Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream

Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4270

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover:

Top left: Big Sandy Creek in the Big Thicket National Preserve near Livingston, Texas, 2002.

Top right: Longear sunfish from biological assessment surveys in Big Thicket National Preserve, 

2002.

Bottom left: Adult dobsonfly from biological assessment surveys in Big Thicket National 

Preserve, 2002.

Bottom right: USGS personnel seining fish in Big Sandy Creek as part of fish community 

surveys during 2002 in Big Thicket National Preserve.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream 

Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

By J. Bruce Moring 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water-Resources Investigations Report 03–4270

In cooperation with the National Park Service

Austin, Texas

2003
ii

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Gale A. Norton, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Charles G. Groat, Director

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for 

descriptive purposes only and does not imply 

endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For additional information write to

District Chief

U.S. Geological Survey

8027 Exchange Dr.

Austin, TX 78754–4733

E-mail: dc_tx@usgs.gov

Copies of this report can be purchased from

U.S. Geological Survey

Information Services

Box 25286

Denver, CO 80225–0286

E-mail: infoservices@usgs.gov
CONTENTS iii

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

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

Purpose and Scope .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Methods of Assessment ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

Geographic Scope and Stream Reach Selection ....................................................................................................... 4

Fish Community Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 6

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Assessment ............................................................................................... 6

Stream-Habitat Assessment ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Land-Use Characterization ....................................................................................................................................... 8

Data Management and Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 8

Baseline Assessment ............................................................................................................................................................ 10

Fish Communities ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities ................................................................................................................. 12

Stream Habitat and Land Use ................................................................................................................................... 16

Summary of Major Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 18

References Cited .................................................................................................................................................................. 20

FIGURES 

1. Map showing locations of biological assessment sites (reaches) and study area, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ................................................................................................................................. 2

2–13. Graphs showing:

2. Number of fish species collected relative to number of individuals collected for 15 bioassessment 

reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...................................................................... 9

3. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of fish communities for 15 bioassessment reaches, 

Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 .................................................................................... 11

4. Menhinick’s species richness for fish communities from 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket 

National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ........................................................................................................ 11

5. Relative abundance of major fish families for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...................................................................................................................... 12

6. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of aquatic insect communities for 14 bioassessment 

reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...................................................................... 13

7. Number of aquatic insect taxa collected relative to the number of individuals collected for 14 

bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 .............................................. 14

8. Menhinick’s species richness for aquatic insects from 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket

National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ........................................................................................................ 14

9. Relative abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT index) for 14 

bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 .............................................. 15

10. Relative abundance of major aquatic insect trophic groups for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big 

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 .......................................................................................... 16

11. Relation between (a) relative abundance of shredders and scrapers and channel size, and (b) relative 

abundance of filter feeders and channel size for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ...................................................................................................................... 17

12. Reach structure index relative to 1990s urban land use in contributing drainage area above 

downstream boundary of reach for 12 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, 

Texas, 1999–2001 ...................................................................................................................................... 18

13. Land use by category in the 1970s and 1990s in the drainage areas upstream of the 15 

bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas .................................................................. 19
iv 

TABLES 

1. Reach ID, name, and location and sampling schedule of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and streamhabitat conditions for 15 bioassessment reaches in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ........ 5

2. Description of stream-habitat measures and land-use variables for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket 

National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ................................................................................................................... 7

3. Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 .................................................................................................................................. 22

4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment 

reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 ................................................................................. 25

5. Stream-habitat and land-use data for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 

1999–2001 ............................................................................................................................................................ 33
Abstract 1

Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic

Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream 

Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001

By J. Bruce Moring

Abstract

The Big Thicket National Preserve comprises 39,300 hectares in the form of nine preserve 

units connected by four stream corridor units (with 

two more corridor units proposed) distributed over 

the lower Neches and Trinity River Basins of 

southeastern Texas. 

Fish and benthic macroinvertebrate data 

were collected at 15 stream sites (reaches) in the 

preserve during 1999–2001 for a baseline assessment and a comparison of communities among 

stream reaches. 

The fish communities in the preserve were 

dominated by minnows (family Cyprinidae) and 

sunfishes (family Centrarchidae). Reaches with 

smaller channel sizes generally had higher fish species richness than the larger reaches in the Neches 

River and Pine Island Bayou units of the preserve. 

Fish communities in geographically adjacent 

reaches were most similar in overall community 

structure. The blue sucker, listed by the State as a 

threatened species, was collected in only one 

reach—a Neches River reach a few miles downstream from the Steinhagen Lake Dam. 

Riffle beetles (family Elmidae) and midges 

(family Chironomidae) dominated the aquatic 

insect communities at the 14 reaches sampled for 

aquatic insects in the preserve. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) Index, an 

index sensitive to water-quality degradation, was 

smallest at the Little Pine Island Bayou near 

Beaumont reach that is in a State 303(d)-listed 

stream segment on Little Pine Island Bayou. 

Trophic structure of the aquatic insect communities 

is consistent with the river continuum concept with 

shredder and scraper insect taxa more abundant in 

reaches with smaller stream channels and filter 

feeders more abundant in reaches with larger channels. Aquatic insect community metrics were not 

significantly correlated to any of the stream-habitat 

or land-use explanatory variables. The percentage 

of 1990s urban land use in the drainage areas 

upstream from 12 bioassessment reaches were negatively correlated to the reach structure index, 

which indicates less stable habitat for aquatic biota. 

INTRODUCTION

Often described as the “biological crossroads” of 

North America, the Big Thicket National Preserve is an 

important holding of the National Park Service (NPS) 

because of its biological diversity and unique geographic distribution. The preserve’s 39,300 hectares 

(97,000 acres) are a highly fragmented land base of nine 

preserve units connected by four established and two 

proposed stream corridor units (fig. 1). The riparian 

corridor units consist of black-water streams that provide critical ecological linkages to the otherwise isolated units of the preserve. These waters represent the 

western distributional limit for several aquatic invertebrates (Abbot and others, 1997) and contain a diverse 

assemblage of rare aquatic fauna. The preserve contains 

many Federal listed “Species of Concern,” including 

the paddlefish (a large planktonic-feeding fish), Texas 

heelsplitter (a freshwater mussel), and two species of 

aquatic insects, Somatochlora margarita (a dragonfly), 

and Phylocentropus harrisi (a caddisfly). The State of 

Texas lists several more species as “threatened” or 
2 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

Established Big Thicket National Preserve unit

Established corridor unit

Proposed corridor unit

River basin boundary

Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites

and National Park Service site number (reach ID)—

Number referenced in table 1

EXPLANATION

MC1

0 25 50 KILOMETERS

TRINITY

NECHES

TAYLOR

 BAYOU

TAYLOR BAYOU

1276

FM 

US 90 

State 146 

FM 1943 

US 190 

US 69 

US 287 

State 105 

FM 943

US 69 

State 326 

FM 92

FM 1013 

I-10 

FM 770 

FM 418 

US 287 

RIVER

TRINITY

RIVER

NECHES

Turkey

Creek

Creek

B.A. STEINHAGEN

 LAKE

Big Sandy

Little Pine Island Bayou

Creek

Menard

Village Creek

Pine Island Bayou

Beaumont

Kountze

Lakeview

Warren

Rye

Camp Ruby

Woodville

Segno

Village

 Mills

Loblolly

 Unit

Lance Rosier

 Unit

Menard Creek

 Corridor Unit

Big Sandy Creek

 Unit

Big Sandy Creek

 Corridor Unit

Hickory Creek

 Savannah Unit

Turkey Creek

 Unit

Jack Gore

 Baygall Unit

Neches

 Bottom

 Unit

Upper Neches

 River Corridor Unit

Beech Creek

 Unit

Little Pine Island Bayou

 Corridor Unit

Village Creek

 Corridor Unit Lower

 Neches

 River

 Corridor

 Unit

Beaumont

 Unit

Big Thicket National Preserve

Headquarters

TEXAS

LOCATION MAP

TRINITY

SAN JACINTO

NECHES

MC1

MC4

BSC2

BSC5

VC1 VC3

VC10

VC11

NR2

NR3

LPIB6

LPIB1

NR1

TC1

TC2

30o

30'

30o

94o

30' 94o

Study area

Digital base from U.S. Geological Survey

Scale 1:2,000,000

Albers equal-area projection based on

Standard parallels 45.5 and 29.5 degrees

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

Texas, 1999–2001.
INTRODUCTION 3

“endangered” (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 

2003). These include two fish, the blue sucker and creek 

chubsucker, and the world’s largest freshwater turtle, 

the alligator snapping turtle. 

The preserve land base includes 1,030 kilometers 

of boundary, more than Yellowstone National Park. The 

water resources of the preserve are sensitive to land uses 

in those areas outside of the preserve that drain into the 

streams and wetlands of the preserve. Most of the land 

surrounding the preserve is owned by private timber 

companies, and timber-harvesting practices on these 

lands have the potential to influence water quality 

through sedimentation, increased stream temperature, 

and the runoff of fertilizers and herbicides (Harcombe, 

1996). 

Although timber production is the dominant land 

use adjacent to the preserve, a trend of increased urbanization and industrialization is emerging. Regional 

decline in dissolved oxygen concentrations has been 

documented (Hall and Bruce, 1996). Two stream segments in the preserve, Little Pine Island Bayou (Segment 0607B) and Pine Island Bayou (Segment 0607) 

have been listed on the State 303(d)1

 list for not meeting 

aquatic-life use criteria because of low dissolved oxygen concentrations (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2002). 

Industrial point-source contaminants also influence water quality in the preserve. In 1986 and 1987, the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documented 

toxic levels of dioxin in fish-tissue samples from the 

Lower Neches River Corridor Unit in the Big Thicket 

National Preserve (fig. 1). The dioxin source was traced 

to a pulp mill that discharges into the Neches River. The 

Texas Department of Health (TDH) issued a fish consumption advisory, which remained in effect until 1996. 

TDH continues to monitor this section of the Neches 

River, but sampling is infrequent (Harcombe, 1996). 

