

2001. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4270. Austin, 

TX. 

Naiman, R., H. DeCamps, and M. Pollock. 1993. The role of riparian corridors in maintaining 

regional biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 3:209-212. 

Naiman, R. and H. DeCamps. 1997. The ecology of interfaces: riparian zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. 

Systematics 28:621-658. 

National Park Service 1995. Baseline water quality data inventory and analysis, Big Thicket 

National Preserve. Tech. Rept. NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-95/39. Water Resources Division. 

Fort Collins, CO. 

National Park Service 1996. Resources Management Plan. Big Thicket National Preserve. 

Beaumont, TX. 

National Park Service. 2006. Final oil and gas management plan and environmental impact 

statement, Big Thicket National Preserve. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, 

D.C. 

National Research Council. 2002. The Missouri River ecosystem: exploring the prospects 

for recovery. National Academy of Science Press, Washington, D.C. 

Newberry, W. 1982. Physiochemical conditions, fecal bacteria, and benthic macroinvertebrates 

of Big Sandy Creek in the Big Thicket National Preserve. Thesis. Lamar University, 

Beaumont, TX. 

Newbold, J., J. Ellwood, R. O’Neill, and W. Van Winkle. 1981. Measuring nutrient spiraling in 

streams. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:860-863. 

Noss, R. 1990. Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation 

Biology 4:355-364. 
95

Patton, P. and V. Baker. 1977. Geomorphic response of Central Texas stream channels to 

catastrophic rainfall and runoff. In: Geomorphology in Arid Regions, D. Doehring, 

ed. Publication in Geomorpholgy, Fort Collins, CO. 

Poff, N., and many others. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for conservation 

and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784. 

Renfro, H., D. Feray and P. King. 1973. Geological highway map of Texas. United States 

geological highway map series, map. no. 7. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 

Tulsa, OK. 

Richter, B., J. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river 

need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-249. 

Rigsby, C. 1980. A brief overview of the Quaternary stratigraphy and geomorphology of the 

southeast Texas-southwest Louisiana coast. Holocene depositional environments of the 

southeast Texas, southwest Louisiana Gulf Coast. Lamar University Geological Society, 

Beaumont, Texas. Southwestern Association of Student Geological Societies Field 

Conference Guidebook April 24-27, 1980: 9-33. 

Rizzo, W. P. Rafferty, and M. Segura. 2000. Surface water quality of the major drainage basins 

of Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas. Texas J. of Science 52(4) (Supplement):79-82. 

Rudolph, D., R. Schaefer, D. Saenz, R. Conner, and S. Burgdorf. 2003. Arboreal behavior in the 

timber rattlesnake, Crotalus horridus, in eastern Texas. Big Thicket Science Conference, 

Biodiversity and Ecology of the West Gulf Coastal Plain Landscape. Beaumont, TX, 9-12 

October. 

Schenk, C., R. Charpentier, and J.W. Schmoker. 1999. Remaining oil and gas resources beneath 

Big Thicket National Preserve. Apendix E Final report to the Geologic Resources Division, 

National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado in National Park Service, 

2005, Final oil and gas management plan and environmental impact statement, Big Thicket 

National Preserve. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Sedell, J. and J. Frogatt. 1984. Importance of streamside forests along large rivers: the isolation 

of the Willamette River, Oregon, USA, from its floodplain by snagging and streamside 

forest removal. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung fur Theoretische and 

Angewandte Limnologie 22:1828-1834. 

Shelby, C., M. Pieper, S. Aronow and V. Barnes. 1992. Geologic atlas of Texas, Beaumont 

sheet, 1:250,000 scale. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin, 

Austin, TX. 

Sparks, R. 1995. Need for ecosystem management of large rivers and their floodplains. 

BioScience 45:168-182. 
96

Stamatis, A. 2007. Organic carbon dynamics of the Neches River and its floodplain. Ph.D. 

dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX. 

