RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA:

A WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE

Theodore Hoehn

1998

Office of Environmental Services

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

620 South Meridian St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA:

A WATERSHED PERSPECTIVE

Theodore Hoehn

1998

Office of Environmental Services

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission

620 South Meridian St.

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

.
ii

Cover:

Center: Harlequin darter, Etheostoma histrio (photo by Patrick E. O’Neil)

Upper left: Florida occurrence watersheds of the harlequin darter

Upper right: Harlequin darter habitat, Big Escambia Creek (flood stage) at Old Flomaton Highway, Escambia County, Florida (photo by

Donald Ray)

Lower left: Sand and gravel operation, Big Escambia Creek, downstream of the Old Flomaton Highway, Escambia County, Florida (photo

by Donald Ray)

Lower right: Digital Ortho Quad of the Big Escambia Creek watershed

FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Suggested citation:

Hoehn, T. S. 1998. Rare and imperiled fish species of Florida: A watershed perspective. Office of Environmental

Services, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee.
RARE AND IMPERILED F iii ISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The distributions of 31 freshwater fish species that are either rare, threatened, or endangered were determined

for Florida’s rivers and streams. Occurrence records were obtained from the Florida Museum of Natural History,

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida

Natural Areas Inventory, University of Alabama, Tulane University, Cornell University, United States Geological

Survey Biological Resources Division, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Geographic information

systems technology was used to identify the specific riverine sub-basins (i.e., watershed units ≈5 mi2 in area)

where rare and imperiled fishes have been found. Sub-basins were ranked based upon the total number of rare

and imperiled fish species present. A scoring system based on relative rarity was developed, and sub-basins were

ranked by total cumulative scores. Information regarding land use, public and private conservation lands, and

water quality within the sub-basins was quantified using existing geographic information systems data layers.

Two hundred fifty-nine sub-basins throughout Florida were found to contain the selected freshwater fish

species. The greatest number of rare and imperiled fish species was found in the Escambia River drainage of

northwestern Florida with decreasing numbers occurring further down the peninsula. The 259 identified subbasins contain a total of 8,485 river and stream miles, of which 2,546 miles (30% of the total) are contained

within the boundaries of public lands. The remaining 5,939 miles are unprotected or may be subject to voluntary

agricultural conservation measures.

The 259 sub-basins containing rare and imperiled fishes were evaluated for current water quality conditions,

designated use support, water quality and biological indicator trends, and adequacy of water quality data. Water

quality impairment, degrading water quality and biological trends, or inadequate water quality surveys characterize 126 of the 259 sub-basins containing rare and imperiled fishes. These 126 sub-basins were designated as Subbasins of Management Concern.

While Florida has significant land acquisition programs, only 19% of the Sub-basins of Management

Concern, and 20% of all sub-basins containing rare and imperiled fishes, are currently in public or private conservation lands. An additional eight percent of the Sub-basins of Management Concern are on priority lists for public land acquisition. Six percent of the Sub-basins of Management Concern contain lands identified as areas of

conservation interest. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has identified Strategic Habitat

Conservation Areas which comprise eight percent of the Sub-basins of Management Concern. Land acquisition

programs have predominantly focused on the main stems and floodplains of the rivers. However, a greater focus

on tributary and headwater areas within priority sub-basins may be necessary to protect many of the species.

New surveys are necessary to determine if species are still present within the 259 sub-basins, to identify additional sub-basins where species occur but have not been previously recorded, and to determine the status of the

species. Additional research is needed to better understand the life history, food habits, habitat requirements, and

water quality threats to the species. Periodic monitoring of fish populations, water quality, stream habitat

structure, and invertebrate populations should be conducted to determine trends and allow corrective action to be

taken before significant problems develop.

A variety of regulatory mechanisms and voluntary land management techniques can be used to correct water

quality problems and to provide additional habitat conservation. Studies to address agricultural and non-point

source pollution are being planned by various state and federal agencies in several riverine basins. These studies

could be focused on the sub-basins containing rare or listed freshwater fish species. Special attention should be

given to land use planning activities within all 259 sub-basins to avoid alteration or degradation of aquatic habitats and to maintain water flow and water quality. Additional monitoring or surveys to determine the most appropriate management strategies for rare and imperiled species of fish is needed within the 126 Sub-basins of

Management Concern. Monitoring and surveys should be followed by immediate implementation of the strategies, interagency coordination, and coordination with landowners to address problems within the sub-basins if the

rare or imperiled freshwater fish species are to survive.
iv FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study could not have been completed without the assistance of many people. Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission, Division of Fisheries biologists conducted river and stream sampling for many years.

Gray Bass, Jerry Krummrich, Gary Byerley, Sam McKinney, Fred Cross, David Cox, and Tom Champeau provided fisheries data from their files and assisted in identification of sample site locations. Gray Bass provided

guidance on life history, distributions, rarity of species, and threats to many species, and offered general encouragement throughout the study. Michelle Reeves and Deborah Roberts-Williams were instrumental in collecting

and compiling historical data and in processing the GFC fisheries data. Glenn Reynolds and Bill Sheaffer provided valuable assistance in the development of the fish database.

George Burgess, Florida Museum of Natural History; Charles Dardia, Cornell University; Bernard Kuhajda,

University of Alabama; Dr. Steve Bortone, University of West Florida; Jerry Ziewitz, USFWS-Panama City; and

the staff at the Florida Natural Areas Inventory provided species occurrence data from their databases. Charles

Boydstun, Howard Jelks, and Dr. James Williams, USGS-Biological Research Division, provided ArcInfo coverages of Eglin Air Force Base fish collections containing the Okaloosa darter. Dr. Carter Gilbert, University of

Florida, provided additional data, life history information, and guidance throughout the study.

Joe Hand, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, provided the watershed and water quality trend

information. He also provided additional water quality parameter data for specific watersheds and provided suggestions on the water quality conclusions throughout the course of this study. Analyses of benthic macroinvertebrate data for the northwest panhandle region were provided by Donald Ray, Florida Department of

Environmental Protection-Northwest District Office.

Photos were provided by Gray Bass, George Burgess, Noel Burkhead, Dr. Byron J. Freeman, Dr. Grant

Gilmore, William F. Loftus, Vernon Ogilvie, Patrick E. O’Neil, Donald Ray, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 4. John Stys, Maureen MacLaughlin, James Cox, and Eric Songer provided considerable assistance in the

development of the ArcInfo coverages and GIS analyses used in this study. A special thanks to Dr. Carter Gilbert,

Brad Hartman, Brian Barnett, Randy Kautz, Jim Estes, Gray Bass, and Mimi Drew, and her staff at the

Department of Environmental Protection, who provided comments on the draft report. A final thanks to Cavell

Kyser, who spent many hours doing the layout and design for the manuscript. This report is a product of Florida’s

Nongame Wildlife Program.
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

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

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Basic Geographic Information System Data Layers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

EPA River Reach File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hydrologic Unit Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Water Quality Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Public and Conservation Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Species Occurrence Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Fish Species Occurrence Records from GFC Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Criteria for Identification of Rare and Imperiled Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Watershed-based Distribution Maps for Stream Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Species Richness Hot Spots by Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Watershed Ranking Based on Species Rarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Water Quality Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Land Cover and Conservation Lands Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Distributions of Stream Fishes and Watershed Water Quality Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Species Richness by Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Sub-basin Rankings Based on Species Rarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Status of Water Quality in Sub-basins with Rare or Imperiled Stream Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Sub-basins of Management Concern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Escambia River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Blackwater and Yellow River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Choctawhatchee River and Bay Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Chipola River and Apalachicola River and Bay Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Ochlockonee River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Aucilla and Econfina-Fenholloway River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Withlacoochee River (N), Suwannee River, and Santa Fe River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

St. Marys and Nassau River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Oklawaha River and St. Johns River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Upper East Coast, Middle East Coast, and South Indian River Basins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Important Habitat and Public Land Ownership within Sub-basins

Containing Rare or Imperiled Stream Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Biogeography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Determination of Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

GIS Data Needs and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

The Need for Additional Survey and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Regulatory Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Comprehensive Land Use Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Future Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
vi

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 1

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade there has been growing

interest in the identification of habitats critical to the

long-term survival of rare and endangered species.

The concern is that if the most important areas are

not soon identified and protected, then the habitats

of rare species will be lost to development and the

species that depend on those habitats will be driven

to extinction. Scott et al. (1993) proposed a method

for the identification of lands critical to biodiversity

conservation for terrestrial environments. The

method, referred to as gap analysis, uses geographic

information systems (GIS) technology to identify

biodiversity hot spots based on an analysis of land

cover data, species occurrence records, and lands in

public ownership. Gap analysis is being implemented

state by state to create a nationwide database of hot

spots of biological diversity. Cox et al. (1994) used a

similar approach to identify terrestrial habitats in

Florida that should be conserved and managed to

ensure the long-term survival of key components of

Florida’s biological diversity.

While methods for identifying biodiversity hot

spots in terrestrial environments are fairly advanced,

similar efforts to identify hot spots of biodiversity in

aquatic habitats are still in their infancy. In the past,

the conservation needs of aquatic biota have been

addressed primarily through water quality regulation

and associated water quality and biological monitoring programs. Benthic macroinvertebrates have most

often been used as indicators of the biological health

of river and stream ecosystems due to their sensitivity

to pollution, ease of collection, and often sedentary

life styles. A variety of metrics have been developed

that use benthic macroinvertebrates to measure

stream condition (Plafkin et al. 1989, Barbour et al.

1996). In some areas, these metrics have been supplemented with Indices of Biological Integrity (IBI)

based upon the fish communities of streams (Karr

1981, Miller et al. 1988, Lyons 1992, Bass 1993).

However, IBIs based on fishes often have shortcomings due to regional variations in the species composition and the mobility of fishes.

In the last few years, interest has been building

for the biological conservation needs of aquatic biota,

particularly freshwater fishes and fish communities.

For example, Angermeier (1995) evaluated the

ecological characteristics of 197 freshwater fishes in

Virginia to identify extinction-prone species and to

suggest a means for proactive conservation. He concluded that maintenance of aquatic biodiversity is

dependent on a management strategy built upon the

relationships between riverine biota and landscape

features such as land use, land cover, hydrology, water

quality, and riparian zone conditions. Angermeier

and Schlosser (1995) further recommended that conservation programs focus first on the needs of

individual rare species followed by efforts to protect

larger assemblages of species, and that conservation

programs be directed to the landscape level and key

ecological processes. Hughes and Noss (1992) also

have stressed the importance of focusing on the landscape as a means of protecting entire ecosystems

which, in turn, can achieve the conservation of rare

species as well as entire communities.