Another source of contaminants is from active 

and abandoned oil and gas operations in and adjacent 

to the preserve. Oil and gas operations produce a variety 

of potential contaminants including excess sediments, 

biocides, oil, and brine. Historically, oil and gas operations have been the most important nonpoint-source 

influence on water quality in the preserve. In 1981, 

an oil spill adjacent to the Turkey Creek Unit flowed 

into a nearby tributary and eventually into the preserve. 

Although the spill was quickly contained, it almost 

extirpated the benthic macroinvertebrate community 

along a large section of stream (Harrel, 1985). More 

recently, innovations in three-dimensional seismic surveying technology and the economic incentives of 

increased gas prices have spawned an expansion of oil 

and gas exploration throughout the preserve. When the 

Big Thicket National Preserve was established, the U.S. 

Congress mandated that oil and gas operations would 

continue. Today (2001) there are 27 active oil and gas 

operations and 43 trans-park pipelines in the preserve 

(Roy Zipp, National Park Service, written commun., 

2000).

To help guide management of running waters in 

the preserve, a variety of efforts related to collecting 

baseline water-quality information have been done 

since the inception of the preserve. The National Park 

Service sponsored several studies by outside researchers to collect baseline water-quality data at fixed monitoring stations (Harrel, 1976; Harrel and Darville, 1977, 

1978; Harrel and Bass, 1979; Harrel and Commander, 

1980, 1981). In 1984, preserve staff began monitoring 

water quality at fixed locations throughout the preserve 

(Flora, 1984). Baseline water-quality monitoring continues today (2001). However, missing in this waterquality-monitoring approach is an assessment of the status of aquatic biota that includes fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. The management of water resources 

can be improved if biological indexes that incorporate 

easily quantified and understood results of biological 

monitoring are used as a direct measure of water quality 

(Karr and others, 1986).

In recognition of the value and importance of 

baseline data on aquatic biota in the preserve to supplement traditional water-quality monitoring, the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) and the NPS formed a 

water-quality-monitoring partnership in 1999. As a 

result, the USGS, in cooperation with the NPS, conducted a study to establish benchmark biological monitoring stations at 15 sites throughout the preserve 

from which to assess baseline biological conditions 

in streams and to supplement historical and ongoing 

water-quality monitoring at these sites. Fish community 

data were collected once in 1999 at 15 sites and again 

1 The State of Texas Clean Water Act 303(d) list comprises 

surface-water bodies in Texas identified by the Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality as impaired (do not meet applicable 

water-quality standards) or threatened (are not expected to meet 

applicable water-quality standards in the near future). Section 

303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (together with related regulations) requires each State to assess the quality of its surface waters 

and to develop water-quality improvement strategies for impaired 

and threatened waters. 
4 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

in 2001 at eight sites. Benthic macroinvertebrate data 

also were collected in 1999 at 14 sites and again in 

2001 at seven of the same eight sites. Stream-habitat 

conditions at each site and 1970s and 1990s land-use 

characterizations in the drainage area upstream from 

each site were assessed with regard to their effect on 

biological variables.

 The USGS and the NPS expanded on the initial 

biological assessments of 1999. Continued biological 

monitoring was needed to account for the inherent 

spatial, seasonal, and life cycle variability of aquatic 

communities. An expanded assessment was needed 

for several reasons, which include the (1) proposed 

addition of two new stream corridor units in the preserve (fig. 1) and a lack of baseline information for 

these units; (2) regional decline in water quality noted 

previously; (3) increased population growth and urbanization in the surrounding watersheds; (4) intensive forestry practices and documented noncompliance with 

forestry best management practices (Roy Zipp, National 

Park Service, written commun., 2000); (5) increased 

levels of oil and gas exploration and anticipated development throughout the preserve and adjacent areas; and 

(6) unknown status and trends of many rare, threatened, 

and endangered aquatic species.

Specific objectives of this study were to 

1. Provide the preserve with detailed baseline data 

and information on the status of aquatic biota 

including fish and benthic macroinvertebrates 

(primarily aquatic insects) and information on 

stream habitat and land use at the network of 15 

USGS benchmark bioassessment sites.

2. Complete seasonal fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community assessment at eight primary 

sites to improve the accuracy of data on taxa 

composition and relative abundance for these 

communities.

3. Determine land uses in the drainage area upstream 

from each of the 15 benchmark sites for the 

1970s and 1990s and the percentage changes 

during the intervening years. 

Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this report is to present the methods of and findings from the biological assessment at 15 

benchmark bioassessment sites (stream reaches) in the 

Big Thicket National Preserve during 1999–2001. 

Comprehensive fish and benthic macroinvertebrate (primarily aquatic insect) taxonomic data collected in the 

reaches are tabulated. Statistical and graphical techniques are used to compare fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities among the reaches. In addition, the 

relation of the community structure of aquatic biota to 

stream-habitat conditions and changes in land use in the 

preserve is briefly addressed. 

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the NPS staff of the Big 

Thicket National Preserve. In particular, Roy Zipp, 

Natural Resource Specialist with the preserve from 

1997 to 2001, assisted with many phases of the 

project—proposal, project planning and logistics, and 

field activities. 

METHODS OF ASSESSMENT

Geographic Scope and Stream Reach 

Selection

The study area comprises four preserve units and 

five corridor units in the Big Thicket National Preserve. 

Five of the 15 assessment sites are in preserve units, and 

10 are in corridor units (fig. 1, table 1). Thirteen of the 

15 sites are in the lower Neches River Basin, and two 

are in the Trinity River Basin (fig. 1). Assessment sites 

were selected using 7.5-minute USGS topographic 

maps, digital orthophoto quadrangles, and on-site 

reconnaissance. Selection was based on the collocation 

of assessment sites with existing preserve water-quality 

monitoring sites. For corridor units, emphasis was on 

the upstream-to-downstream pairing of sites within a 

corridor unit and the need to provide spatial coverage to 

sample the majority of preserve and corridor units. 

Stream size or above-site drainage area was not used as 

a site selection criterion. 

At each assessment site, a sampling reach was 

selected. The selection criteria for a reach were: (1) the 

reach could not be within 100 meters downstream from 

a highway bridge or other in-channel structure; (2) the 

reach had to be entirely within the Big Thicket National 

Preserve; (3) the reach had to be at least one full meander in channel length or a minimum of 20 times the wetted channel width; and (4) if the reach was one full meander in channel length, it had to contain at least two of 

three types of geomorphic channel units—riffles, runs, 

or pools (Meador and others, 1993). The upstream and 

downstream boundaries of each reach were marked with 

permanent monuments and georeferenced by recording 
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 5

a latitude and longitude for each monument using a 

hand-held global positioning system (GPS). For those 

reaches with geomorphic channel units, four transects 

(each one corresponding to a geomorphic channel unit) 

also were marked with monuments and georeferenced 

using the hand-held GPS. Monuments were constructed 

by driving into the ground 30- by 1.25-centimeter 

reinforcement-bar stakes and attaching to the top of 

each an aluminum surveyor’s cap stamped with 

“USGS.” 

Table 1. Reach ID, name, and location and sampling schedule of fish, benthic macroinvertebrates, and streamhabitat conditions for 15 bioassessment reaches in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

[NS, not sampled] 

Reach ID

(preserve or

corridor

unit; fig. 1)

Reach name

Coordinates

for downstream

boundary

monument

Fish and

benthic

macroinvertebrates

collected

summer

1999

Streamhabitat

assessment

spring

1999

Fish and

benthic macroinvertebrates

collected

spring and

summer

2001

BSC2

(preserve)

Big Sandy Creek at Hwy. 1276 near 

Camp Ruby, Texas

N 30°40'17"

W 94°41'12"

 + + NS

BSC5

(corridor)

Big Sandy Creek at Hwy. 1276 near 

Dallardsville, Texas

N 30°34'36"

W 94°37'41"

++ +

LPIB1

(corridor)

Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 326 

near Sour Lake, Texas

N 30°11'21"

W 94°23'41"

+ + NS

LPIB6

(corridor)

Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 69 

near Beaumont, Texas

N 30°10'46"

W 94°11'11"

++ +

MC1

(corridor)

Menard Creek at Hwy. 943 near 

Segno, Texas

N 30°33'40"

W 94°42'05"

+ + NS

MC4

(corridor)

Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near Rye, 

Texas

N 30°28'54"

W 94°47'16"

+ + NS

NR1

(corridor)

Neches River below Steinhagen Lake N 30°44'54"

W 94°07'45"

++ +

NR2

(preserve)

Neches River below Steinhagen Lake 

in Jack Gore Unit

N 30°24'40"

W 94°07'08"

+ + NS

NR3

(preserve)

Neches River in Beaumont Unit near 

Beaumont, Texas

N 30°12'60"

W 94°07'03"

++ +

TC1

(preserve)

Turkey Creek on Hwy. 1943 near 

Warren, Texas

N 30°37'11"

W 94°21'29"

+ + NS

TC2

(preserve)

Turkey Creek on Hester Bridge Road 

near Warren, Texas

N 30°33'06"

W 94°19'58"

++ +

VC1

(corridor)

Village Creek on Mustang Trail near 

Village Mills, Texas

N 30°28'23"

W 94°21'53"

+ (fish only) + + (fish only)

VC3

(corridor)

Village Creek on McKinney Bridge 

Road near Village Mills, Texas

N 30°27'60"

W 94°19'21"

++ +

VC10

(corridor)

Village Creek on Hwy. 418 near 

Kountz, Texas

N 30°23'53"

W 94°15'56"

+ + NS

VC11

(corridor)

Village Creek near confluence with 

Neches River

N 30°14'31"

W 94°07'14"

++ +
6 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

Fish Community Assessment

The fish community in each reach was sampled 

once in summer 1999 (table 1). In addition, the fish 

community at each of eight reaches was sampled once 

in spring 2001 and again in summer 2001, to account for 

seasonal differences in fish distribution and water temperature in the stream. Preserve and USGS staff selected 

the eight reaches for more intensive assessments that 

were considered the most important on the basis of historical and ongoing water-quality assessments by the 

preserve.

Various electrofishing and netting techniques 

were used to assess fish community composition and 

structure (Meador and others, 1993; Moring, 2002). 