Suttkus, R. 1982. Fish Collections obtained from Big Thicket area 16-18 September 1982. 

Environmental Science Center, Riverside Research Laboratories, Belle Chase, LA. 

Suttkus, R. and G. Clemmer. 1979. The fishes of the Big Thicket National Preserve Final Report 

Fishes Big Thicket National Preserve. Environmental Science Center, Riverside Research 

Laboratories, Belle Chase, LA. 

Teas, L. 1935. Natural gas of Gulf coast salt dome area. Geology of natural gas. American 

Association of Petroleum Geologists: 683-740. 

 

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. 1996. The state of Texas water quality 

inventory. SFR-50, Vol. 2. 

Texas Water Commission. 1989. Ground water quality of Texas: an overview of natural and man 

affected conditions. Report 89-01. Texas Water Commission, Austin, TX. 

Thorkildsen, D. and R. Quincy. 1990. Evaluation of water resources of Orange and 

Eastern Jefferson counties, Texas. Texas Water Development Board, Report 320. 

Twilley, R. and many others. 2001. Confronting climate change in the gulf coast region: 

prospects for sustaining our ecological heritage. Union of Concerned Scientists, 

Cambridge, MA and Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Review of the national ambient air quality 

standards for ozone: policy assessment of scientific and technical information. EPA-452/R07-007. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Integrated science assessment for oxides of 

nitrogen and sulfur – ecological criteria. EPA/600R-08/082F. 

Vannote, R., G. Minshall, K. Cummins, J. Sedell, and C. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum 

concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:130-137. 

Vidrine, M. 1990. Fresh-water mussel-mite and mussel-Ablabesmyia associations in Village 

Creek, Hardin County, Texas. Proc. Louisiana Acad. Sci. 53:1-4. 

Ward, J. and J. Standford. 1985. The serial discontinuity concept: extending the model to 

floodplain rivers. Regul. Rivers Res. Management 10:159-168. 

Ward, J. and J. Standford. 1983. The serial discontinuity concept of lotic systems. Pages 29-42 in 

T. Fontane and S. Bartell, eds. Dynamics of Lotic Ecosystems. Ann Arbor Science Pub., 

Ann Arbor, MI. 
97

Ward J. 1998. Riverine landscapes: biodiversity patterns, disturbance regimes and aquatic 

conservation. Biological Conservation 83:269-278. 

Ward, J. and K. Tockner. 2001. Biodiversity: towards a unifying theme of river ecology. 

Freshwater Biology 46:897-919. 

Ward, J., C. Robinson, and K. Tochner. 2002. Applicability of ecological theory to riverine 

ecosystems. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 28:443-450. 

Watson, G. 1975. Correlation of Big Thicket vegetation with its geologic formations in The Big 

Thicket: Participants handbook for the contemporary science seminar. Houston Museum of 

Natural Science and University of Houston in cooperation with Big Thicket Association. 

Wells, F. and K. Bourdon. 1985. Summary of statistical and trend analysis of selected water 

quality data collected near the Big Thicket National Preserve, southeast Texas. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Open-File Report 85-183. Austin, TX. 

Wermund, E. 1996. Physiographic map of Texas. Bureau of Economic Geology, University of 

Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Map 5. 

Williamson, A., H. Grubb, and J. Weiss. 1990. Ground water flow in Gulf coast aquifer systems, 

south central United States: a preliminary analysis. Water Resources Investigation Report 

89-4071, U.S. Geological Survey. 

99

Appendix

Unifying Concepts in River Ecology and the Neches River

Despite the importance of large rivers, understanding of how they function and how human 

activities influence river processes is limited (Johnson et al. 1995). Large rivers have not 

received the attention that small streams with regard to ecological studies. As a consequence, 

river ecologists, until recently, perceived river courses as stable, single-thread channels with 

virtually no consideration of floodplains or adjacent ground water aquifers (Ward and Tockner 

2001). This lack of study may have resulted, in part, from the difficulty in sampling large rivers 

versus small streams. In addition, there was no clear theoretical basis for how large river 

ecosystems operated (Johnson et al. 1995). 