GIS technology is the perfect tool for integrating

the many types of data layers needed to better understand the relationships among aquatic biota and landscape-level phenomena. Angermeier and Bailey

(1992) used GIS to evaluate the distributions of rare

and endangered fishes and mussels in relation to pollution sources in several Virginia rivers. They also

assessed the relative protection afforded the species

through public ownership of land along stream segments. Researchers in New York are also trying to

develop a methodology for aquatic gap analysis that

can be implemented nationwide. To date, GIS is

being used to investigate the relationships among fish

diversity, macroinvertebrate diversity, stream habitat,

hydrology, water quality, and land use, all based on

watershed sub-basins at a fairly detailed scale (i.e.,

1:24,000) (O’Brien-White and Thomason 1995,

Meixler et al. 1996). This approach is appropriate for

defining important stream habitats for macroinvertebrate assemblages, certain fish species, and site-specific non-point source pollution loadings. However,

larger scale analyses can often detect primary relationships among upland vegetation types, land use

patterns, and river and stream habitats and biota

(Richards and Host 1994, Imhof et al. 1996).

The purpose for this project was to take a landscape-level approach to the identification of hot spots

of diversity among Florida’s native freshwater fishes

and to evaluate those hot spots in the context of

landscape-level features. In Florida, the distributions

of native freshwater fishes are fairly well known.

General distribution maps depicting point locations

where fishes have been collected exist for most species

(Lee et al. 1980, Page and Burr 1991, Gilbert

1992a). These maps indicate that the rivers and

streams of north Florida and the panhandle have the
2 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

highest diversity of fishes, and the fish fauna becomes

increasingly depauperate as one moves down the

Florida peninsula (Swift et al. 1986). Moreover, nearly all of the rare and imperiled fishes of Florida

inhabit streams, not lakes. This information led us to

focus our investigation on the patterns of diversity

among Florida’s stream fishes.

More than 296 species of fishes have been

recorded from Florida rivers, of which 157 are

marine or euryhaline species, 117 are freshwater

species, 10 are anadromous or catadromous, and 50

are non-native introduced species (Bass 1995). Of the

296 species found in Florida rivers, 41 are rare or

imperiled within the state (Millsap et al. 1990,

Gilbert 1992a). Many rare or imperiled fish species

have life histories that are relatively unknown, or

there is only general knowledge of the individual

species requirements. However, many of the species

have been found to be sensitive to habitat alteration

and changes in water quality and quantity (Gilbert

1992a). Because most rare and imperiled freshwater

fishes inhabit streams, and because many are not well

known or are sensitive to environmental changes, we

chose to limit our investigations to GIS analyses of

Florida’s most rare and imperiled stream fishes.

The principal objectives of this project were as

follows.

1. Develop a comprehensive GIS database

of occurrence records for stream fishes in

Florida.

2. Identify and rank individual stream segments and their watersheds based on the

number and rarity of rare and imperiled fish

species.

3. Determine which high ranking stream

segments are experiencing problems with

water quality or declining habitat conditions.

4. Identify landscape-level factors that may

be affecting in-stream water quality or habitat conditions.

5. Provide recommendations aimed at

resolving problems with data collection and

land management.
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 3

BASIC GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM DATA

LAYERS

This project relied upon the use of computerized

information and analysis of selected data sets

available from state and federal agencies. The information had to be at a scale that provided data on

both the sub-basin and larger river basin, or drainage,

levels. The following paragraphs provide brief

descriptions of the data sets used in the project.

EPA River Reach File

The River Reach File hydrography coverage

(RF3-alpha) was obtained from the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The RF3-

alpha was developed from the 1988 U.S. Geological

Survey (USGS) 1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph

hydrography and data from previous versions of the

Reach Files. The RF3 was developed by the EPA

“expressly to establish hydrologic ordering, to

perform hydrologic navigation for modeling applications, and to provide a unique identifier for each surface water feature, i.e., the reach code.” Reach codes

uniquely identify, by watershed, the components of

the nation’s rivers and lakes. These codes provide a

common nomenclature for federal and state reporting

of surface water conditions as required under the

Clean Water Act. Reach codes, reach types, names,

and stream levels are a part of the attributes of the

RF3-alpha coverage (excerpted from EPA reach files

fact sheet and RF3-alpha technical documentation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994).

Hydrologic Unit Classification System

Florida has 52 major river basins. These basins

and their sub-basins, or watersheds, were originally

delineated by the USGS and EPA. Before 1994, the

52 major river basins were subdivided into 1,600

sub-basins that were delineated using linear segments

of the rivers, called “reaches,” as the basic unit. This

resulted in major river sub-basins that were approximately five-mile lengths of rivers or five-square-mile

sections of estuaries or lakes. In 1994, the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) subdivided the state into 4,400 sub-basins based upon

the EPA’s RF3 and revised USGS hydrologic unit

classification (HUC) system delineations. In 1996,

further subdivisions were made resulting in 4,534

sub-basins of about five square miles each. Each subbasin has a unique identifying code (WBID #) that

provides a link to other databases.

Water Quality Assessment

The 1996 DEP Water Quality Assessment for

the State of Florida (Section 305(b) report) characterizes water quality conditions and trends in rivers and

streams. DEP used sub-basins as the units for assessing surface-water quality and water quality trends,

and combined data from all water quality sampling

stations within a unit for assessment purposes. DEP

conducted several types of analyses using available

water quality data and included the results in the

attributes of the GIS coverages. A Water Quality

Index or Trophic State Index was used to characterize

water quality. Results were evaluated along with

quantitative biological data, data on non-point source

pollution, exceeded water quality criteria for conventional pollutants and metals, and fish consumption

advisories. DEP analyzed water quality trends using

12 measurements (plus overall Stream Water Quality

Index and Trophic State Index) for 625 watersheds

between 1986 and 1995. For streams, eight water

quality measurements (i.e., bacteria, turbidity, total

suspended solids, biochemical oxygen demand,

dissolved oxygen, Secchi depth, nitrogen, and phosphorus) plus the overall Water Quality Index were

used to determine the trend. The overall trend for

each water body was determined by comparing

improved and degraded water quality measurements.

If a water body showed no trends, or just one indicator showed a trend, or the number of improved

minus degraded trends was zero or one, then the

trend was classified as “no change.”

DEP used the type (i.e., stream, lake, or estuary)

and designated use of each water body within a

watershed to determine which Florida surface waterquality standards should be used for status and trend

determinations. Designated use refers to the

functional classifications (i.e., Class I through V

waters) applied to all Florida waters. Each functional

classification has its own particular standards and

water-quality criteria as established under Chapter

62-302 of the Florida Administrative Code. An overall impairment rating for the watersheds is described

as:

Good (Fully Meets Designated Use)—

surface waters in the watershed are supporting their use classification with no or

minimal evidence of water quality problems;

METHODS
4 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Threatened—surface waters are attaining

their use classification, but without further

management actions, within five years they

will not meet their designated use;

Fair (Partially Meets Designated Use)—surface waters in the watershed are showing

moderate water quality problems; and,

Poor (Does Not Meet Designated Use)—all

surface waters in the watershed are not supporting their designated uses as evidenced by

serious water quality problems (DEP 1996).

The water quality coverages correspond to the DEP’s

six district office boundaries.

Public and Conservation Lands

Public conservation lands include national parks,

forests, wildlife refuges, and military lands; state preserves, reserves, parks, and forests; state-owned

wildlife management areas; water management

district lands; and county-owned nature preserves.

Private conservation lands include areas owned by

groups such as The Nature Conservancy, National

Audubon Society, and other organizations. A comprehensive set of coverages for conservation or public

lands has been developed and is maintained by the

Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI). FNAI has

also developed coverages depicting Areas of

Conservation Interest and Potential Natural Areas.

Areas of Conservation Interest contain documented

occurrences of rare, imperiled, or outstanding examples/populations of animals, plants, or natural communities, which are then supplemented by aerial

photographic interpretation of the lands surrounding

the areas containing the occurrences. Potential

Natural Areas are areas that appear to have good

examples of natural communities based on statewide

aerial photographic interpretation of natural communities by FNAI biologists, but they have not been

field checked (FNAI 1996).

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas

Cox et al. (1994) identified privately owned

Florida lands that should be protected to ensure the

long-term persistence of most components of biodiversity in the state. The targeted lands were referred

to as Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas (SHCA).

SHCAs were intended to provide guidance to

decision makers involved in public land acquisition,

land use planning, private landowner initiatives,

development regulation, and land management. A

complete description of the methodology used in the

identification of SHCAs can be found in Cox et al.

(1994).

Species Occurrence Records

FNAI maintains occurrence data of rare and

imperiled plants, animals, and natural communities.

The occurrence data represent location records of

endangered, threatened, special concern and rare

species, and they ideally represent tracts of land or

water needed to sustain or otherwise contribute to

the survival of populations of species (FNAI 1996).

The Florida Museum of Natural History maintains a database of fish species collected throughout

Florida and preserved at the Museum. Specimen

identifications are verified by Florida Museum of

Natural History scientists before the data is entered

into their database. The Florida Museum of Natural

History provided information on museum catalog

number, collection date, collector, and location for

selected fish species. Point locations from the Florida

Museum of Natural History database were digitized

by EPA based upon information provided by the

Museum. Data that had not previously been geo-referenced was digitized by Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission (GFC) biologists based upon

location information contained in field data sheets.

Additional data on several fish species was

obtained from the museum collections at the

University of Alabama, Tulane University, and

Cornell University. The data contained museum catalog number, collection date, collector, and locational

information. The point locations were geo-referenced

by the GFC based upon location information

contained in the data sheets.

Fish Species Occurrence Records from GFC

Collections

GFC fishery biologists have been sampling fish

populations statewide for over 50 years using a variety of sampling techniques (e.g., seining, electrofishing, various netting procedures, use of rotenone, and

use of explosives). Several statewide river and stream

surveys have been conducted over the past 40 years.

A long-term data collection effort was conducted on

12 major Florida rivers from 1983 to 1993. This

effort was designed to provide a baseline and trend

analysis of fish populations and fish community composition in the major river systems. Data collected

prior to the early 1980s can only be found in project

completion reports or on original data sheets. Fish

collection data began to be computerized in the early

1980s with the dates varying depending upon the

region of collection.
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 5

For this project, electronic data was obtained

from GFC regional fishery biologists. This data

included species abundance, sampling gear type,

summary data, and various collection statistics. The

files usually contained a description and location of

sampling sites. Clarification on the locations of some

sites was verified by the GFC regional fishery biologists. Location descriptions were used to ascertain the

latitude and longitude coordinates of sample sites

using DeLorme Map Expert 2.0 software. Sample

sites were given a unique code using a river system

identifier and a station number. For example,

WITH_Ss1a1, would translate as strata 1, area 1 of

the Withlacoochee (south) River. Strata (e.g., river

reach) and area designations were developed by

regional fishery biologists and used to establish

collection station numbers. The catch per unit effort

(CPUE) fields were calculated, where absent in the

original data file, for each fish species. The geo-referenced data was compiled and entered into a GIS fish

collection database.