Barge electrofishing equipment was used to sample the 

fish community in each reach. Two electrofishing 

passes were made per reach, and the time in seconds 

that the electrofishing unit was operated was recorded to 

monitor sampling effort. A 7.5- by 3-meter seine (0.64-

centimeter mesh) was used to supplement electrofishing 

sampling, particularly in riffles. At least one seine-haul 

was completed in each type of geomorphic channel unit 

present in the reach.

All collected fish were identified to species, and 

total and standard lengths in millimeters and total 

weight in grams were recorded (Meador and others, 

1993). All minnows and other problematic taxa were 

fixed in 10-percent buffered formalin and returned to 

the USGS office in Austin, Tex., for identification. Fish 

specimens that were difficult to identify and those specimens that required a verification of identification were 

sent to ichthyologist Dr. Dean Hendrickson, Texas 

Memorial Museum at the University of Texas, for final 

identification and permanent storage. 

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 

Assessment

Benthic macroinvertebrate samples were collected at 14 of the 15 sampling reaches (table 1) using 

reach-based compositing methods developed by the 

USGS National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) 

program (Cuffney and others, 1993; Moring, 2002). 

One reach, Village Creek on Mustang Trail near Village 

Mills (VC1), was not sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates because of budgetary constraints and because 

of its proximity to the Village Creek on McKinney 

Bridge Road near Village Mills (VC3) reach. The 

USGS and NPS assigned higher priority for benthic 

macroinvertebrate sampling to VC3. Two sample types, 

a richest targeted habitat (RTH) and a qualitative multihabitat (QMH) were collected in each reach in summer 

1999. Spring RTH and QMH samples and summer RTH 

and QMH samples also were collected in 2001 in the 

seven of eight reaches where fish communities were 

sampled in 2001. As with fish, sampling of benthic 

macroinvertebrates in two seasons was done to account 

for differences in species life stages and, consequently, 

to increase the ability to identify taxa to the lowest taxonomic level. Multiple generations of benthic macroinvertebrates can be collected at the same time in the 

temperate waters of streams in the Big Thicket National 

Preserve. Therefore, the two seasonal samplings were 

done to improve the accuracy of species composition 

and relative abundance for these reaches.

Five RTH samples were collected in each reach 

and composited. Each RTH sample was taken by selecting five sampling locations distributed between two or 

more geomorphic channel units in the reach (for reaches 

with one full meander). At each of the five sampling 

locations, a woody snag was located, and a submerged 

limb of at least 5 centimeters in diameter was selected 

from the snag for sampling. The limb was held in a 

Surber sampler with a 425-micron mesh net with a 

425-micron dolphin plankton bucket attached to the end 

of the net. The net was oriented with the mouth directed 

upstream, and the limb was brushed for 60 seconds to 

dislodge organisms into the net. The contents of the net 

and plankton bucket were rinsed into a 19-liter bucket, 

processed through a 425-micron sieve to remove 

entrained organic and inorganic debris, placed in a 

1-liter polypropylene jar, and fixed with 10-percent 

buffered formalin (Cuffney and others, 1993).

A QMH sample was collected in each reach by 

using a 205-micron mesh d-frame net. Multiple habitats 

in the reach were sampled including riffles, runs, margins of pools, undercut banks, and in stands of aquatic 

macrophytes in an attempt to collect taxa not expected 

to be represented by the RTH sample. The QMH sample 

also was collected to augment the taxa composition or 

taxa list for each reach. Contents of the d-frame net were 

placed in a 19-liter bucket, field-processed through a 

205-micron mesh sieve, transferred to a 1-liter jar, and 

fixed with 10-percent buffered formalin. 

All benthic samples were shipped to a contract 

laboratory (Ecoanalysts, Inc., Moscow, Idaho) for identification and enumeration of taxa. If a sample had 

500 or fewer organisms, all the organisms in the sample 

were sorted, counted, and identified. If the sample 

contained more than 500 organisms, then a 500-count 
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 7

subsampling routine was used (Lester, 1999). With the 

exception of some midges and non-insect macroinvertebrates, all taxa were identified to genus. A reference 

collection with at least one specimen of each taxon 

identified was provided to the USGS by the contract 

laboratory.

Stream-Habitat Assessment

Characterization of channel and riparian-zone 

habitat features (Fitzpatrick and others, 1998; Moring, 

2002) can include depth, velocities, bed and bank 

substrates, and type, frequency and extent of geomorphic channel units (riffles, runs, and pools). Several 

reach-based and within-reach transect-based measures 

were taken (table 2). Four channel cross sections 

extending from the right bank high-bank terrace to the 

left bank high-bank terrace were selected in each reach 

(corresponding to the four geomorphic channel units 

in reaches with one full meander). Many researchers 

have suggested up to 11 transects per reach (Fitzpatrick 

Table 2. Description of stream-habitat measures and land-use variables for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big 

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

[Land use refers to land use in contributing drainage area above downstream boundary of each reach; GIRAS, Geographic 

Information and Retrieval Analysis System; NLCD 92, National Land Cover Data 92; --, not applicable] 

Stream habitat Land use

Measure Description of measure Variable Description of variable

Linear reach 

length 

(meters)

Straight-line distance from midchannel of upstream reach 

boundary to downstream boundary

Drainage area 

(square 

kilometers)

Area within subbasin boundary 

upstream from the reach

Curvilinear 

reach length 

(meters)

Distance from boundary to boundary 

following channel thalweg

Percentage urban 

land use (1970)

GIRAS Level II urban land-use data 

from 90-meter cells 

Reach sinuosity Ratio of curvilinear distance to linear 

distance

Percentage urban 

land use (1990s)

NLCD 92 Level II urban land-use 

data from 30-meter cells

Reach slope Measured as slope from mid-channel 

elevation of streambed from 

upstream to downstream boundary

Percentage 

agricultural land 

use (1970s)

GIRAS Level II agricultural land-use 

data from 90-meter cells

Reach structure 

index

Ratio of frequency of in-channel 

structure such as snags and 

undercut banks to curvilinear reach 

length

Percentage 

agricultural land 

use (1990s)

NLCD 92 Level II agricultural landuse data from 30-meter cells

Bank slope Slope of bank from thalweg to highbank terracePercentage forest 

land use (1970s)

GIRAS Level II forest land-use data 

from 90-meter cells

Wetted channel 

width 

(meters)

Distance from left bank water’s edge 

to right bank water’s edge along 

each transect

Percentage forest 

land use (1990s)

NLCD 92 Level II forest land-use 

data from 30-meter cells

Bank-full 

channel 

width 

(meters)

Distance from high-bank terrace to 

high-bank terrace along each 

transect

Percentage change 

for each land use 

from 1970s to 

1990s

Absolute difference in land use 

between 1970s and 1990s for each 

Level II land-use category

Channel 

incision

Ratio of bank height divided by bankfull width-- --

Bank height 

(meters)

Bank height from channel thalweg to 

bank-full terrace.

-- --
8 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

and others, 1998). However, for the study described in 

this report, the selection of four cross sections in each 

reach was assumed to be sufficient to characterize 

channel morphology and therefore, variability in stream 

velocity, depth, and substrate types and distribution. 

All but one reach, Little Pine Island Bayou (LPIB6), 

were one full meander in length, with a pair of point 

bars alternating on each bank. Four cross sections 

were assumed to be sufficient to characterize gross 

channel morphology because of the uniformity of the 

channels for the majority of reaches. In addition, all 

15 sites are on low-gradient streams, which facilitates 

the selection of one full meander of channel length. This 

approach helped to standardize the reaches among sites 

for comparison. 

A Sokia Leitz Set 4A laser-operated total station was used to survey all transects and the entire reach 

to provide the data needed for many of the reach habitat 

measures. All survey data were stored on-site in a data 

logger that was electronically linked to the total station. 

The data were imported into an electronic spreadsheet 

and sorted, and computations were done to determine 

linear reach length, curvilinear reach length, bank 

height, bank width, bank slope, wetted channel width, 

and mean depth.

Land-Use Characterization

Land use was characterized for each contributing 

subbasin upstream from the downstream boundary of 

each reach. Sixty-meter digital elevation models 

(DEMs) that were re-sampled from 30-meter DEMs 

were used to delineate each subbasin for the computation of drainage area. The 1970s land-use data were 

obtained from the Geographic Information Retrieval 

and Analysis System (GIRAS) (U.S. Geological Survey 

[1973–80]), and includes land-use data from 1973 to 

1980. The GIRAS 1:250,000-scale blocks used for 

land-use characterization overlap within the majority of 

the above-reach drainages. The 1973–80 land-use data 

will be referred to hereinafter as the 1970s land-use 

data. The 1990s land-use data were obtained from a 

USGS dataset called National Land Cover Data 1992 

(NLCD 92) (Vogelmann and others, 2001), which was 

derived from early to mid-1990s Landsat Thematic 

mapper satellite data. For this report, Anderson Level I 

and Level II land-use categories including barren, forested, urban or built-up, range, water, and wetland were 

compared using geographic information system (GIS) 

technology to yield positive or negative percentage 

changes in these land uses between the 1970s and 

1990s. Percentage changes in selected land-use 

variables (table 2) were used to explain differences in 

biological communities or stream-habitat conditions. 

Data Management and Analysis 

All field data were recorded on waterproof data 

forms in the field. Recorded data included site name and 

description, individuals collecting the sample, date and 

time, weather conditions, sample identification (ID) and 

description, and any pertinent comments about the 

reach or sampling effort. Field data forms were 

reviewed in the field for accuracy and completeness, 

and a final review was done at the USGS office in 

Austin, Tex. 

After review, all data were keyed into a spreadsheet pending data analysis. Hard copies of the data 

were printed and filed with the field data forms for each 

reach. All data were archived in the USGS office in 

Austin. Benthic macroinvertebrate identification and 

enumeration data were received from the contract laboratory in a spreadsheet format and stored along with 

other digital data for the project. 

All statistical analyses were done with the Statistica® software package (StatSoft, 1998). Cluster analysis was used to compare overall similarities among fish 

communities and among benthic macroinvertebrate 

communities by reach. Cluster analysis is a classification technique that groups like entities (fish or benthic 

macroinvertebrate communities by reach in this application) into clusters. Similarity among communities 

by reach is quantified in terms of “linkage distance” 

(Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988), which can be shown 

graphically—the more similar the communities in two 

reaches, the smaller the linkage distance. 