Given that unidirectional flow is the defining feature of rivers, downstream changes in the 

structure of biological communities from headwaters to the lower reaches has been a dominant 

theme in running water ecology (Hawkes 1975). The European perspective on this topic has 

been zonal, i.e., delineating more-or-less discrete communities separated by transitional 

boundaries (Illies and Botosaneanu 1963). In North America, the River Continuum Concept 

(Vannote et al. 1980) posits that river systems have a longitudinal structure that results from a 

gradient of physical forces along which the biota are predictably structured, thereby approaching 

longitudinal changes from a clinal rather than a zonal perspective. According to the model, 

biodiversity should have maximum values in the middle reaches (stream order 4 to 7) with lower 

biodiversity both in the headwaters (stream order 1 to 3) and in the lower reaches (stream order > 

7). Low biodiversity in the headwaters is attributed to low light, low nutrients and a less variable 

temperature regime. In the lower reaches biodiversity is constrained by a shifting and 

homogeneous substrate, high turbidity, and oxygen deficits. In contrast, the middle reaches have 

adequate light and nutrient levels, high water clarity, and a more diverse and patchy substrate. 

Also, the middle reaches show the highest variability in temperature regime. 

Subsequently, two additional concepts, nutrient spiraling (Newbold et al. 1981, 1982) and the 

serial discontinuity concept (Ward and Stanford 1983), were developed that are corollaries of the 

River Continuum Concept. Nutrient cycling in running waters must take into account 

downstream transport – the passage of an element as dissolved in the water column is transported 

some distance as a solute, then becomes incorporated into the biota and eventually is returned to 

the water column in dissolved form. A spiral best describes this cycle of downstream transport. 

Smaller streams favor nutrient retention and uptake because they have a lower flow, higher 

streambed areas to channel volume, and more permeable substrates. In contrast, the throughflow 

of stored materials is favored by the opposite conditions that exist in larger rivers. This corollary 

would then expect decreasing retentiveness along a continuum from small stream to large river 

(Allan 1995) – some results appear to support this expectation (Minshall et al. 1983, Naiman et 

al. 1987). 

The serial discontinuity concept is a model for rivers whose natural dynamics have been 

suppressed by flow regulation via dams. This regulation induces major discontinuities to 

longitudinal resource gradients. Biodiversity patterns along regulated rivers are characterized by 

major declines at riverine sites immediately downstream from dams, followed by relatively rapid 

increases concomitant with the recovery of environmental conditions (Ward et al. 2002). Stream 
100

regulation alters virtually all environmental variables downstream; the sublethal effects of 

modified flow and temperature regimes are paramount in structuring biotic communities below 

many dams. 

The River Continuum Concept and its corollaries lacked a floodplain perspective, i.e., the 

interactions between the river channel and its floodplain (Ward and Tockner 2001, Ward 1998). 

[Also, the River Continuum Concept was postulated for streams in the deciduous forest biomes 

of the Pacific Northwest, which is decidedly different than the river systems of the Big Thicket 

area.] It was the study of tropical rivers (e.g., Junk et al. 1989) coupled with historical 

investigations of temperate rivers (e.g., Sedell and Frogatt 1984) that allowed river ecologists to 

recognize the importance of the lateral dimension in large river ecology (Ward and Tockner 

(2001). With this in mind, Ward and Stanford (1995) revised their serial discontinuity concept to 

include alluvial floodplains, thereby encompassing dynamics of the lateral dimension. With this 

revision the River Continuum Concept now linked the biota in the river the floodplain. They 

postulated a three-reach model (canyon-constrained headwater, braided, and meandering). The 

meandering reach is expected to have the highest biodiversity. Different types of water bodies, 

indeed different successional stages within them, contribute to biodiversity as the biota exploit 

the predictable spatial and temporal variability (Ward 1998). 