Data was also entered from various completion

reports into the GIS fish collection database using

procedures described above. While all GFC completion reports have not been entered into the database,

20 years of data are contained in the database for

some river systems. GFC regional fishery biologists

also provided occurrence records for listed or rare

species that may not have been part of GFC routine

quantitative surveys or collections.

The GIS fish database uses common and scientific names appearing in the American Fisheries Society

Special Publication 20, Common and Scientific Names

of Fishes from the United States and Canada (Robins et

al. 1991). The database uses a point format for the

locations of collection sites since the exact starting

and stopping locations within river reaches are not

precisely geo-referenced. By providing a point for the

collection site, it is assumed that the sampling

occurred within the identified river reach near the

point, unless otherwise noted. Data contained in the

GIS fish database is currently only for flowing fresh

waters and does not include collections from isolated

lakes or marine areas.

The use of the DeLorme Map Expert software to

ascertain the latitude/longitude coordinates was

based, in part, on a comparison and analysis of the

use of Global Positioning System (GPS) and Map

Expert conducted by DEP. DEP compared

differences between GPS and Map Expert for a variety of conditions such as road/hydrographic

crossings, political boundaries, and railroad crossings.

It was determined that the Map Expert software had

a mean accuracy of 171 feet between GPS and Map

Expert coordinates (DEP 1994a). The 171-foot error

from the software was well within the expected total

length of river reach sampled by GFC personnel and

maps and descriptions of sample sites contained in

the data reports.

GFC fish sampling records, university

collections, and other state and federal agency fish

data from the Kissimmee Valley and the Everglades is

being compiled under contract for the South Florida

Water Management District. The data was

unavailable from the contractor for use in this phase

of the study. However, when the data has been compiled and geo-referenced, and quality control checks

have been made, it will be incorporated into future

phases of the project.

CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF RARE AND

IMPERILED FISHES

This project focused on the conservation needs

of rare and imperiled stream fishes in Florida. Fish

species selected for this study met one or more of the

following criteria: (1) listed as endangered,

threatened, or species of special concern by the GFC

or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Logan 1997); (2)

appeared in the most recent Florida Committee on

Rare and Endangered Plants and Animals (FCREPA)

accounts (Gilbert 1992a); (3) ranked G1/S1, G2/S2,

or G3/S3 by FNAI; or, (4) have been assigned a biological score ≥24 by Millsap et al. (1990). These

species represent either declining populations in need

of management actions or populations that are

vulnerable due to a restricted range, habitat

preference, or some other limiting factor which has

isolated a population or has the potential to restrict

the population. Fish species meeting these criteria are

listed in Table 1. The scientific names of three

species—the river goby, Florida chub, and Florida

logperch—have been revised, and current nomenclature is reflected in Table 1.

Occurrence information and subsequent subbasin analyses were restricted to those species which

occur in freshwater rivers and streams. With the

exception of the Lake Eustis pupfish, most rare or

imperiled freshwater fishes occur in flowing waters.

Restricting the analyses to rivers and streams

eliminated the following species from further consideration in this project: mangrove rivulus, sea lamprey,

opossum pipefish, spottail goby, slashcheek goby, big-
6 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Table 1. Rare and imperiled fishes of Florida as determined by GFC, FCREPA, FNAI, and Millsap et al. (1990).

Common Name Scientific Name GFC FCREPA FNAI-G FNAI-S Millsap et al.

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E G3 S1

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi SSC T G3 S2 39

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola R G5 S3

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 24

Alabama shad Alosa alabamae 24

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula R G5 S3 8

River goby Awaous banana [=tajasica] T G5 S1S2

Snook Centropomus undecimalis SSC

Crystal darter Crystallaria asprella T T G3 S1 32

Bluestripe shiner Cyprinella callitaenia T G2 S1 25

Lake Eustis pupfish Cyprinodon variegatus hubbsi SSC SSC G5T2Q S2 23

Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon R G5 S3 12

Harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio SSC T G5 S1 25

Okaloosa darter Etheostoma okaloosae E E G2 S2 34

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps SSC T G5 S1 10

Goldstripe darter Etheostoma parvipinne R G4G5 S2 20

Cypress darter Etheostoma proeliare R G5 S2 8

Florida chub Macrhybopsis [=Extrarius] n. sp.

cf aestivalis R G3 S2 11

Southern starhead topminnow Fundulus dispar blairae T G3G4Q S1S2

Bigmouth sleeper Gobiomorus dormitor T G5 S2 5

Slashcheek goby Gobionellus pseudofasciatus T G? S1

Spottail goby Gobionellus stigmaturus SSC G4 S2

Cypress minnow Hybognathus hayi T G5 S1S2 22

Southern striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus isolepis R G5 S1SE? 8

Bandfin shiner Luxilus zonistius R G3 S1S2 11

Blacktip shiner Lythrurus atrapiculus R G4 S2 19

Opposum pipefish Microphis brachyurus lineatus T G5 S2

Suwannee bass Micropterus notius SSC G2G3 S2S3 17

Shoal bass Micropterus n. sp. cf coosae SSC T G2 S1 33

River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum T G4 S1S2 23

Grayfin redhorse Moxostoma n. sp. cf poecilurum T G2 S2 20

Southern bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus bellicus R G5 S1SE? 20

Rough shiner Notropis baileyi R G5 S4 16

Blackmouth shiner Notropis melanostomus E T G1G2 S1 29

Southern [=Florida] logperch Percina austroperca [=n. sp.

cf caprodes] R G3 S2 4

Saddleback darter Percina vigil T G5 S1 17

Sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus R G5 SA

Bluenose shiner Pteronotropis welaka SSC SSC G4 S4 22

Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus SSC SSC G5 S3 5

mouth sleeper, Lake Eustis pupfish, and snook. Table

2 lists those freshwater fishes found in Florida rivers

and streams that are the focus of this study.

Species accounts that describe the entire range of

the species, species taxonomic description, general

habitat requirements, and feeding characteristics can

be found in Lee et al. (1980), Page and Burr (1991),

and Gilbert (1992a). In addition, Burgess et al.

(1977), Burgess and Franz (1978), Swift et al.

(1986), and Gilbert (1987) have discussed the

zoogeography of fishes in Florida in a manner which

provides an insight into the occurrence of species

within selected river basins.

WATERSHED-BASED DISTRIBUTION MAPS FOR

STREAM FISHES

Fish species occurrence records were plotted on

the watershed/sub-basin coverage provided by DEP.

Distribution maps or GIS coverages were created for

each species by highlighting the sub-basins containing occurrence records for each species. An ArcInfo

macro (aml) was written that combined the 31 fish

species coverages into a single distribution map or

coverage. This coverage identifies sub-basins with fish

species occurrences and provides the total number of

species within a given sub-basin.
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 7

SPECIES RICHNESS HOT SPOTS BY WATERSHED

Watershed Ranking Based on Species Rarity

The relative rarity of the species was taken into

account as a further refinement in the identification

of watersheds of high species diversity. Cox et al.

(1994) provided guidelines for establishing minimum

levels of security based upon population size and

number of populations. While these guidelines offer

an adequate measure of protection for conservation

planning, they require relatively accurate information

on the number of individuals within a given population and the locations of individual populations. It

may be possible to identify locations where fish

species are present, but the yearly reproductive

success or the number of individuals present at a specific location is usually not available or practical to

obtain and, furthermore, may not affect species vulnerability. Because these biological variables and

other environmental and physical variables often are

not available, using the Cox et al. (1994) guidelines

for fish species is not practical. Therefore, a qualitative scoring system for the rarity of individual species

was developed using rankings reported by FNAI and

FCREPA. FNAI has ranked each species based upon

relative rarity and endangerment statewide and globally. The FNAI statewide scale is:

S4—apparently secure statewide (may be

rare in parts of range),

S3—either very rare and local throughout its

range (6–20 occurrences or less than 10,000

individuals) or found locally in a restricted

range or vulnerable to extinction due to

other natural or man-made factors,

S2—imperiled statewide because of rarity

(6–20 occurrences or less than 3,000 individuals) or because of vulnerability to extinction

due to some natural or man-made factor,

S1—critically imperiled statewide and of

extreme rarity (5 or fewer occurrences or less

than 1,000 individuals) or because of

Table 2. Rare and imperiled fishes of Florida rivers and streams and status as determined by GFC, FCREPA, FNAI, and Millsap et al. (1990).

Common Name Scientific Name GFC FCREPA FNAI-G FNAI-S Millsap et al.

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E E G3 S1

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi SSC T G3 S2 39

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola R G5 S3

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 24

Alabama shad Alosa alabamae 24

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula R G5 S3 8

River goby Awaous banana [=tajasica] T G5 S1S2

Crystal darter Crystallaria asprella T T G3 S1 32

Bluestripe shiner Cyprinella callitaenia T G2 S1 25

Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon R G5 S3 12

Harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio SSC T G5 S1 25

Okaloosa darter Etheostoma okaloosae E E G2 S2 34

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps SSC T G5 S1 10

Goldstripe darter Etheostoma parvipinne R G4G5 S2 20

Cypress darter Etheostoma proeliare R G5 S2 8

Florida chub Macrhybopsis [=Extrarius]

n. sp. cf aestivalis R G3 S2 11

Southern starhead topminnow Fundulus dispar blairae T G3G4Q S1S2

Cypress minnow Hybognathus hayi T G5 S1S2 22

Southern striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus isolepis R G5 S1SE? 8

Bandfin shiner Luxilus zonistius R G3 S1S2 11

Blacktip shiner Lythrurus atrapiculus R G4 S2 19

Suwannee bass Micropterus notius SSC G2G3 S2S3 17

Shoal bass Micropterus n. sp. cf coosae SSC T G2 S1 33

River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum T G4 S1S2 23

Grayfin redhorse Moxostoma n. sp. cf poecilurum T G2 S2 20

Southern bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus bellicus R G5 S1SE? 20

Rough shiner Notropis baileyi R G5 S4 16

Blackmouth shiner Notropis melanostomus E T G1G2 S1 29

Southern [=Florida] logperch Percina austroperca [=n. sp.

cf caprodes] R G3 S2 4

Saddleback darter Percina vigil T G5 S1 17

Bluenose shiner Pteronotropis welaka SSC SSC G4 S4 22
8 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

extreme vulnerability to extinction due to

some natural or man-made factor (FNAI

Element Rank Explanations, October 1995).