The number of fish or invertebrate species collected can be influenced by the number of individuals 

collected. For two streams of similar size, the number of 

species generally is proportional to the number of individuals collected but declines asymptotically with 

increased sampling until no new species are collected 

with repeated samplings (Nielsen and others, 1989); 

therefore, unless the asymptote is quantified, the number of individuals collected can introduce bias into the 

interpretation of biological diversity indexes or other 

metrics (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988). In the field effort 

for the study described in this report, no attempt was 
METHODS OF ASSESSMENT 9

made to quantify the asymptote of species richness in 

any of the reaches. The number of individual fish collected was positively correlated with the number of 

species (fig. 2) in each reach (Pearson’s r = .836, 

p-value = .0001). Therefore, a technique was required to 

remove the influence of sample size on the number of 

species collected.

To remove the influence of fish and invertebrate 

sample size among reaches, the number of individuals 

of each species was converted to a “1” or “0” to indicate 

the presence (1) or absence (0) of a species from the 

reach. These presence-absence data were used in the 

cluster analysis to compare the fish and invertebrate 

community similarity among the 15 reaches. 

Another measure of species for comparison 

among reaches that avoids sample-size bias is 

Menhinick’s species richness (Menhinick, 1964). 

Menhinick’s richness was computed for each reach by 

dividing the number of species in the reach by the 

square root of the number of individual fish or invertebrates collected. 

Principal components analysis was used as a 

variable reduction technique to determine those streamhabitat and land-use variables that explain the largest 

amount of variation among reaches, and in turn, compare those physical variables to selected biological 

variables using correlation. Principal components 

analysis is a multivariate statistical technique (Ludwig 

and Reynolds, 1988) that quantifies the amount of 

variation (among reaches in this application) explained 

by each variable in terms of “factor loadings.” Streamhabitat and land-use variables (table 2) with factor 

loadings greater than 0.7 were compared with total 

number of fish species, total number of aquatic insect 

species (or genus), and Menhinick’s species richness 

using correlation.

Stream-habitat variables also were compared 

using correlation with land-use variables to identify 

those stream-habitat variables, if any, that could be 

significantly correlated with particular land-use 

characteristics. 

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2

NR3

TC1

TC2

VC1

VC3

VC10

VC11

Pearson's r = .836, p-value = .0001

NUMBER OF FISH SPECIES COLLECTED

AT INDICATED REACH

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED AT INDICATED REACH

-100 100 300 500 700 900 1,100

Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites

and National Park Service site number (reach ID)—

Number referenced in table 1

VC11

EXPLANATION

Figure 2. Number of fish species collected relative to number of individuals collected for 15 bioassessment 

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

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

BASELINE ASSESSMENT

Fish Communities

Sixty-eight species of fish were collected among 

the 15 reaches during 1999–2001 (table 3, at end of 

report). A total of 4,818 individual fish were collected. 

Minnows (family Cyprinidae) were the most abundant 

group with 1,433 individuals collected among the 

15 reaches. Of the minnows, the blacktail shiner 

(Cyprinella venusta) was the most frequently collected 

species (644 individuals). Minnows typically are the 

most abundant group or family of fishes in streams. 

They commonly are collected in large numbers with a 

variety of collection techniques because of the schooling behavior of many species, including the blacktail 

shiner. The longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis) of the 

Centrarchidae family was the most frequently collected 

of all species (761 individuals). The tarpons, family 

Elopidae, were the least abundant group with seven 

individuals collected, all of one species, ladyfish (Elops 

saurus). Ladyfish and other tarpons are marine or estuarine species and are not commonly collected in freshwater streams. Four blue suckers (Cycleptus elongatus) 

were collected, all within the reach Neches River below 

Steinhagen Lake (NR1). The blue sucker is difficult to 

collect because of its habitat preference for the bottom 

of deep, fast moving rivers and channels. The blue 

sucker is listed by the State of Texas as a threatened 

species and is a “current-loving” or rheophilous species. 

The four blue suckers were collected in a highergradient section of the Neches River in the tailwaters of 

the Steinhagen Lake Dam. Common carp (Cyprinus 

carpio), an introduced species, was collected in only 

one reach, Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near Rye (MC4). 

The most fish species (43) were collected in the 

most downstream Neches River reach, the Neches River 

in the Beaumont Unit near Beaumont (NR3). This reach 

is only several kilometers upstream from the tidal break 

in the Neches River, and several species including ladyfish and atlantic needlefish (Strongylura marina) were 

collected more frequently in this reach than other 

reaches. In addition, this Neches River reach is longer 

and wider than the other reaches, and fish species richness generally increases with increasing channel size or 

stream order (Vannote and others, 1980). The least number of fish species were collected at the two Menard 

Creek reaches, 12 at Menard Creek at Hwy. 943 near 

Segno (MC1) and 11 at Menard Creek at Hwy. 146 near 

Rye (MC4). 

The cluster analysis to determine fish community 

similarity among reaches showed that reaches clustered 

according to their geographic proximity and that the 

smaller reaches typically were more similar in overall 

fish community structure than the larger reaches, with a 

few exceptions (fig. 3). The two Trinity River Basin 

reaches, MC1 and MC4, were most similar in species 

composition. The Little Pine Island Bayou at Hwy. 326 

near Sour Lake, Tex. (LPIB1) reach did not cluster with 

the other reach in the same subbasin, Little Pine Island 

Bayou at Hwy. 69 near Beaumont, Tex. (LPIB6). 

Among sites on the same reach, the Neches River 

reaches had the largest linkage distance (4.45) and, 

therefore, the least similarity. NR1 and NR3 are more 

than 48 river kilometers apart, and the more downstream reach, NR3, had several marine or estuarine fish 

species that the upstream reaches (NR1 and NR2) did 

not. 

Menhinick’s species richness ranged from a minimum of 1.016 at Little Pine Island Bayou reach LPIB6 

to a maximum of 2.097 at Village Creek reach VC10 

(fig. 4). The small richness at Little Pine Island Bayou 

LPIB6 is influenced by the fact that 47 percent of the 

individual fish collected at the site were two species of 

shad, the threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and the 

gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum). Shad are pelagic 

filter feeders, and LPIB6 is a relatively deep channel 

with little current or in-channel structure such as snags 

or undercut banks that are characteristic of Village 

Creek reach VC10 and other reaches that had comparatively larger species richness. The occurrence of snags 

and other in-channel structure can result in higher species richness because of the variety and greater volume 

of habitat present. 

Another way to assess fish community structure 

is to compare the relative abundance of major fish 

families among sampling sites (fig. 5). Relative abundance is less than 100 percent in figure 5 because several families with low relative abundance were omitted. 

Minnows (family Cyprinidae) and sunfishes (family 

Centrarchidae) dominated the relative abundance 

among the 15 reaches. Centrarchid relative abundance 

was dominated by the longear sunfish (Lepomis 

megalotis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), spotted 

bass (Micropterus punctulatus), and largemouth bass 

(Micropterus salmoides). Centrarchids generally had a 

higher relative abundance in smaller channels such as 

LPIB1 where there is more in-channel structure in 

relation to total reach area compared to that of the 

larger reaches in the Neches River. The total number of 
BASELINE ASSESSMENT 11

REACH ID

VC1

BSC5

BSC2

MC4

MC1

TC1

TC2

VC3

LPIB1

VC10

VC11

NR2

LPIB6

NR1

NR3

LINKAGE DISTANCE

2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6

MENHINICK'S SPECIES RICHNESS

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

2.4

REACH ID

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2

NR3

TC1

TC2

VC1

VC3

VC10

VC11

Figure 4. Menhinick’s species richness for fish communities from15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

Figure 3. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of fish communities for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big 

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

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

centrarchids collected was higher at the large channel 

sites, but the relative abundance was lower. Gars (family

 Lepisosteidae) are common in large rivers, and gars 

were relatively the most abundant in the Neches River 

reaches. Pirate perches (family Aphredoderidae) were 

most common in the smaller reaches including Big 

Sandy Creek reach BSC2, Menard Creek reach MC1, 

Turkey Creek reach TC2, and Village Creek reach VC1. 

Pirate perches are common in smaller sand-bottomed 

streams and rivers; Aphredoderus sayanus is the only 

species in the family (Robison and Buchanan, 1984).

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities

A total of 9,238 benthic macroinvertebrates 

that constitute 301 unique taxa were collected among 

the 14 reaches sampled for invertebrates (table 4, 

at end of report). Two-hundred forty-two of the 

benthic macroinvertebrate taxa were aquatic insects, 

and 59 were non-insect taxa that included freshwater 

worms (Clitellata), opossum shrimp (Mysidacea), 

roundworms (Nematoda), snails (Gastropoda), amphipods (Malacostraca), clams (Bivalvia), and water mites 

(Arachnida). Sampling in this study was intentionally 

biased for the collection of aquatic insects, and all 

non-insect taxa were considered incidental collections; 

therefore, the results discussed below will be limited to 

aquatic insect taxa among the 14 reaches sampled.

The most frequently collected aquatic insect was 

the riffle beetle (Stenelmis sp.). Of the 10 most commonly collected taxa, six were midges of the family 

Chironomidae. The most frequently collected midge 

was Polypedilum illinoense gr. Midges often dominate 

the aquatic insect community in freshwater streams in 

number of species, number of individuals, and aquatic 

insect biomass (Resh and Rosenberg, 1984). Other 

commonly occurring taxa included the filter-feeding 

caddisfly, Cheumatopsyche sp., and the filter-feeding 

blackfly, Simulium sp. The most abundant mayflies 

were the collector-gatherers Tricorythodes sp. and 

Pseudocloeon dardanum. 