However, Junk et al. (1989) were the first to incorporate floodplain dynamics by formulating the 

Flood-Pulse Concept. The Concept is perhaps the major unifying descriptive model that links, 

hydrology, biogeochemistry, and the ecology of riverine organisms in large rivers with extensive 

floodplains. It proposes that the pulse of river discharge (seasonal flooding) is the major 

controlling factor in river-floodplain-biota interactions. The concept emphasizes the importance 

of alternating dry and wet phases in enhancing biodiversity and productivity as well as the 

dynamic edge effect created by the ‘moving littoral’. The moving littoral is the river water’s 

edge with the land as it moves across the floodplain during flooding and its recession. 

Central to the Flood Pulse Concept is: 1) the hydrological linkage or connectivity (both surface 

and ground water) between the floodplain (a source of organic energy, nutrients and habitat) and 

the river channel (primarily an avenue to feeding, nursery, spawning areas and refugia); and 2) 

flooding is part of the natural hydrologic regime and is not a disturbance – it is the prevention of 

floods in a floodplain river that constitutes a disturbance (Sparks 1995). In the former, natural 

disturbance induced by flooding, enhances ecological connectivity – the transfer of energy and 

matter – and biodiversity. 

Rising flood waters inundate formerly distinct aquatic habitats (maximum connectivity). As the 

flood waters recede, the different types of habitats slowly recover their distinctive properties 

(including habitat features and biota (Ward and Tockner 2001). The balance between wet and 

dry phases of the floodplain sustains a diversity of successtional stages and high biological 

productivity (Bayley 1995). Each of these stages contains distinctive biota that increases 

biodiversity. In contrast river regulation reduces the wet phase, i.e., the floodplain is isolated 

from the river; this lost connectivity arrests the formation of new floodplain aquatic habitats and, 

and upsets the balance such that the system experiences reduced biodiversity (low seral diversity; 

Ward and Tockner 2001). The latter is recognition that the flow regime is the grand structuring 

factor in rivers and that aspects of the regime’s frequency, duration, magnitude and timing, in 
101

combination, control biotic associations along rivers and influences the riverine food web (Poff 

et al. 1997, Richter et al. 1997, Ward 1998). 

The applicability of the Flood-Pulse Concept as a unifying concept for the Missouri River was 

recently acclaimed in a publication National Research Council (2002). What can the recognition 

and understanding of the Concept do for management of the Neches River and its associated 

water-dependent systems? Essentially, it can provide us with a conceptual understanding of 

what has been or continues to be lost from the Neches River ecosystem. Apart from this, there 

may be little else to gain in testing the tenets of this Concept on the Neches River. The Neches 

River may be so adversely affected that it has mostly destroyed our ability to study its natural 

ecology. In cases such as this, Bayley (1995), a co-author of the Flood Pulse Concept, believes 

that we cannot gain more useful information without first attempting to restore or at least 

emulate the natural hydrological regimes. He believes that funding for experimental restoration 

and evaluation should take priority over ecological research on severely impaired riverfloodplain systems. This begs the question – Is the Neches River a severely impaired riverfloodplain system? 

Ligon et al. (1995) would seem to concur with Bayley (1995), albeit from a different perspective. 

In their case geomorphologic changes are the key to understanding the ecological consequences 

of dams. Their premise: ” ... by minimizing the alteration of the physical dynamics and 

morphology of rivers, many complex species interactions and physical requirements can be 

maintained without scientists’ understanding or even acknowledging their importance. If the 

physical foundation of the stream ecosystem is pulled out from under the biota, even the most 

insightful biological research program will fail to preserve ecological integrity. Minimizing or 

mitigating the physical geomorphic changes may often be crucial to protecting the biological 

integrity of a river.” 

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities. 

NPS 341/101187, February 2010 
National Park Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150 

Fort Collins, CO 80525 

www.nature.nps.gov 

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA TM