FCREPA ranked species by the following definitions:

Endangered—Species in danger of

extinction or extirpation if the deleterious

factors affecting their populations continue

to operate. These are forms whose numbers

have already declined to such a critically low

level or whose habitats have been so seriously

reduced or degraded that without active

assistance their survival in Florida is

questionable.

Threatened—Species that are likely to

become endangered in the state within the

foreseeable future if current trends continue.

This category includes: (1) species in which

most or all populations are decreasing

because of over exploitation, habitat loss, or

other factors; (2) species whose populations

have already been heavily depleted by deleterious conditions; and (3) species that may

still be relatively abundant but are being subjected to serious adverse pressures throughout their range.

Rare—Species that, although not presently

endangered or threatened as defined above,

are potentially at risk because they are found

only within a restricted geographic area or

habitat in the state or are sparsely distributed

over a more extensive range.

Species of Special Concern—Species that

do not clearly fit into one of the preceding

categories yet warrant special attention.

Included in this category are species that,

although perhaps presently relatively abundant and widespread in the state, are

especially vulnerable to certain types of

exploitation or environmental changes and

Table 3. Ranking of relative rarity or imperilment of Florida stream fishes based on a scoring system developed from FNAI and FCREPA definitions.

Increasing scores indicate increase in rarity

Common Name Scientific Name Average of Rarity Rank FNAI State Rank FCREPA Rank

Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum 5 55

Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi 4 44

Mountain mullet Agonostomus monticola 3 33

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis 1 11

Alabama shad Alosa alabamae 1 11

Alligator gar Atractosteus spatula 3 33

River goby Awaous banana [=tajasica] 4.25 4.5 4

Crystal darter Crystallaria asprella 3.5 4 3

Bluestripe shiner Cyprinella callitaenia 4.5 5 4

Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon 3 33

Harlequin darter Etheostoma histrio 4.5 5 4

Okaloosa darter Etheostoma okaloosae 4.5 4 5

Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps 4.5 5 4

Goldstripe darter Etheostoma parvipinne 3.5 4 3

Cypress darter Etheostoma proeliare 3.5 4 3

Florida chub Macrhybopsis [=Extrarius]

n. sp. cf aestivalis 3.5 4 3

Southern starhead topminnow Fundulus dispar blairae 4.25 4.5 4

Cypress minnow Hybognathus hayi 4.25 4.5 4

Southern striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus isolepis 4 53

Bandfin shiner Luxilus zonistius 3.75 4.5 3

Blacktip shiner Lythrurus atrapiculus 3.5 4 3

Suwannee bass Micropterus notius 2.25 3.5 1

Shoal bass Micropterus n. sp. cf coosae 4.5 5 4

River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum 4.25 4.5 4

Grayfin redhorse Moxostoma n. sp. cf poecilurum 4 44

Southern bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus bellicus 4 53

Rough shiner Notropis baileyi 2.5 2 3

Blackmouth shiner Notropis melanostomus 4.5 5 4

Southern [=Florida] logperch Percina austroperca [=n. sp.

cf caprodes] 3.5 4 3

Saddleback darter Percina vigil 4.5 5 4

Bluenose shiner Pteronotropis welaka 3 42
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 9

have experienced long-term population

declines; and species whose status in Florida

has potential impact on endangered or

threatened populations of the same or other

species outside of the state (Gilbert 1992a).

A weighting system was developed for rare and

imperiled stream fishes based on the status of each

species according to the above definitions. Scores

were assigned to FNAI and FCREPA rankings with a

numeric range of 1 through 5, with 5 being endangered, critically imperiled statewide, or “most rare.”

FNAI often gave a double ranking. When this

occurred, the score was split between the two values.

An example is an S2S3 ranking which would have a

score calculated as (S2 = 4) + (S3 = 3) for a final

score of 3.5. A draft of the “average rarity scores” was

sent to three fish experts knowledgeable about

Florida fish distributions and populations for

comment or re-ranking. While some of their individual scores differed from the average rarity score, the

combined rankings of the experts did not substantially change from the average rarity score. Therefore,

the sub-basins were ranked using the average rarity

score as described earlier, since the FNAI and

FCREPA ranking definitions are widely accepted.

Table 3 provides the relative rarity rankings for each

of the fish species. A second aml was developed that

weighted the relative rarity of each fish species. Subbasins with rare or imperiled stream fishes were

ranked by summing the rarity scores for each species

occurring in each sub-basin.

Water Quality Status and Trends

Sub-basins were identified that contained rare or

imperiled stream fishes but did not meet designated

use criteria in 1996 or that have degrading water

quality or biological trends. Water quality status or

biological trends analyses for these sub-basins were

obtained from the DEP water quality assessment coverages. However, not all sub-basins had adequate

information for the DEP to conduct a meaningful

analysis. In those cases, the trend field was left blank.

Land Cover and Conservation Lands Acreage

Sub-basins that contained rare or imperiled

stream fishes were overlaid on the statewide land

cover and conservation lands GIS data layers. The

percentage of each land cover type contained within

the sub-basins was calculated based upon the procedures described by Cox et al. (1994).
10 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

The shortnose sturgeon is an anadromous species that spends most of its life in

estuarine areas and migrates up coastal

rivers to spawn. Primary spawning areas

are non-silty, flowing waters with a rocky,

gravel, or hard substrate, where the eggs

are broadcast and adhere to the bottom

substrate. Suitable spawning substrate is

very limited or marginal within its Florida

range. Spawning habitat may have been

available in the Oklawaha River, and

marginal spawning habitat can be found in

Black Creek. However, spawning has not

been recently documented within Florida.

Age to maturity, interval between spawning events, and reduction or loss in spawning habitat have contributed to the decline

of the species in Florida (Gilbert 1992b).

Occurrence records indicate that the shortnose sturgeon is restricted to the lower St.

Johns River basin from the Atlantic Ocean

upstream to Lake George and Lake

Crescent (Figure 1a). However, collections

of the shortnose sturgeon have been rare in

recent years.

The 1996 DEP water quality data

indicates that the majority of the basin

fully meets its designated use classification

with the exception of that part of the basin

below Jacksonville, which has some parameters that do not meet use criteria.

However, the sub-basins that partially meet

designated use have shown an improving

trend over the past 10 years (Figure 1b).

DISTRIBUTIONS OF STREAM FISHES AND WATERSHED WATER QUALITY STATUS

RESULTS

Shortnose Sturgeon

Acipenser brevirostrum

Figure 1a. Distribution of shortnose sturgeon.

Figure 1b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4

Improving

Stable
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 11

The Gulf sturgeon is an anadromous

subspecies that, in the spring, migrates up

coastal rivers connected to the Gulf of

Mexico to spawn. Primary spawning areas

are non-vegetated, flowing waters with a

rocky, gravel, or hard substrate, where the

eggs are broadcast and adhere to the hard

bottom features. Age to maturity, interval

between spawning events, and reduction or

loss in spawning habitat have contributed

to the decline of the species in Florida

(Gilbert 1992c). Occurrence records indicate that most of the large rivers along the

Gulf coast are used by the Gulf sturgeon

(Figure 2a). Reproducing populations are

known to occur in the Escambia,

Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola, and

Suwannee river basins. The occurrence

record for Tampa Bay was from an individual tagged in the Suwannee River. The

Charlotte Harbor occurrence record may

also be due to migration of an individual

from the Suwannee Basin (Frank Paruka,

personal communication).

The 1996 DEP water quality data

indicates that significant portions of subbasins which comprise the Gulf sturgeon’s

range are only partially meeting their designated use classifications (Figure 2b).

Only three of the sub-basins partially

meeting their designated use classifications,

the Blackwater River (WBID #24A), Santa

Fe River (WBID #3605A), and Tampa Bay

(WBID #1558C), appear to show an

improving 10-year trend. The remaining

sub-basins appear to show a stable 10-year

trend.

Gulf Sturgeon

Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi

Figure 2b. Watershed water quality status.

Figure 2a. Distribution of Gulf sturgeon.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Gray Bass

Fully meets use

Partially meets use
12 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

The mountain mullet is presumed to be a

catadromous species with the adults ascending

streams to their headwaters. Adults have been

found in a few clear, swift-moving streams in

Florida, but the mountain mullet is more

common in these habitats in Mexico, Central

America, and the West Indies. It is not known

if spawning, which occurs during spring and

summer months, occurs in estuarine areas or

freshwater streams. Eggs, larvae, and juveniles

are presumed to be carried from the estuaries

out to sea. The uncertainty of specific habitat

requirements for this species and infrequent

observations in Florida are the reasons for the

mountain mullet being classified as “rare.”

Channelization, changes in hydrology, and

increased vegetation in streams are major factors contributing to the loss of populations of

this species (Loftus 1992). Occurrence records

show that sub-basins along the Atlantic Coast

have the highest incidence of sightings with a

few exceptions in the Apalachicola, Santa Fe,

and Withlacoochee (North) rivers (Figure 3a).

Most of the sub-basins where the mountain mullet has been observed have water

quality problems (Figure 3b). Upper Spruce

Creek (WBID #2674) and Crane Creek

(WBID #3085) do not meet their designated

use classifications and are showing a declining

10-year trend. The Withlacoochee River

(North) (WBID #3315), Lower Spruce Creek

(WBID #2674A), Mosquito Lagoon (WBID

#2924B), Belcher Canal (WBID #3163),

Basin 6 (WBID #3215), and the C-2 Canal

(WBID #3293) only partially meet their designated use classifications. The C-2 Canal and

Belcher Canal also show a worsening 10-year

trend. The Mosquito Lagoon is showing an

improving 10-year trend, and the

Withlacoochee River (N) has a stable 10-year

trend.

Mountain Mullet

Agonostomus monticola

Figure 3b. Watershed water quality status.

Figure 3a. Distribution of mountain mullet.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Does not meet use

William F. Loftus
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 13

Blueback Herring

Alosa aestivalis

The blueback herring is an

anadromous species that migrates up

coastal rivers to spawn. Spawning occurs in

areas of deep, swift water over hard

substrate during the spring. Dams, dredging, and alterations of coastal rivers have

contributed to the inability of the species

to find suitable spawning habitat (Burgess

1980a). Blueback herring have been

observed in the Nassau and St. Johns rivers

(Figure 4a).

The 1996 water quality status data

shows several sub-basins that either do not

meet or partially meet their designated use

classifications (Figure 4b). Alligator Creek

(WBID #2153), within the Nassau River

basin, currently does not meet its designated use classification. The Nassau River

(WBID #2148B), into which Alligator

Creek flows, shows some water quality

impairment and is also showing a worsening 10-year trend. The St. Johns River

(WBID #2213A–WBID #2213F) below

the Clay County line has some water quality impairment and is showing either a stable or improving 10-year trend. Black

Creek (WBID #2415B–WBID #2415C),

St. Johns River near Deland (WBID

#2893Z), St. Johns River at Lake Monroe

(WBID #2893C), Lake Monroe (WBID

#2893D), and Lake Harney (WBID

#2964A) also have some water quality

impairment and are showing an improving

or stable 10-year trend.