A cluster analysis using presence/absence data 

for all of the aquatic insect taxa (fig. 6) showed a very 

different pattern compared to results of the fish community cluster analysis (fig. 3). Unlike the fish community cluster analysis, the aquatic insect cluster analysis 

REACH ID

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2

NR3

TC1

TC2VC1

VC3

VC10

VC11

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR FISH FAMILIES, IN PERCENT

0

20

40

60

80

100

EXPLANATION

Drum

Perch

Pirate perch

Sunfish

Killifish

Catfish

Sucker

Minnow

Gar

Figure 5. Relative abundance of major fish families for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, 

Texas, 1999–2001.
BASELINE ASSESSMENT 13

does not indicate a clustering of reaches based on site 

proximity. For example, the cluster analysis results 

show the Neches River reach (NR2) to be more similar 

to a Big Sandy Creek reach (BSC2) and to the Menard 

Creek reaches (MC1 and MC4) than it is to the other 

two Neches River reaches (NR1 and NR3). The majority of the linkage distances were 8.0 or higher, which 

indicates that the aquatic insect communities are more 

variable and dissimilar than the fish communities 

among the 14 reaches. 

The number of aquatic insect taxa was significantly positively correlated (Pearson’s r = .908, 

p-value = .0001) to the number of individuals collected 

in the 14 reaches (fig. 7). The Village Creek on McKinney Bridge Road (VC3) reach had the largest number of 

aquatic insect taxa (108), and the Neches River below 

Steinhagen Lake in the Jack Gore Unit (NR2) reach had 

the fewest number of taxa (12). 

Menhinick’s species richness varied considerably 

among the reaches (fig. 8). Big Sandy Creek reach 

BSC2 had the largest species richness (3.9), with a new 

taxon observed for about every two insects collected in 

the reach. The smallest species richness (1.09) was for 

the Neches River reach NR2. The collection of aquatic 

insect samples in NR2 was difficult because of swift 

currents and a relatively deep channel. It is likely that 

the small number of taxa and number of individual 

insects collected in this reach is at least partially the 

result of adverse sampling conditions. 

The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

(EPT) index commonly is used to assess the ecological 

health of streams. The EPT index is the sum of the 

proportion of each of the three orders (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies), and it is expressed as a percentage of all identified taxa; larger scores indicate healthier 

streams. The index is sensitive to changes in water 

quality and is less variable seasonally and perennially 

than other metrics such as species richness (Lenat and 

Barbour, 1994). The EPT index was largest for the 

Neches River reach NR1 and smallest for the Little Pine 

Island Bayou reach LPIB6, one of the two reaches in 

stream segments in the preserve that are on the State 

303(d)list (fig. 9). The EPT index score for NR1 probably is larger than the other index scores because this 

reach is only a few kilometers downstream from the 

Steinhagen Lake Dam; and net-spinning caddisflies 

likely are more common in the reservoir release waters 

below the dam. Caddisflies respond to increased dissolved oxygen concentrations caused by re-aeration in 

the tailwaters of the dam. The low index score for 

LPIB6 might be explained by little or no current at this 

LINKAGE DISTANCE

5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5

REACH ID

NR1

TC2

BSC5

VC10

NR2

BSC2

MC4

MC1

TC1

LPIB6

VC3

NR3

VC11

LPIB1

Figure 6. Results of cluster analysis to indicate similarity of aquatic insect communities for 14 bioassessment 

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

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

Figure 8. Menhinick’s species richness for aquatic insects from14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National 

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS COLLECTED AT INDICATED REACH

-200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

NUMBER OF INSECT TAXA COLLECTED

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

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

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2

NR3

TC1

TC2

VC3

VC10

VC11

Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites

and National Park Service site number (reach ID)—

Number referenced in table 1

VC11

EXPLANATION

0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

3.6

4.2

MENHINICK'S SPECIES RICHNESS

REACH ID

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2

NR3

TC1

TC2

VC3

VC10

VC11

Figure 7. Number of aquatic insect taxa collected relative to the number of individuals collected for 14 

bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.
BASELINE ASSESSMENT 15

reach, possibly lower dissolved oxygen concentrations, 

and little in-channel structure such as woody snags to 

provide a substrate and habitat for the EPT taxa. Many 

of the EPT taxa, particularly caddisflies (Trichoptera), 

require a current at velocities that facilitate their filterfeeding habits. The mayflies (Ephemeroptera) were a 

larger percentage of the EPT index at the reaches with 

smaller channel size, and the caddisflies were a larger 

percentage of the EPT index in those reaches with larger 

channel size. Stonefly (Plecoptera) taxa are more 

depauperate than the mayfly or caddisfly taxa in the Big 

Thicket National Preserve and are less represented in 

the EPT index for the 14 reaches. 

The trophic structure of aquatic insect communities is influenced by many factors including channel 

width, depth, velocity, nutrient composition and 

availability, bed material, and composition and density 

of riparian vegetation (Hynes, 1970). In low-order 

(smaller) streams in wooded settings dominated by 

deciduous riparian species, the amount and composition 

of input to the stream from leaf- and dead-fall and from 

overland runoff influences the trophic structure of the 

aquatic insect community in the stream (Vannote and 

others, 1980). The river continuum concept of Vannote 

and others (1980) hypothesizes that the macroinvertebrate community exists in a way that is compatible with 

its source of nutrition—that is (in the study described in 

this report), the aquatic insect community in smaller 

stream channels will be of the type (shredders and 

scrapers, for example) that can deal with the more 

coarse particulate matter that tends to be characteristic 

of smaller stream channels; whereas in larger stream 

channels in which smaller particulate matter tends to be 

characteristic, the aquatic insect community will be of 

the type (filter feeders, for example) that depends on 

fine particulate organic matter. In general, aquatic insect 

communities in the Big Thicket reaches fit the river continuum concept. With a couple of exceptions (LPIB1 

and NR3), the relative abundance of shredders and 

scrapers (fig. 10) generally was larger in the reaches 

with smaller channels (fig. 11a); and, also with a couple 

REACH ID

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

NR1

NR2NR3

TC1

TC2

VC3

VC10

VC11

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF EPT TAXA, IN PERCENT

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Ephemeroptera (mayflies)

Plecoptera (stoneflies)

Trichoptera (caddisflies)

EXPLANATION

Figure 9. Relative abundance of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa (EPT index) for 14 

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

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

of exceptions (LPIB1 and MC1), the relative abundance 

of filter feeders generally was larger in the reaches with 

larger channels (fig. 11b). Relative abundance is less 

than 100 percent in figure 10 because minor aquatic 

insect trophic groups were omitted. 

Stream Habitat and Land Use

The physical characteristics of the channel of a 

stream reach and the contributing drainage upstream 

from a reach (table 5, at end of report) can influence 

the structure and function of the resident fish and 

aquatic insect communities (Richards and others, 1996; 

Allan and others, 1997; Stauffer and others, 2000). 

Among stream-habitat variables measured for this 

report (table 2), bank-full channel width, bank height, 

and curvilinear reach length had principal components 

analysis factor loadings greater than 0.7; and the 1990s 

land-use variables percentage agricultural, percentage 

forest, and percentage urban had factor loadings greater 

than 0.7. These variables were used for further analysis: 

correlation with total number of fish species, total number of aquatic insect species, and Menhinick’s species 

richness. None of the selected stream-habitat or landuse variables were significantly correlated with any of 

these biological measures. 

In a comparison of stream-habitat variables with 

land-use variables using correlation, the percentage of 

1990s urban land use in drainage areas upstream from 

the downstream boundaries of the bioassessment 

reaches was significantly negatively correlated 

(Pearson’s r = -.698, p-value = .012) with the reach 

structure index, a measure of stable habitat for aquatic 

biota (fig. 12). (The three Neches River reaches, NR1, 

NR2, and NR3, were not included in this comparison 

because of the lack of contributing drainage area downstream from the most upstream reach, NR1, and the 

large catchment, Steinhagen Lake, upstream from all 

three sites on the Neches River.) The percentage of 

urban land use ranged from about 0.6 to about 2.5 percent; however, percentages of urban land use of less 

than 10 percent in a drainage area have adversely influenced the aquatic insect community (McMahon and 

Cuffney, 2002). 

The drainage areas upstream from each of 13 bioassessment reaches were dominated by forested land 

use in the 1970s and in the 1990s, although the percentage decreased during the intervening years (fig. 13; 

table 5). Forested land use in the 1970s ranged from 

about 84 percent in the drainage area upstream from 

Little Pine Island Bayou reach LPIB6 to about 98 percent upstream from Little Pine Island Bayou reach 

LPIB1. By the 1990s, forested land use had decreased 

to about 77 percent in LPIB6 and to about 92 percent 

in LPIB1. The percentage of forested lands decreased 

0

20

40

60

80

100

RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF MAJOR AQUATIC INSECT

TROPHIC GROUPS, IN PERCENT

REACH ID

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

Shredders

Scrapers

Predators

EXPLANATION

Gatherers

Filterers

Figure 10. Relative abundance of major aquatic insect trophic groups for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket 

National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.
BASELINE ASSESSMENT 17

MEAN WETTED CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS

20 60 100 140 180 220 260 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

PERCENTAGE FILTERERS

0

10

20

30

40

50

(b)

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

TC1

TC2

VC3

VC10

VC11

NR1

NR2

NR3

MEAN WETTED CHANNEL WIDTH, IN METERS

20 60 100 140 180 220 260 40 80 120 160 200 240 280

PERCENTAGE SHREDDERS AND SCRAPERS

0

10

20

30

40

50

(a)

BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

TC1

TC2

VC3

VC10

VC11

NR1

NR2

NR3

Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites

and National Park Service site number (reach ID)—

Number referenced in table 1

VC11

EXPLANATION

Figure 11. Relation between (a) relative abundance of shredders and scrapers and channel size, and (b) relative 

abundance of filter feeders and channel size for 14 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 

1999–2001.
18 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

the most (10.6 percent) in Turkey Creek reach TC1. 

The percentage of urban land decreased slightly (maximum 0.82 percent for any drainage area) between the 

1970s and 1990s for all of the drainage areas upstream 

from the reaches for which data are available (table 5). 

However, the percentage of land in agricultural use 

increased from a minimum of about 0.8 percent in the 

LPIB1 drainage area for the 1970s to a maximum of 

about 15 percent in the LPIB6 drainage area for the 

1990s. Timber-crop management is common throughout the lands bordering the units of the Big Thicket 

National Preserve. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS

Often described as the “biological crossroads” of 

North America, the Big Thicket National Preserve is an 

important holding of the NPS because of its biological 

diversity and unique geographic distribution. The 

USGS, in cooperation with the NPS, conducted a study 

to establish benchmark biological monitoring stations at 

15 sites throughout the preserve from which to assess 

baseline biological conditions in streams and to supplement historical and ongoing water-quality monitoring at 

these sites. The establishment of the 15 bioassessment 

sites, or reaches, in the Big Thicket National Preserve 

and the baseline data and information on the fish and 

aquatic insect communities of these reaches summarized in this report constitute a first step toward assessment of the status of aquatic biological resources in the 

preserve. The principal findings of the study are 

1. The fish communities in the preserve were dominated by minnows and sunfishes.

2. The blue sucker, listed by the State as a threatened 

species, was collected only in one reach, the 

Neches River below Steinhagen Lake.

3. Fish communities in geographically adjacent 

reaches in this assessment were most similar in 

overall community structure.

4. The most frequently collected aquatic insect was 

the riffle beetle. Of the 10 most commonly collected aquatic insect taxa, six were midges. 

5. Aquatic insect communities among reaches did not 

indicate the same geographically proximate 

pattern of similarity as did fish communities.

6. The Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera 

(EPT) index was smallest for the Little Pine 

Island Bayou near Beaumont reach LPIB6, one 

1990s URBAN LAND USE, IN PERCENT

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8

REACH STRUCTURE INDEX

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Pearson's r = -.698, p-value = .012 BSC2

BSC5

LPIB1

LPIB6

MC1

MC4

TC1

TC2

VC1

VC3

VC10

VC11

Biological and stream-habitat assessment sites

and National Park Service site number (reach ID)—

Number referenced in table 1

VC11

EXPLANATION

Figure 12. Reach structure index relative to 1990s urban land use in contributing drainage area above 

downstream boundary of reach for 12 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 19

URBAN WETLAND AGRICULTURE BARREN FOREST

LAND-USE CATEGORY

0

20

40

60

80

LAND USE, IN PERCENT

100

120

(12)

(12)

(12)

(12)

(12)

(10)

(10)

(10) (10) (10)

Median

Land-use percentage in the 1970s

Land-use percentage in the 1990s

(10) Number of land-use data points

EXPLANATION

Figure 13. Land use by category in the 1970s and 1990s in the drainage areas upstream of the 15 bioassessment 

reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas.
20 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

of two reaches in stream segments in the preserve that are on the State 303(d) list.

7. Trophic structure of the aquatic insect communities 

among the 14 reaches sampled generally is 

consistent with the river continuum concept, 

with shredders and scrapers more abundant in 

reaches with smaller, low-order stream channels and filter feeders more abundant in reaches 

with larger channels.

8. Stream habitat and land use were not significantly 

correlated with any of the biological community measures or metrics.

9. The percentage of 1990s urban land use in the 

drainage areas upstream from 12 bioassessment 

reaches (three reaches not included in comparison) was significantly negatively correlated 

with the reach structure index, which indicates 

less stable habitat for aquatic biota. 

10. Between the 1970s and 1990s, the percentage of 

forested lands upstream from each of 13 

bioassessment reaches decreased the most (10.6 

percent) in the Turkey Creek near Warren (TC1) 

drainage area. 

REFERENCES CITED

Abbot, J.C., Stewart, K.W., and Moulton, S.R., II, 1997, 

Aquatic insects of the Big Thicket region of East Texas: 

Texas Journal of Science, v. 49, no. 3, p. 35–50.

Allan, J.D., Erickson, D.L., and Fay, J., 1997, The influence 

of catchment land use on stream integrity across multiple spatial scales: Freshwater Biology, v. 37, p. 149–161.

Cuffney, T.F., Gurtz, M.E., and Meador, M.R., 1993, Methods 

for collecting invertebrate samples as part of the 

National Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 93–406, 66 p.

Fitzpatrick, F.A., Waite, I.R., Arconte, P.J.D., Meador, M.R., 

Maupin, M.A., and Gurtz, M.E., 1998, Revised methods 

for characterizing stream habitat in the National WaterQuality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological Survey 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 98–4052, 77 p.

Flora, M.D., 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, 

Colo., WRSFL Project Report No. 84–BITH–1.

Hall, R.W., and Bruce, K.A., 1996, Characterization of water 

quality in the water corridor units of Big Thicket 

National Preserve: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University. [Prepared under cooperative agreement with the National Park Service.] 

Harcombe, P.A., 1996, Characterization of the biological 

resources of the water corridor units of Big Thicket 

National Preserve: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Rice University. [Prepared under cooperative agreement with the National Park Service.] 

Harrel, R.C., 1976, Preliminary limnological survey of 

streams in the Big Thicket National Preserve: Report to 

National Park Service, Santa Fe, N. Mex., Work Order 

PX7000–5–0770.

______1985, Effect of a crude oil spill on water quality and 

macrobenthos of a southeast Texas stream: Hydrobiologia, v. 124, p. 223–228.

Harrel, R.C., and Bass, D., 1979, Water quality monitoring 

program in the Big Thicket National Preserve: National 

Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Report 

PX7029–8–0789.

Harrel, R.C., and Commander, S.D.,1980, Water quality 

monitoring program in the Big Thicket National Preserve, Turkey Creek Unit: National Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Report PX7140–9–099.

 ______1981, Water quality monitoring program in the Big 

Thicket National Preserve, Turkey Creek Unit: National 

Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project Report 

PX7029–1–0114.

Harrel, R.C., and Darville, R., 1977, Water quality monitoring program in the Big Thicket National Preserve: 

National Park Service, Southwestern Region, Project 

Report PX7029–6–0866.

______1978, Water quality monitoring program in the Big 

Thicket National Preserve: National Park Service, 

Southwestern Region, Project Report PX7029–7–0636.

Hynes, H.B.N., 1970, The ecology of flowing waters: Liverpool, Liverpool University Press, 555 p.

Karr, J.R., Fausch, K.D., Angermeier, P.L., Yant, P.R., and 

Schlosser, I.J., 1986, Assessment of biotic integrity in 

running waters—A method and its rational: Illinois Natural History Survey, Special Publication Number 5.

Lenat, D.R., and Barbour, M.T., 1994, Using benthic macroinvertebrate community structure for rapid, cost-effective, water-quality monitoring—Rapid bioassessment, 

chap. 11 in Loeb, S.L., and Spacie, Anne, eds., Biological monitoring of aquatic systems: Ann Arbor, Mich., 

Lewis Publishers, 381 p.

Lester, G., 1999, Laboratory methods for the processing of 

invertebrate samples: Ecoanalysts Inc., 4 p.

Ludwig, J.A., and Reynolds, J.F., 1988, Statistical ecology: 

New York, John Wiley, 337 p.

Meador, M.R., Cuffney, T.F., and Gurtz, M.E., 1993, Methods 

for sampling fish communities as part of the National 

Water Quality Assessment Program: U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 93–104.
REFERENCES CITED 21

McMahon, G., and Cuffney, T.F., 2002, Quantifying urban 

intensity in drainage basins for assessing stream ecological conditions: American Water Resources Association, 

25 p.

Menhinick, E.F., 1964, A comparison of some speciesindividuals diversity indices applied to samples of field 

insects: Ecology, v. 45, p. 859–861.

Moring, J.B., 2002, Baseline assessment of instream and 

riparian-zone biological resources on the Rio Grande 

in and near Big Bend National Park, Texas: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 

02–4106, 33 p.

Nielsen, L.A., Johnson, D.L., and Lampton, S.L., 1989, Fisheries techniques: Bethesda, Md., American Fisheries 

Society, 468 p.

Resh, V.H., and Rosenberg, D.M., 1984, The ecology of 

aquatic insects: New York, Praeger, 625 p.

Richards, C., Johnson, L.B., and Host, G.E., 1996, Landscape-scale influences on stream habitats and biota: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

v. 53, p. 295–310.

Robison, H.W., and Buchanan, T.M., 1984, Fishes of Arkansas: Fayetteville, Ark., University of Arkansas Press, 

536 p.

Stauffer, J.C., Goldstein, R.M., and Newman, R.M., 2000, 

Relationship of wooded riparian zones and runoff to fish 

community composition in agricultural streams: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, v. 57, 

p. 307–316.

StatSoft, 1998, Statistica for Windows, version 6.0: Tulsa, 

Okla., StatSoft, Inc.

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2002, Draft 

2002 Texas 303(d) list (October 1, 2002): Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, accessed January 10, 

2003, at URL 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/02_twqmar/

02_categories/02_303d.pdf

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 2003, State of Texas 

threatened and endangered species listing: Texas Parks 

and Wildlife Department, accessed November 14, 2003, 

at URL 

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/endang/ 

U.S. Geological Survey, [1973–80], Geographic Information 

Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS)—Land use and 

land cover (LULC): accessed January 6, 2003, at URL

http://edc.usgs.gov/products/landcover/lulc.html

Vannote, R.L., Minshall, G.W., Cummins, K.W., Schell, J.R., 

and Cushing, C.E., 1980, The river continuum concept: 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 

v. 37, p. 130–137.