Figure 4b. Watershed water quality status.

Figure 4a. Distribution of blueback herring.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Does not meet use

George Burgess
14 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

The Alabama shad is an anadromous species that migrates up Gulf

coastal rivers to spawn. It is very similar to the skipjack herring (Alosa

chrysochloris) which may result in

misidentification of this species.

Spawning occurs in moderate current

over sand or gravel bottoms.

Migrations of adults into freshwater

rivers usually occur from January

through April. Dams, dredging, and

channel alterations of coastal rivers

have contributed to the inability of

the species to find suitable spawning

habitat (Burgess 1980b). Alabama

shad have been observed in the major

rivers along the Gulf coast west of the

Suwannee River (Figure 5a). Each of

these river systems has sub-basins that

show some water quality impairment

(Figure 5b). However, most have

either a stable or improving 10-year

trend.

Alabama Shad

Alosa alabamae

Figure 5a. Distribution of Alabama shad.

Figure 5b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Improving

Stable

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 15

Alligator Gar

Atractosteus spatula

The alligator gar is a large

species that is typically found in

backwaters and slow-moving

pools of large rivers. It is also

found in estuarine or marine

waters along the Gulf coast.

Because of its large size and the

specialized gear required for

sampling, it has not been

frequently collected. Little is

known about its reproductive or

feeding requirements (Gilbert

1992d). Alligator gar have been

observed in the Escambia River,

Choctawhatchee River, and

Econfina Creek basins (Figure

6a).

The Escambia River has

some water quality impairment

in its sub-basins. The overall

10-year trend in all three river

basins is either stable or improving (Figure 6b).

Figure 6a. Distribution of alligator gar.

Figure 6b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
16 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

River Goby

Awaous banana (=tajasica)

The river goby is a euryhaline species

with a larval stage that occurs only in salt

water. Adults prefer fast-flowing, highly

oxygenated tributaries with salinities below

4.0 ppt. Eggs drift downstream, and larval

development occurs in the estuary or

ocean. The river goby is sensitive to point

and non-point source pollutants with habitat loss, stream flow manipulations, and

sedimentation being major limiting factors

in the survival of this species (Gilmore

1992). The river goby has been observed

in very few locations in Florida (Figure

7a).

Three of the locations, Garnier Creek

(WBID #655), Oklawaha River below

Rodman Reservoir (WBID #2740A), and

Sebastian River (WBID #3129B), have

impaired water quality and only partially

meet their designated use classifications.

The Oklawaha River sub-basin is also

showing a declining 10-year trend. The

remaining three locations, St. Johns River

(WBID #2213M and WBID #2213N),

North Canal (WBID #3147), and South

Canal (WBID #3158) located north of

Vero Beach, fully meet their designated use

classifications (Figure 7b).

Figure 7a. Distribution of river goby.

Figure 7b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Dr. Grant Gilmore
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 17

Crystal Darter

Crystallaria asprella

The crystal darter is found only in

large rivers and is confined to areas with a

combination of sand and fine-gravel bottom. It typically is not found in areas with

a shifting sand bottom. Mettee et al.

(1996) reported that individuals often

move at dusk from their deep water habitats to the shallow sand habitats in search

of aquatic insects. In Florida, the crystal

darter is only found in the upper Escambia

River drainage, the southernmost and easternmost portion of its known range

(Figure 8a). Little is known about the crystal darter’s life history, but spawning is presumed to occur between early March and

late April. The crystal darter is intolerant

of non-point source pollution, sedimentation, nutrients, and substrate alterations

(Gilbert 1992e). The upper Escambia

River sub-basin (WBID #10C), which

contains occurrence records from Big

Escambia Creek, partially meets its designated use classification (Figure 8b).

Figure 8a. Distribution of crystal darter.

Figure 8b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
18 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Bluestripe Shiner

Cyprinella callitaenia

The bluestripe shiner is endemic to

the Apalachicola River system. It is typically found in the main stem of the river and

its major tributaries with spawning occurring over gravel or rubble. The bluestripe

shiner does not occur in small creeks or

areas that contain soft or mud bottoms.

Spawning occurs from April to August

with eggs being laid in crevices of large

rocks or between rocks. Loss of spawning

habitat due to rock removal, siltation, and

flow alterations due to water management

of the river are limiting factors (Gilbert

1992f). Records indicate that the

bluestripe shiner is commonly found

throughout the Apalachicola River and in

the middle Chipola River (Figure 9a).

Water quality data indicates that the

sub-basins that contain the bluestripe shiner fully meet their designated use classifications. The Chipola sub-basin (WBID

#51D) has shown an overall improvement

in the 10-year trend, and the Apalachicola

River has shown a stable trend (Figure 9b).

Figure 9a. Distribution of bluestripe shiner.

Figure 9b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 19

Blackbanded Sunfish

Enneacanthus chaetodon

The blackbanded sunfish is an omnivorous species that is usually found near

dense, rooted vegetation in the shallow

margins of sluggish acidic streams, ponds,

and lakes. Preferred habitat is vulnerable to

habitat alterations (Gilbert and Snelson

1992). Occurrence records for the blackbanded sunfish are scattered throughout

northeast Florida (Figure 10a). Because the

preferred habitat of this species makes sampling difficult, few specimens have been

collected.

Several of the sub-basins have partially

impaired water quality (Figure 10b). These

sub-basins include the Aucilla River

(WBID #3310C), Econfina River (WBID

#3402), Roaring Creek (WBID #3392),

Orange Lake Reach (WBID #2749), and

Palatlakaha River (WBID #2839). The

remaining sub-basins in which the blackbanded sunfish occur currently meet their

designated use classifications. The

Palatlakaha River has shown a decline over

the last 10 years. However, most of the

sub-basins have improved or remain in a

stable condition.

Figure 10a. Distribution of blackbanded sunfish.

Figure 10b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Noel Burkhead
20 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Harlequin Darter

Etheostoma histrio

The harlequin darter is usually found

in shallow riffle habitat with a strong current and a rocky or gravel bottom.

Spawning occurs over gravel or rubble in

fast current usually between mid-March

and May (Mettee et al. 1996). The

harlequin darter is also typically found in

large rivers and major tributaries. Because

of its preference for these conditions, it is

susceptible to habitat alterations and

increased sedimentation. The harlequin

darter in Florida is at the southeasternmost

limits of its known range (Gilbert and

Yerger 1992a). The only occurrence

records for the harlequin darter are from

the Escambia River and its major

tributaries (Figure 11a).

Five of the six sub-basins in which this

species occurs have partially impaired

water quality and partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 11b):

Pine Barren Creek (WBID #5), Canoe

Creek (WBID #7), Upper Escambia River

(WBID #10C), Big Escambia Creek

(WBID #10), and McCostill Mill Creek

(WBID #118).

Figure 11a. Distribution of harlequin darter.

Figure 11b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 21

Okaloosa Darter

Etheostoma okaloosae

The Okaloosa darter is endemic to the

Choctawhatchee Bay system. This species

inhabits clear, small to moderate streams

with submerged macrophytes or detritus

and is very intolerant of sedimentation

(Burkhead et. al. 1992). A U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service endangered species recovery plan was developed for the Okaloosa

darter in 1981 and is currently being

revised. The majority of the known range

of the Okaloosa darter is within the

boundaries of Eglin Air Force Base (Figure

12a).

Most of the sub-basins containing the

Okaloosa darter fully meet their designated

use classifications. However, Boggy Bayou

(WBID #692), Mill Creek (WBID #644),

and Shaw Still Branch (WBID #658) have

partially impaired water quality and

partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 12b), due in part to the

City of Niceville’s sewage treatment system

and the loss of habitat (DEP 1996).

Within Mill Creek, much of the habitat

loss is due to erosion and culverts. Habitat

loss due to sedimentation is still perhaps

the major threat to the Okaloosa darter

throughout its range. The recovery plan for

the Okaloosa darter calls for correcting

road erosion, restoring clay borrow pits,

and identifying and modifying road

culverts which have contributed to degradation of habitat within Eglin AFB (Jelks

1997).

Figure 12a. Distribution of Okaloosa darter.

Figure 12b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Noel Burkhead
22 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Tessellated Darter

Etheostoma olmstedi maculaticeps

The tessellated darter occurs in small

to medium low-gradient streams and

occasionally in flowing pools with sand,

mud, or rubble bottom. Dense

vegetation (i.e., hydrilla) is encroaching

into its preferred habitat within its limited Florida range (Gilbert 1992g).

Florida’s only known occurrences of the

tessellated darter are from the Oklawaha

River below Rodman Reservoir (WBID

#2740A), Orange Creek (WBID #2747),

Oklawaha River above Rodman

Reservoir (WBID #2740C), and Eaton

Creek (WBID #2771) (Figure 13a).

With the exception of Eaton Creek,

there is impairment of water quality and

designated use classifications within each

of the sub-basins containing the tessellated darter. Ten-year trend data indicate

that the Oklawaha River below Rodman

Reservoir is deteriorating (Figure 13b).

The remaining sub-basins containing the

tessellated darter show a stable 10-year

trend.

Figure 13a. Distribution of tessellated darter.

Figure 13b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

George Burgess
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 23

Goldstripe Darter

Etheostoma parvipinne

The goldstripe darter is found in small

to medium creeks, headwater creeks, and

seepage creeks with abundant vegetation

and a sand or fine gravel bottom (Gilbert

1992h). It is susceptible to sedimentation

and loss of flow in its stream habitat. The

goldstripe darter has been recorded from

the Escambia River basin to the

Apalachicola River basin (Figure 14a) in

small headwater type creeks or creeks off of

minor tributaries.

Lower Escambia River (WBID #10D),

Wilder Branch (WBID #326), and

Sweetwater Creek (WBID #728) show

some water quality impairment. However,

10-year water quality trends in these subbasins are stable or improving (Figure

14b).

Figure 14a. Distribution of goldstripe darter.