Vogelmann, J.E., Howard, S.M., Yang, L., Larson, C.R., 

Wylie, B.K., and Van Driel, N., 2001, Completion of the 

1990s national land cover data set for the conterminous 

United States from Lansat thematic mapper data and 

ancillary data sources: Photogrammetric Engineering 

and Remote Sensing, v. 67, p. 650–652.
22 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

Table 3. Table 3 Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, TexContinued

Group Family

Species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 

Gars Lepisosteidae

Lepisoteus spatula Alligator gar 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 6 0 0 

Lepisoteus oculatus Spotted gar 0 0 0 3 0 0 35 6 18 0 0 Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar 0 0 0 11 0 0 35 6 41 0 0 

Herrings Clupeidae

Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad 0 0 0 254 0 0 14 2 14 0 0 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 0 0 0 182 0 0 62 7 41 0 0 

Pikes Esocidae

Esox americanus Grass pickerel 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Tarpons Elopidae

Elops saurus Ladyfish 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

Minnows Cyprinidae

Cyprinella lutrensis Red shiner 1 0 0 0 0 0 150 0 3 0 0 Notropis amabilis Texas shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi silvery 

minnow

0 0 0 0 0 000500

Notropis atherinoides Emerald shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Cyprinella venusta Blacktail shiner 7 10 1 8 4 18 218 35 143 7 10 Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 2 Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 3 26 12 18 Notropis amnis Pallid shiner 0 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Notropis texanus Weed shiner 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 0 Notemigonus 

crysoleucas

Golden shiner 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pimephales vigilax Bullhead minnow 7 204 1 17 0 0 142 20 16 13 6 Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose minnow 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cyprinus carpio Common carp 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ctenopharyngodon 

idella

Grass carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Silversides Atherinidae

Labidesthes sicculus Brook silverside 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Menidia beryllina Inland silverside 1 0 0 15 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 

Suckers Catastomidae

Cycleptus elongatus Blue sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail redhorse 6 8 0 8 2 3 0 0 1 0 12 

Table 3. Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Tex
Table 3 23

Suckers—Continued Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo 0 0 0 19 0 0 17 3 8 0 0 

Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 

Catfish Ictaluridae

Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish 0 0 0 3 0 0 5 5 8 0 0 Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish 0 1 0 14 0 1 4 2 6 0 0 Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 Notorus gyrinus Tadpole madtom 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Notorus nocturnus Freckled madtom 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Killifishes Cyprinodontidae

Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted topminnow 5 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 Fundulus notatus Blackstripe topminnow 6 14 2 19 9 0 5 3 4 4 27 Fundulus chrysotus Golden topminnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sunfishes Centrarchidae

Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish 29 46 55 72 19 12 40 40 111 3 69 Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish 0 2 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish 0 0 0 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish 0 0 0 8 0 0 5 0 0 2 4 Lepomis punctatus Spotted sunfish 0 3 2 8 1 2 3 0 1 1 5 Poxomis annularis White crappie 0 0 0 33 0 0 21 0 17 0 0 Poxomis 

nigromaculatus

Black crappie 0 0 0 5 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 

Micropterus 

punctulatus

Spotted bass 12 13 3 8 5 2 25 7 23 4 13 

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass 0 1 0 34 0 0 15 0 78 1 0 Micropterus coosae Redeye bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 0 0 Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 2 1 19 148 1 0 54 14 76 7 7 Lepomis gulosus Warmouth 0 3 17 12 0 0 0 2 6 0 1 Elassoma zonatum Banded pygmy sunfish 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lepomis symmetricus Bantam sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Temperate basses Percichthyidae

Morone chrysops White bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 Morone saxatilis Striped bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 

Mullets Mugilidae

Mugil cephalus Striped mullet 0 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 15 1 1 

Table 3. Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, TexContinued

Group Family

Species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 
24 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Pirate perches Aphredoderidae Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch 7 3 2 0 8 0 0 0 3 0 10 

Perches Percidae Percina sciera Dusky darter 4 0 7 0 0 1 0 2 6 0 5 

Etheostoma gracile Slough darter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ammocrypta clara Western sand darter 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etheostoma chlorosomum Bluntnose darter 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Etheostoma proeliare Cypress darter 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ammocrypta vivix Scaly sand darter 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 1 0 Percina macrolepida Bigscale logperch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Lampreys Petromyzontidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut lamprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern brook lamprey 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 12 

Livebearers Poeciliidae

Gambusia affinis Western mosquitofish 0 1 7 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 

Drums Sciaenidae

Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 0 0 0 15 0 0 49 5 22 0 0 

Needlefishes Belonidae

Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Number of fish 97 332 157 930 55 46 958 165 756 66 212 

Number of fish 

species

17 19 22 32 12 11 33 18 43 17 22 

Table 3. Fish taxa and counts of individual fish collected for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, TexContinued

Group Family

Species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC2 BSC5 LPIB1 LPIB6 MC1 MC4 NR1 NR2 NR3 TC1 TC2 
Table 4 25

Table 4

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 

Clitellata Arhynchobdellida Erpobdellidae Freshwater leeches 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Helobdella sp. 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Helobdella triserialis 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Placobdella sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Placobdella ornata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Placobdella parasitica 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Oligochaeta Aquatic earthworms 0 29 0 197 0 0 7 0 21 0 Haplotaxida Lumbricina 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Mysidacea Mysida Mysidae Taphromysis louisianae Freshwater shrimp 0 0 0 23 0 0 1 0 2 0 

Nematoda (phylum) Roundworms 0 2 0 16 1 0 0 0 3 0 Gastropoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Architaenioglossa Viviparidae Campeloma sp. Freshwater snails 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 

Campeloma decisum 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Neotaenioglossa Hydrobiidae 0 3 0 17 0 0 0 0 5 0 

Amnicola sp. 0 3 3 3 10 1 0 0 10 0 

Basommatophora Ancylidae Ferrissia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lymnaeidae 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Physidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Physella sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Planorbidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Planorbidae Menetus dilatatus Freshwater limpets 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Menetus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Arachnida Sacroptiformes Oribatei Soil mites 0 4 0 16 0 0 5 0 1 0 

Acari Mites 0 2 1 5 1 0 1 0 2 1 Trombidiformes Hygrobatidae Water mites 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Hydryphantidae 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Arrenuridae Arrenurus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Lebertiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Limnesiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Mideopsidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sperchonidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Torrenticolidae 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 Unionicolidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ClathrosperchonidaeClathrosperchon sp. 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Turbellaria Flatworms 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Malacostraca Amphipoda Amphipods 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 

Corophiidae Corophium sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Crangonyctidae 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Crangonyx sp. 0 0 0 19 2 1 5 0 4 0 

Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 0 0 46 4 0 0 0 0 1 2 

Hyalellidae Hyalella azteca 1 4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 

Hyalella sp. 0 0 0 6 0 0 124 0 5 0 

Decapoda Cambaridae Crayfishes 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

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

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Malacostraca— Decapoda—Cont. Orconectes sp. Crayfishes 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Cont. Procambarus dupratzi Crayfishes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Procambarus sp. Crayfishes 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Palaemonidae Freshwater shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Palaemonetes kadiakensis 7 24 28 11 27 2 16 0 5 0 

Isopoda Asellidae Caecidotea sp. Aquatic sow bugs 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lirceus sp. 0 0 23 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 

Bivalvia 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 

Veneroida Clams 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Corbiculidae Corbicula sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 

Corbicula fluminea Aisan clams 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

Pisidiidae Eupera cubensis Peaclams 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sphaerium sp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Sphaeriidae Peaclams 0 1 0 7 0 0 1 0 15 0 

Unionoida Unionidae Unionids (freshwater 

clams)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ostracoda Ostracods 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Insecta Ephemeroptera Baetidae Mayflies 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 12 

Acerpenna pygmaea 1 5 8 0 16 0 0 0 0 13 Baetis intercalaris 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 Baetis sp. 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Centroptilum sp. 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Fallceon quilleri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Procloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Pseudocloeon 

longipalpus

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Pseudocloeon 

propinquum

0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Pseudocloeon sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Pseudocloeon 

dardanum

0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 13 30 

Plauditus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Caenidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Amercaenis ridens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brachycercus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis amica 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis hilaris 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis latipennis 2 2 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis punctata 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Caenis sp. 1 24 0 2 2 0 2 0 10 2 

Leptohyphidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Leptohyphes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
Table 4 27

Insecta—Cont. Ephemeroptera— Asioplax sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 21 

Cont. Tricorythodes sp. 7 13 0 0 8 2 9 0 2 11 

Leptophlebiidae 0 0 0 0 7 5 0 0 0 3 

Choroterpes sp. 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 Paraleptophlebia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thraulodes sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Heptageniidae Heptagenia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 

Stenacron sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Stenacron floridense 6 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stenacron 

interpunctatum

0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Stenonema exiguum 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Stenonema integrum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Stenonema mexicanum 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 3 0 Stenonema sp. 3 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 3 

Ephemerellidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ephemeridae Hexagenia sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 

Isonychiidae Isonychia sp. 5 1 0 0 8 4 1 0 8 5 

Odonata Coenagrionidae Damselflies 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Argia sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Calopterygidae Hetaerina sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Calopteryx sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Corduliidae Macromia illinoiensis Dargonflies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Macromia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neurocordulia molesta 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Neurocordulia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 

Macromiinae 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aeshnidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Boyeria sp. 0 0 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 Boyeria vinosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nasiaeschna 

pentacantha

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Gomphidae 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Hagenius brevistylus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Progomphus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stylurus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Phyllogomphoides sp. 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Libellulidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Plecoptera Perlidae Stoneflies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Acroneuria sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 0 0 Neoperla sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Perlesta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Taeniopterygidae Taeniopteryx sp. 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
28 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Insecta—Cont. Heteroptera Corixidae Water boatman 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Trichocorixa sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 Palmacorixa sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Gerridae Water striders 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 Veliidae Broad-shouldered water striders 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Rhagovelia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Naucoridae Pelocoris sp. Creeping water bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Ambrysus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Nepidae Ranatra sp. Water scorpions 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capsalidae Trochopus sp. Flukes 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 Pleidae Neoplea sp. Pygmy backswimmers 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 0 

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Belostomatidae Gian water bugs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Belostoma sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 3 0 

Megaloptera Corydalidae Dobson flies 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 

Chauliodes sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Corydalus sp. 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 2 1 3 

Sialidae Sialis sp. Alderflies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Trichoptera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydropsychidae Caddisflies 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 

Cheumatopsyche sp. 2 1 33 0 7 1 0 0 41 0 Hydropsyche bidens 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 43 0 Hydropsyche 

mississippiensis

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 

Hydropsyche simulans 0 4 0 0 10 1 0 0 6 2 Hydropsyche sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 4 1 Macrostemum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 21 10 0 Potamyia flava 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Smicridea sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Brachycentridae Brachycentrus 

numerosus

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Brachycentrus sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Helicopsychidae Helicopsyche sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Hydroptilidae Neotrichia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 