Figure 14b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Improving

Stable

Gray Bass
24 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Cypress Darter

Etheostoma proeliare

The cypress darter is found in slow

moving sloughs, creeks, and flowing

pools in streams and rivers with a mudsilt vegetated bottom. Spawning has been

reported to occur from late March to

early June (Mettee et al. 1996). This

species is one of the smallest darters, a

factor which may contribute to the limited number of observations available. The

cypress darter is at the easternmost limits

of its known range (Gilbert and Yerger

1992b). Occurrence records show that

the species has been found only in the

Escambia River and Choctawhatchee

River basins (Figure 15a). The upper

Escambia River (WBID #10C), lower

Escambia River (WBID #10D and

WBID #10E), upper Choctawhatchee

River (WBID #49F), and Bruce Creek

(WBID #343) show some impairment of

water quality, and they partially meet

their designated use classifications (Figure

15b).

Figure 15a. Distribution of cypress darter.

Figure 15b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 25

Florida Chub

Macrhybopsis (=Extrarius) n. sp.

cf aestivalis

The Florida chub is a bottom feeding

species that is found in the main channels

of shallow, low-gradient streams that have

a moderate to strong current. They usually

are found over sand or fine gravel bottom.

The species is found only in western

Florida and southeastern Alabama (Gilbert

and Yerger 1992c). Figure 16a shows the

sub-basins where the Florida chub has

been recorded. The sub-basins containing

the Florida chub partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 16b), with

the exception of Pond Creek (WBID

#350) and the middle reach of the

Escambia River (WBID #10A) which fully

meet their designated use classifications. Figure 16a. Distribution of Florida chub.

Figure 16b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
26 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Southern Starhead Topminnow

Fundulus dispar blairae

The southern starhead topminnow’s

preferred habitat is clear ponds, lakes, and

bayous, and streams with a slow current. It

typically is found in highly vegetated areas

and is susceptible to pollution. The

Escambia River drainage represents the

eastern limits of this species known range.

This species has recently been designated

as a subspecies within the Fundulus notti

complex (Gilbert 1992i). Occurrence

records indicate that the southern starhead

topminnow is present only in the

Escambia River drainage (Figure 17a). All

sub-basins containing the southern

starhead topminnow show some

impairment of water quality, and they partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 17b).

Figure 17a. Distribution of southern starhead topminnow.

Figure 17b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable Partially meets use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 27

Cypress Minnow

Hybognathus hayi

The cypress minnow has been found

in large streams and rivers, usually in backwaters and sluggish pools having sand and

silt bottoms. In Florida this species is confined to the Escambia River drainage

(Figure 18a), which is near the southeasternmost extent of its range. Little is known

about the life history of the cypress

minnow, but spawning is presumed to

occur in the spring (Gilbert 1992j). Several

of the sub-basins inhabited by the cypress

minnow have been reported to have some

impairment of water quality (Figure18b).

Figure 18a. Distribution of cypress minnow.

Figure 18b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
28 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Southern Striped Shiner

Luxilus chrysocephalus isolepis

The southern striped shiner typically

occurs in medium-sized streams having

clear weedless waters, a moderate to swift

current, and alternating pools and riffles

over a gravel or rubble bottom, often

with some silt. This species is usually

found immediately above or below riffle

habitat. The southern striped shiner was

first collected in Florida in 1975, indicating that it probably was introduced

(Gilbert 1992k). (A detailed discussion

regarding the introductions of the southern striped shiner, rough shiner, and

southern bluehead chub can be found in

Gilbert [1992a, 159–160]). This species

is common in Alabama throughout the

Big Escambia Creek basin and Mobile

River drainages. Alabama populations

have been reported to spawn from March

through May with nests found in sand or

gravel (Mettee et al. 1996). The species is

currently limited to the Escambia River

basin (Figure 19a), specifically Canoe

Creek (WBID #7) and Moore Creek

(WBID #111). Both of these sub-basins

have partial impairment of water quality

and partially meet their designated use

classifications (Figure 19b).

Figure 19a. Distribution of southern striped shiner.

Figure 19b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable Partially meets use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 29

Bandfin Shiner

Luxilus zonistius

The bandfin shiner typically occurs

in small- to medium-sized, clear headwater streams of six meters or less in width,

with a rubble-gravel or sand-gravel substrate and no aquatic vegetation. This

species is found primarily in the

Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint rivers

basin, with the Florida population being

at the southern limits of its range

(Gilbert 1992l). The Alabama

populations usually spawn between

March and May with the species being

abundant when encountered (Mettee et

al. 1996). The bandfin shiner is found

only in small tributaries of the

Apalachicola River (Figure 20a).

Of these tributaries, Thompson

Pond sub-basin (WBID #272) does not

meet its designated use classification. Flat

Creek (WBID #487) has partially

impaired water quality and partially

meets its designated use classification.

The remaining sub-basins currently meet

their designated use classifications (Figure

20b).

Figure 20a. Distribution of bandfin shiner.

Figure 20b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Does not meet use

Dr. Byron J. Freeman
30 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Blacktip Shiner

Lythrurus atrapiculus

The blacktip shiner typically inhabits

deep pools of small- to moderate-sized

(2–11 meters wide) streams. The streams

usually are of a moderate gradient with

pools found between stretches of riffles or

runs. While little is known of its life history, the blacktip shiner is probably intolerant of continuous turbidity (Gilbert

1992m). This species, which is at the

southernmost portion of its known range,

has been found in tributaries of the upper

Escambia, Yellow, and Choctawhatchee

rivers (Figure 21a).

The upper Escambia River (WBID

#10C) and the upper Yellow River (WBID

#30) and its tributary, Murder Creek

(WBID #107), currently have some

impairment of water quality. The remaining sub-basins, Big Horse Creek (WBID

#28) and East Pittman Creek (WBID

#55), fully meet their designated use classifications (Figure 21b). There was no current water quality data for Mill Creek

(WBID #110), Hurricane Creek (WBID

#63), or Crooked Creek (WBID #404).

Figure 21a. Distribution of blacktip shiner.

Figure 21b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 31

Suwannee Bass

Micropterus notius

The Suwannee bass occurs in

limestone shoal areas with a moderate to

swift current. The species range is almost

entirely within Florida in the Ochlockonee

River and Suwannee River basins. The preferred habitat of the Suwannee bass is

moving water with some vegetation

(Gilbert 1978). The GFC conducted an

extensive survey of panhandle rivers

between 1990 and 1993 to determine the

range of Suwannee bass populations in

Florida (Rich Cailteux, personal communication). Suwannee bass were routinely collected around rocks and other cover with

minimal or no vegetation. A new

collection of a Suwannee bass was

documented from the Wacissa River in

1995. It is not known if this new

collection is due to an introduction into

the Wacissa River. Because of the sporting

quality of this species, it is susceptible to

being introduced into other rivers. Figure

22a shows the current range of Suwannee

bass in Florida.

The middle Suwannee River (WBID

#3341 and WBID #3422B),

Withlacoochee (N) River (WBID #3315),

lower Santa Fe River (WBID #3605A),

upper Ochlockonee River (WBID #129F),

and Ochlockonee River below Lake

Talquin (WBID #1297B) sub-basins have

some impairment of water quality and they

partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 22b). While the upper

Santa Fe River (WBID #3605D) currently

meets its designated use classification, the

10-year trend analysis indicates that this

sub-basin has a declining trend. The

remaining sub-basins containing Suwannee

bass are either stable or improving over the

past 10 years.

Figure 22a. Distribution of Suwannee bass.

Figure 22b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

George Burgess
32 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Shoal Bass

Micropterus n. sp. cf coosae

The shoal bass is restricted to large

riverine shoals of the main stem rivers and

large creeks in the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint rivers basin.

Spawning usually occurs from April

through June with beds in eddies adjacent

to shoal areas (Gilbert 1992n). The shoal

bass is similar to, and often confused with,

the redeye bass (Micropterus coosae). In

Florida, the shoal bass subspecies only

occurs within the limestone shoal areas of

the Chipola River (WBID #51D and

WBID #51E) and the shoal area in the

Apalachicola River below the Jim

Woodruff Dam (WBID #375H) as shown

in Figure 23a. The streams in these subbasins currently meet their designated use

classifications, and water quality has shown

an improving 10-year trend in the Chipola

Figure 23a. Distribution of shoal bass. River sub-basin (Figure 23b).

Figure 23b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 33

River Redhorse

Moxostoma carinatum

The river redhorse is normally

confined to large rivers, primarily those

with substantial flow or current. The river

redhorse is intolerant of pollutants,

sedimentation, and modification of its preferred sand-gravel bottom habitat. The

main food sources of the river redhorse are

insect larvae and molluscs which are

susceptible to excess nutrients and

sedimentation. Marked declines in river

redhorse populations have occurred in disturbed or polluted areas near cities and

heavily farmed areas (Gilbert and Snelson

Jr. 1992a). Spawning appears to occur in

mid-April depending upon water temperature. In Florida, the river redhorse is confined to the Escambia River basin (Figure

24a), the southeastern extent of its known

range (Gilbert and Snelson Jr. 1992a). The

Escambia River sub-basins containing the

river redhorse have partially impaired water

quality and partially meet their designated

use classifications (Figure 24b), with the

exception of the middle reach of the

Escambia River which fully meets its designated use classification (WBID #10A).

Figure 24a. Distribution of river redhorse.

Figure 24b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Vernon Ogilvie
34 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Grayfin Redhorse

Moxostoma n. sp. cf poecilurum

The grayfin redhorse inhabits a wide

range of stream types in the Apalachicola

basin, but it appears to be most common

in larger tributaries and rivers (Gilbert and

Snelson Jr. 1992b). Spawning has been

reported to occur in March and April in

the Alabama reaches of the Chattahoochee

River (Mettee et al. 1996). It has been

found throughout the Apalachicola River

and in the upper Chipola River (WBID

#51D and WBID #51E) and Merritt’s Mill

Pond sub-basins (WBID #180A) (Figure

25a). Most of the sub-basins where the

grayfin redhorse occurs fully meet their

designated use classifications, with the

exception of the Apalachicola river subbasin (WBID #375D) which partially

meets its designated use classification

Figure 25a. Distribution of grayfin redhorse. (Figure 25b).

Figure 25b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 35

Southern Bluehead Chub

Nocomis leptocephalus bellicus

The southern bluehead chub prefers

small- to medium-sized, generally weedless

streams 3 to 15 meters wide, and avoids

larger streams and rivers and extreme headwaters. Most of the clear streams it inhabits have a sand, gravel, and rubble bottom

which is needed to build their domed

stone nests. The species is at the southeastern extent of its known range. The southern bluehead chub is presumed to have

been introduced, as previously discussed,

into Florida from the Mobile basin

(Gilbert 1992o). This species is currently

limited to tributaries of the Escambia River

(Figure 26a). It has expanded from its previously published occurrences in Canoe

Creek (WBID #7) and Moore Creek

(WBID #111) to Pritchett Mill Branch

(WBID #9), upper Escambia River

(WBID #10C), Big Escambia Creek

(WBID #10), and Holly Creek (WBID

#74). Pritchett Mill Branch sub-basin does

not meet its designated use classification,

while the remaining sub-basins partially

meet their designated use classifications

(Figure 26b).