Hydroptila sp. 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 Mayatrichia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Polycentropodidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cyrnellus fraternus 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 Neureclipsis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 16 0 Nyctiophylax sp. 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 Polycentropus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
Table 4 29

Insecta—Cont. Trichoptera— Leptoceridae 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cont. Oecetis persimilis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Oecetis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Nectopsyche candida 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 Nectopsyche sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 10 0 Triaenodes sp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. 0 1 0 0 26 0 0 2 3 0 

Lepidoptera Moths and 

butterflies

0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 

Coleoptera Dytiscidae Predaceous diving 

beetles

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Coptotomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Desmopachria sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrovatus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Liodessus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lioporeus pilatei 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Neoporus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 0 

Hydrophilidae Water-scavenger 

beetles

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Cymbiodyta sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Derallus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Enochrus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Hydrochus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tropisternus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Berosus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Sperchopsis sp. 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 

Psephenidae Ectopria sp. Water-penny beetles 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Noteridae Hydrocanthus sp. Burrowing water 

beetles

0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 1 0 

Suphis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Elmidae Riffle beetles 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ancyronyx variegatus 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Dubiraphia sp. 1 18 2 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 Dubiraphia vittata 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Macronychus glabratus 4 3 0 1 7 5 0 0 0 3 Microcylloepus sp. 0 10 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 13 Stenelmis sp. 1 16 28 0 33 29 11 0 5 35 

Helodidae Cyphon sp. Marsh beetles 0 0 0 17 0 0 13 0 3 0 

Gyrinidae Dineutus sp. Whirligig beetles 2 0 5 0 0 1 4 0 2 0 

Gyretes sp. 0 2 0 0 2 1 6 0 1 0 Gyrinus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 60 22 0 

Hydraenidae Hydraena sp. Minute moss beetles 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
30 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 Insecta—Cont. Coleoptera— Cont. Haliplidae Peltodytes sp. Crawling water beetles 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 

Diptera Athericidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ceratopogonidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

(1) 0 13 4 1 7 2 1 0 15 1 

Bezzia/Palpomyia sp. Biting midges 0 3 0 13 0 0 39 0 29 0 Culicoides sp. 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Forcipomyia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Probezzia sp. 0 2 0 12 0 0 1 0 2 0 Sphaeromias sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 

Tipulidae Hexatoma sp. Crane flies 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Pilaria sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Ephydridae Brine flies 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Chaoboridae Chaoborus sp. Phantom midges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Empididae Hemerodromia sp. Balloon and dance flies 0 3 0 0 10 2 1 0 6 0 Psychodidae Moth and sand flies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Pericoma sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Sciomyzidae Marsh flies 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Simuliidae Blackflies 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 

Simulium sp. 0 36 0 2 70 0 0 0 27 7 

Tipulidae 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Tipula sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Chironomidae Antillocladius sp. Midges 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cladopelma sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 Clinotanypus sp. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 Coelotanypus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 Corynoneura sp. 0 45 2 10 1 0 0 0 7 29 Epoicocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Fissimentum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Harnischia sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 Pagastiella sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 Parachironomus 

frequens gr.

0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Parachironomus sp. 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Phaenopsectra sp. 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Potthastia longimana

gr.

0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Radotanypus sp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheosmittia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Smittia sp. 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stempellina sp. 0 18 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Synorthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
Table 4 31

Insecta—Cont. Diptera—Cont. Unniella sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Zavreliella sp. 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(2) Procladius sp. 1 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 12 0 (3) Natarsia sp. 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 (4) Ablabesmyia sp. 4 26 9 7 4 2 1 0 8 0 

Labrundinia sp. 0 5 11 0 10 0 0 0 7 3 Labrundinia johannseni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Labrundinia pilosella 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Larsia sp. 1 6 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 13 Nilotanypus fimbriatus 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nilotanypus sp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Pentaneura sp. 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 2 26 Zavrelimyia sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(5) Midges 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (6) Cricotopus bicinctus gr. 0 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 8 0 

Cricotopus sp. 0 64 0 0 0 1 1 0 23 47 Lopescladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nanocladius sp. 0 2 4 2 2 0 3 0 8 7 Nanocladius (Plecopteracoluthus) sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nanocladius minimus 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 Orthocladius sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Orthocladius 

(Euorthocladius) sp.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Parametriocnemus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rheocricotopus sp. 0 27 1 0 9 0 0 0 5 19 Tvetenia vitracies gr. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Xylotopus par 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thienemanniella sp. 0 121 8 16 2 0 7 0 8 13 Thienemannimyia gr. 

sp.

2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 

(7) 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Chironomus sp. 0 0 0 11 0 0 8 0 2 0 Cryptochironomus sp. 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 4 1 Cryptotendipes sp. 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dicrotendipes sp. 0 6 4 20 0 0 0 0 0 12 Goeldichironomus sp. 0 0 0 14 0 0 36 0 2 0 Glyptotendipes sp. 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nilothauma sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paracladopelma sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paratendipes sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Polypedilum convictum 3 0 4 2 15 2 0 0 15 9 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
32 Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big

Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001 

1 Subfamily Ceratopogoninae.2 Subfamily Tanypodinae, tribe Procladiini.3 Tribe Natarsiini.4 Tribe Pentaneurini.5 Subfamily Orthocladiinae.6 Tribe Orthocladiini.7 Subfamily Chronominae, tribe Chironomini.8 Tribe Pseudochironomini.9 Tribe Tanytarsini. 

Insecta—Cont. Diptera—Cont. Polypedilum fallax gr. 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Polypedilum halterale

gr.

0 0 0 68 0 0 3 0 1 0 

Polypedilum illinoense

gr.

0 2 0 344 1 0 0 0 18 0 

Polypedilum flavum 0 12 0 0 0 0 2 0 17 0 Polypedilum scalaenum 

gr.

0 4 7 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 

Polypedilum tritum 0 10 7 8 3 3 154 5 44 11 Stelechomyia 

perpulchra

0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 

Stenochironomus sp. 1 1 2 1 3 0 3 0 8 1 Stictochironomus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Stictochironomus 

caffrarius gr.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 

Tribelos sp. 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Tribelos jucundum 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tribelos fuscicorne 0 0 0 34 0 0 4 3 3 0 Xenochironomus 

xenolabis

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 

(8) Pseudochironomus sp. 0 6 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 (9) Cladotanytarsus sp. 0 3 31 11 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Rheotanytarsus sp. 1 3 15 2 10 1 27 0 85 3 Stempellinella sp. 0 16 25 0 10 0 0 0 2 6 Tanytarsus sp. 1 20 44 24 4 1 4 0 15 13 Parakiefferiella sp. 0 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 3 Paralauterborniella 

nigrohalterale

0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 

Dolichopodidae Long-legged flies 0 1 0 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 Tabanidae Horse and deer flies 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 

Number of benthic macroinvertebrates 76 805 436 1,081 411 105 724 123 882 426 Number of aquatic insects 66 694 335 716 359 93 544 121 784 420 Number of aquatic insect taxa 32 79 35 66 60 36 66 12 94 54 

Table 4. Taxonomic classification of benthic macroinvertebrates and counts of individual taxa for 14 bioassessment reache

Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001—Continued

Class Order Family

Genus or species Bioassessment reach ID

Scientific name Common name BSC-2 BSC-5 LPIB-1 LPIB-6 MC-1 MC-4 NR-1 NR-2 NR-3 TC-1 
Table 5 33

Table 5

Table 5. Stream-habitat and land-use data for 15 bioassessment reaches, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–200[See table 2 for data description; m, meters; km2, square kilometers; NA, not available] 

Stream-habitat

measure or landuse variable

Bioassessment reach ID

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

Linear reach length 

(m) 

113 75.2 92.4 487 81.2 101 962 639 509 115 107 77.2 1

Curvilinear reach 

length (m)

113 117 159 866 104 161 1,170 926 908 161 186 134 2

Reach sinuosity 100 155 172 177 127 160 121 145 178 140 173 174 1Reach slope 1.65 X 10-5 1.95 X 10-4 1.34 X 10-4 1.06 X 10-5 5.95 X 10-5 1.43 X 10-4 5.04 X 10-5 6.44 X 10-5 3.20 X 10-5 6.28 X 10-4 1.18 x 10-4 6.95 x 10-5 1.

Reach structure 

index

300 197 182 0 300 149 21.4 0 0 93.0 48.3 157 

Mean bank slope .074 .082 .067 .079 .084 .092 .034 .047 .065 .101 .083 .094 Bank height (m) 3.65 3.30 2.19 7.46 3.54 4.07 10.9 5.97 7.23 3.64 4.26 3.56 Mean wetted 

channel width (m)

11.8 9.36 5.10 40.9 14.1 15.5 86.1 67.4 96.5 10.7 9.79 8.51 

Mean bank-full 

channel width (m)

21.9 38.7 17.8 58.7 22.2 41.1 103 91.8 88.6 29.5 21.8 23.9 

Channel incision .055 .026 .032 .039 .054 .031 .033 .025 .029 .037 .045 .047 Drainage area 

(km2)

280 389 239 1,620 227 391 19,900 20,400 23,600 367 391 700 5

Percentage urban 

land use (1970)

.68 1.24 .92 3.02 .97 .58 1.95 1.90 1.98 2.49 2.36 1.02 

Percentage urban 

land use (1990s)

.63 .78 .92 2.2 NA NA 1.83 1.80 1.82 2.46 2.33 .98 

Percentage 

agricultural land use (1970s)

5.65 4.41 .84 12.9 5.79 4.25 25.3 24.7 21.7 5.22 5.05 2.93 

Percentage 

agricultural land use (1990s)

7.89 6.96 4.73 15.1 NA NA 25.5 25.0 22.6 11.2 10.8 5.92 

Percentage forest 

land use (1970s)

93.1 93.8 97.7 83.7 93.1 92.3 68.7 69.3 72.8 90.4 90.8 94.9 

Percentage forest 

land use (1990s)

83.1 83.5 92.1 77.4 NA NA 59.4 59.6 62.6 79.8 80.4 85.2 
Moring— Baseline Assessment of Fish Communities, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities, and 

Stream Habitat and Land Use, Big Thicket National Preserve, Texas, 1999–2001