Figure 26a. Distribution of southern bluehead chub.

Figure 26b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Partially meets use

Does not meet use

Gray Bass
36 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Rough Shiner

Notropis baileyi

The rough shiner occurs in small- to

medium-sized (usually 2–5 meters wide),

wooded, moderate to high-gradient

streams with clear water. The species is at

the southeastern extent of its known range.

It also is presumed to have been

introduced into Florida from the Mobile

basin (Gilbert 1992p). The rough shiner

has been reported to be very successful due

to high reproductive capacity, extended

spawning season, and variable feeding

habits (Mettee et al. 1996). The species is

currently limited to tributaries of the

Escambia River (Figure 27a). It has

expanded from its previously published

occurrences in Canoe Creek (WBID #7)

and Moore Creek (WBID #111) to

Pritchett Mill Branch (WBID #9), Big

Escambia Creek (WBID #10), and Holly

Creek (WBID #74). Pritchett Mill Branch

does not meet its designated use classification, while Canoe Creek, Big Escambia

Creek, Holly Creek, and Moore Creek

have partially impaired water quality and

partially meet their designated use classifications (Figure 27b).

Figure 27a. Distribution of rough shiner.

Figure 27b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Partially meets use

Does not meet use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 37

Blackmouth Shiner

Notropis melanostomus

The blackmouth shiner has a narrow

range of habitat to which it is apparently

confined at all times. It is found in rather

shallow backwater pools (1m depth) connected to the main stream, but in which

no flow is present. The blackmouth shiner’s habitat is specific to steeply sloped

shorelines where pond cypress and Atlantic

white cedar are present (Bortone and

Gilbert 1992). Figure 28a indicates the

sub-basins where the blackmouth shiner

has occurred. Bortone (1993) conducted

an intensive survey of the Escambia and

Yellow river basins in an attempt to locate

additional populations of the blackmouth

shiner, but found specimens only from the

lower Pond Creek sub-basin (WBID #176)

and lower Blackwater River drainage

(WBID #24A and WBID #24B). Bortone

(1993) was unable to locate populations

within the Shoal River (WBID #160)

drainage from which populations of the

blackmouth shiner had previously been

reported. It is unknown if this was a

misidentification or if the species has been

extirpated from this sub-basin.

The sub-basins of the lower

Blackwater River currently have partially

impaired water quality. However, they are

showing an improvement in their 10-year

trend (Figure 28b). Pond Creek and the

Shoal River fully meet their designated use

classification and have a stable 10-year

trend.

Figure 28a. Distribution of blackmouth shiner.

Figure 28b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Gray Bass
38 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Southern (=Florida) Logperch

Percina austroperca (= n. sp. cf

caprodes)

The southern logperch is found in

rivers and large creeks having a substrate of

clean sand and gravel. This species is

endemic to the river basins in the western

panhandle of Florida and southeastern

Alabama (Gilbert 1992q). The Florida

occurrence records show that the southern

logperch is restricted to the Escambia River

and Choctawhatchee River basins (Figure

29a).

Most of sub-basins in the Escambia

River basin have some impairment of

water quality, but are showing a stable 10-

year trend (Figure 29b). The

Choctawhatchee River sub-basins generally

meet their designated use classifications,

with the exception of the upper

Choctawhatchee River sub-basins (WBID

#49 and WBID #49F) which have some

impairment of water quality. The majority

of the Choctawhatchee River sub-basins

containing the southern logperch have

shown either an improving or stable 10-

year trend.

Figure 29a. Distribution of southern (=Florida) logperch.

Figure 29b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Gray Bass
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 39

Saddleback Darter

Percina vigil

The saddleback darter typically occupies shallow riffles with moderate current

in large creeks and rivers, usually over a

substrate of sand and gravel. This species

ranges from Louisiana to the eastern portion of the Mobile basin with the

Escambia River drainage being the only

basin in Florida in which it has been collected (Gilbert and Yerger 1992d).

Spawning occurs from late February to

April with eggs being deposited in sand

and gravel areas (Mettee et al. 1996). The

limited occurrence records for the saddleback darter are from the upper portion of

the Escambia River basin (Figure 30a).

Mitchell Creek (WBID #71) fully

meets its designated use classification,

while Canoe Creek (WBID #7), Big

Escambia Creek (WBID #10), and the

upper Escambia River (WBID #10C) have

some impairment of water quality and partially meet their designated use classification (Figure 30b). Both the Canoe Creek

and upper Escambia River sub-basins have

a stable 10-year trend.

Figure 30a. Distribution of saddleback darter.

Figure 30b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Gray Bass
40 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Bluenose Shiner

Pteronotropis welaka

The bluenose shiner inhabits quiet,

often weedy waters, with most of the

adults being found in deep pools and holes

of streams. The species has two disjunct

distributions within Florida, one in the St.

Johns River basin and the other in the

western panhandle, with no known occurrences between the St. Johns and

Apalachicola rivers (Gilbert 1992r). Figure

31a shows the sub-basins where the

bluenose shiner has been observed.

Within the St. Johns River basin, the

Oklawaha River sub-basins (WBID

#2740A–WBID #2740C) and Ninemile

Creek (WBID #2918B) have some impairment of water quality (Figure 31b). The

sub-basin of the Oklawaha River below

Rodman reservoir (WBID #2740A) is

showing a degrading 10-year trend. The

remaining sub-basins in the St. Johns River

(WBID #2213N), Lake George (WBID

#2893A), Alexander Springs (WBID

#2918A), and Wekiva River (WBID

#2956A) currently meet their designated

use classifications and show a stable 10-

year trend. Panhandle sub-basins that contain populations of the bluenose shiner

predominantly have water quality that

meets designated use classifications.

However, the sub-basins in the Escambia

River (WBID #10C and WBID #10D),

Canoe Creek (WBID #7), Pine Barren

Creek (WBID #5), and Little Pine Barren

Creek (WBID #87), and two sub-basins in

the Yellow River (WBID #30 and WBID

#3030A), have some impairment of water

quality and partially meet their designated

use classifications. Most of the sub-basins

in the panhandle show an improving or

stable 10-year trend.

Figure 31a. Distribution of bluenose shiner.

Figure 31b. Watershed water quality status.

Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Degrading

Fully meets use

Partially meets use

Patrick E. O’Neil
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 41

ranked scores between 7 and 14. The lower Chipola

River, St. Johns River, and the upper Suwannee River

are the exceptions. The lower Chipola River has a low

ranking (score = 1–2). The lower St. Johns has a

medium-low ranking (score = 3–6) up to the confluence of the Oklawaha River where it has a medium

ranked score. The St. Johns above Lake George

(medium rank) then goes to a low ranking. The

upper Suwannee River has a low ranking above its

confluence with the Withlacoochee (N) river. The

smaller tributaries, streams, estuaries, and minor

rivers typically have medium-low to low rankings.

STATUS OF WATER QUALITY IN SUB-BASINS WITH

RARE OR IMPERILED STREAM FISHES

Of the 259 sub-basins containing rare or imperiled fish species, five currently do not meet their designated use classification. Pritchett Mill Branch

sub-basin (WBID #9), which has a medium-low

ranking (score = 6), is the only Escambia River subbasin that does not meet its designated use classification. Thompson Pond sub-basin (WBID #272) in

the upper Apalachicola-Chattahoochee river basin has

a medium-low ranking (score = 3) and currently does

not meet its designated use classification. Alligator

Creek (WBID #2153) in the Nassau River basin has

a low ranking (score = 1) and currently does not meet

its designated use classification. Spruce Creek (WBID

#2674) in Volusia County with a medium-low rank

(score = 3), and Crane Creek (WBID #3085) in

Brevard County with a medium-low rank (score = 3),

currently do not meet their designated use classifications. Although these sub-basins have medium-low to

low ranks, all contain species that are limited in distribution in Florida. Spruce and Crane creeks contain

some of the only Florida observations of the mountain mullet. Samples of largemouth bass tissues from

the main stem sub-basins of the Escambia,

Blackwater, Yellow, Choctawhatchee, Chipola,

Withlacoochee (N), Suwannee, Santa Fe, and

Oklawaha rivers and Econfina Creek have elevated

levels of mercury which has resulted in mercury

health advisories for fish consumption on these river

systems. Research is continuing throughout Florida

to determine areas that have elevated levels of

mercury due to anthropogenic inputs and those areas

that naturally have high mercury levels (DEP 1996).

In addition, 78 of the 259 sub-basins with rare

or imperiled fish species have some impairment of

water quality or partially meet their designated use

classifications. Of the sub-basins that partially meet

their designated use classifications, the Nassau River

sub-basin (WBID #2148B), Oklawaha River subSPECIES RICHNESS BY WATERSHED

The individual species distribution maps were

combined into a single statewide map depicting the

number of rare and imperiled fish species that occur

in each sub-basin (Figure 32). The Escambia River

basin contains the highest number of rare and imperiled fish species, with the upper Escambia River

(WBID #10C) containing fourteen species within the

19,500 acre sub-basin. The Escambia River sub-basin

at State Road 184 (WBID #10D) contains 12

species, with the upstream Escambia River (WBID

#10A) and Canoe Creek (WBID #7) sub-basins each

containing seven species, and Big Escambia Creek

(WBID #10) containing six species. Big Escambia

Creek may contain seven species, if the crystal darter

is found above its currently observed site in the lower

portion of Big Escambia Creek near the Escambia

River. The Apalachicola River basin and the

Choctawhatchee River-Holmes Creek basins contain

the next highest numbers of rare and imperiled fish

species. The remaining sub-basins in the identified

river basins contain one to four rare and imperiled

fish species.

SUB-BASIN RANKINGS BASED ON SPECIES RARITY

Statewide sub-basin rarity scores ranged from a

low of 1 to a high of 47 (Figure 33). Highest scores

were found in the Escambia River basin. The upper

(WBID #10C) and the middle (WBID #10D) reaches of the Escambia River contained the highest ranks

in the state with scores of 47 and 39, respectively.

Two reaches (WBID #10A and WBID #10B)

between the upper and middle reaches of the

Escambia River, the lower reach (WBID #10E) of the

Escambia River, Big Escambia Creek (WBID #10),

and Canoe Creek (WBID #7) contained mediumhigh rankings with scores between 15 and 25.

Sub-basins along the main stem of the upper

Apalachicola River also have medium-high ranking.

The sub-basin immediately below Jim Woodruff

Dam (WBID #375H) ranked highest (score = 20)

within the Apalachicola River basin. This sub-basin

contains the remnants of rock shoals which are

important habitat for several of the species which

occur in this reach. Both sub-basins (WBID #375G

and WBID #375H) have been subject to extensive

riverbed degradation and habitat loss due to the construction of Jim Woodruff dam and the federal navigation project.

Main stems of most of the major rivers in the

state and major tributary streams had medium
42 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Figure 32. Number of imperiled species of fishes in watersheds.

1–2

3–4

5–7

8–14

Number of Species
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 43

Figure 33. Watersheds ranked by rarity of fishes.

Low (1–2 score)

Medium-low (3–6 score)

Medium (7–14 score)

Medium-high (15–25 score)

Ranked Watersheds

High (26–47 score)
44 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

basin (WBID #2740A) below Rodman Reservoir,

Spruce Creek sub-basin (WBID #2674), and the

Palatlakaha River sub-basin (WBID #2839) are

showing a trend of continued degradation according

to the 10-year trend analysis. The upper Santa Fe

River sub-basin (WBID #3605D), while currently

meeting its designated use classification, also shows a

degrading 10-year trend. Water quality sampling in

42 sub-basins with rare or listed fish species has been

insufficient to determine trends, evaluate compliance

with water quality standards, or to determine if they

meet their designated use classifications. The 126

sub-basins that do not meet or partially meet their

designated use classification, have a degrading trend,

or have insufficient water quality data for use or

trend evaluation are considered Sub-basins of

Management Concern (Figure 34).

Many of the 126 Sub-basins of Management

Concern are located in water bodies that have

Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) designations.

These water bodies are the Blackwater, Shoal,

Choctawhatchee, Chipola, Apalachicola,

Ochlockonee, Aucilla, Suwannee, Santa Fe, and

Oklawaha rivers; Upper Black Creek; Spruce Creek;

and the Yellow River marsh. OFWs are afforded the

state’s highest water quality protection with the goal

of no degradation of water quality, other than specifically allowed in DEP Rule 62-4.242(2) and (3), and

DEP Rule 62-302.700, Florida Administrative Code.

SUB-BASINS OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN

Many of the problems associated with the

impairment and degradation of water quality can, in

part, be attributed to land use practices and alteration

of upland habitats within the watershed. Each watershed has its own topographic, soil, vegetative

community, and land use characteristics which affect

the aquatic environment and which may require areaspecific management attention. DEP has, through

the Section 305b report (DEP 1996), evaluated various water quality parameters and determined that

many sub-basins show water quality impairment. In

some cases specific water quality parameters that

indicate impairment are closely associated with specific land uses or land use activities. Water quality

impairment and land use can be used as primary filters to identify where further watershed or basin

assessments or some form of active land management

should occur.

Individual water quality parameters may have

differing effects on the fish species of this study, but

the effects of changes in water quality are more pronounced on juveniles, spawning habitat, and food

organisms. The following summarizes the effects of

the changes in major water quality parameters on

fish, fish food sources, and fish habitats (Lagler 1956,

Mackenthun 1969, Welch and Lindell 1980,

Welcomme 1985). Additional or more detailed information on water quality effects on aquatic organisms

can be found in most limnology and fishery

textbooks.

Most of the fish species of this study that are

found in small streams or tributaries do not survive

in highly turbid or sediment laden water. Such waters

are characterized by depressed dissolved oxygen levels

and increased temperatures. High turbidity can also

lead to physiological problems like clogging of gills,

and may result in the physical smothering of

preferred food sources, suitable spawning habitats, or

eggs. While fish species typically found in the main

stems of rivers are able to tolerate periods of highly

turbid water, sediments carried in the water may lead

to the physical smothering of preferred food sources,

smothering or alteration of suitable spawning habitat,

smothering of eggs, and increases in water temperature.

Changes in nutrient levels can affect fish in several indirect ways. Increased nutrients can stimulate

plant and algae growth, which in turn can alter the

composition of the invertebrate food supply, type of

aquatic plants, and aquatic habitat. In some areas elevated nutrient levels result in a corresponding

increase in blue-green algae, nuisance aquatic plants

like hydrilla, and plant or detrital biomass. Increased

nutrients can cause increased biological or chemical

oxygen demand which decreases dissolved oxygen levels. Low dissolved oxygen levels can affect the viability of eggs and the metabolism of fish. Very low

dissolved oxygen levels can result in fish kills and dieoffs of molluscs that are the food sources of several of

the fish species in this study.

The following sections discuss the Sub-basins of

Management Concern within each river basin to

identify water quality constituents that are elevated,

known connections between specific land uses within

the basins and water quality conditions, and specific

threats to rare or listed fish species and their habitats.

Escambia River Basin

Alabama shad, alligator gar, southern bluehead

chub, harlequin darter, river redhorse, saddleback

darter, gulf sturgeon, bluenose shiner, blacktip shiner,

crystal darter, cypress darter, cypress minnow, Florida
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 45

Figure 34. Sub-basins of Management Concern.

Sub-basins of Management Concern
46 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

chub, southern logperch, goldstripe darter, rough

shiner, southern striped shiner, and starhead topminnow have been observed in the Escambia River Subbasins of Management Concern. The Canoe Creek

(WBID #7), Pritchett Mill Branch (WBID #9), and

Pine Barren Creek (WBID #5) sub-basins have

elevated turbidity, sedimentation, and pesticide levels

due to runoff from agricultural lands and dirt-roads

(DEP 1996). These sub-basins also have shown

impairment in the benthic invertebrate community

which the DEP-Northwest District attributed to erosion from dirt roads and to runoff from dairy and

hog farms (Donald Ray, personal communication).

Moore Creek (WBID #111) and Holly Creek

(WBID #74) sub-basins have experienced such severe

sedimentation that parts of the stream channels have

been filled in by sediments eroding from agricultural

lands (DEP 1996). The majority of the streams and

rivers in the Escambia River basin Sub-basins of

Management Concern show changes in nutrient, sediment, and bacterial levels, and habitat modification.

Big Escambia Creek and the eastern portion of the

lower Escambia River sub-basins were identified as

high priorities for additional watershed studies and

corrective action due to non-point source loadings, in

particular, sediments and nutrients from silviculture,

agriculture, and unpaved roads (Northwest Florida

Water Management District [NWFWMD] 1994).

These and several other sub-basins in the Escambia

River basin were identified as priorities for developing non-point source management plans due to their

sediment and non-point source pollutant

contributions into the Escambia River and Pensacola

Bay System (NWFWMD 1994). The U.S. Natural

Resources Conservation Service is developing

management plans for the Canoe Creek sub-basin

(DEP 1996). Much of the agricultural land in the

upper part of the Escambia River basin has changed

from soybean to cotton production (Gray Bass, personal communication). However, it is uncertain if

this will change the amounts of runoff and non-point

source loadings that have been observed in those subbasins. DEP (1996) reported that the pesticide

guthion is being replaced by malathion as the primary pesticide for use on cotton fields in Santa Rosa

County due to several fish kills that occurred after

aerial spraying.

Blackwater and Yellow River Basins

Alabama shad, gulf sturgeon, blackmouth shiner,

bluenose shiner, blacktip shiner, and Florida chub

have been observed in the Blackwater and Yellow

River Sub-basins of Management Concern. The

majority of the land within these areas is in silvicultural or agricultural use. While urban areas within the

two basins are limited, agricultural and silvicultural

runoff and wastewater discharge from the cities of

Milton and Crestview enter the creeks and tributaries

that join with the Blackwater and Yellow rivers (DEP

1996). Benthic invertebrate surveys indicate that

Collins Mill Creek (Blackwater River WBID #24a) is

impaired due to urban runoff from Milton and

upstream impoundments (Donald Ray, personal

communication). This sub-basin has been reported to

have partial water quality impairment due to

sedimentation, oils, and flow modifications (DEP

1996). The lower Blackwater River (WBID #24b)

has received increased nutrients, bacterial levels, oils,

and sedimentation due primarily to the U.S. Navy’s

Whiting Field wastewater plant (DEP 1996). The

NWFWMD (1994) concluded that nutrient and suspended solids loadings may be elevated in the

Blackwater River basin due to agricultural land use,

agricultural management practices, and local soil and

topographic conditions. They recommended further

site specific studies in this basin. The upper Yellow

River Sub-basins of Management Concern receive

agricultural runoff, the apparent cause of the water

quality impairment (DEP 1996). The Yellow River

basin was also identified as a priority for detailed

basin assessments due to non-point source loadings

from agriculture and urban development

(NWFWMD 1994).

Choctawhatchee River and Bay Basins

Alabama shad, alligator gar, gulf sturgeon,

bluenose shiner, blacktip shiner, cypress darter,

Florida chub, southern logperch, goldstripe darter,

Okaloosa darter, and river goby have been observed

in the Choctawhatchee River and Bay Sub-basins of

Management Concern. The Choctawhatchee River

Sub-basins of Management Concern are

predominantly in silvicultural use (28%) and vegetated by wetland/bottomland hardwood communities

(33.4%). The upper sub-basins receive agricultural

runoff and domestic and industrial wastewater

discharges from Alabama. They also have received

sedimentation and other non-point pollutants from

runoff originating from silvicultural lands and dirt

roads within Florida. There is a lack of current water

quality data for the upper Choctawhatchee River.

However, discharges from hog and livestock farms

have been reported for several creeks and tributaries

in the upper basin (DEP 1996). The Bruce Creek

sub-basin (WBID #343) has sedimentation problems

stemming from non-point source runoff and nutrient
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 47

and bacterial problems due to discharges from the the

City of Defuniak Springs wastewater treatment plant

(DEP 1996).

The Choctawhatchee Bay Sub-basins of

Management Concern are more urbanized (30.3%)

than the upstream Sub-basins of Management

Concern due to the Fort Walton Beach area and the

city of Niceville. The northwestern portion of the

bay’s Sub-basins of Management Concern are part of

Eglin Air Force Base and are dominated by pineland

and sandhills (41.3%). Land management activities

at Eglin have increased non-point source runoff

which has resulted in increased sedimentation into

some of the creeks. The city of Niceville’s wastewater

treatment facility has caused increases in total nitrogen in the Turkey Creek sub-basin (DEP 1996).

Sediments near the mouth of Boggy Bayou (WBID

#692) were found to have high levels of lead, silver,

several pesticides, and aromatic hydrocarbons (DEP

1996).

Chipola River and Apalachicola River and Bay

Basins

Alabama shad, gulf sturgeon, bandfin shiner,

bluenose shiner, grayfin redhorse, and goldstripe

darter have been observed in the Chipola River and

Apalachicola River and Bay Sub-basins of

Management Concern. The Apalachicola River and

Bay basin is subject to flow and channel modification

due to water management activities of the Corps of

Engineers. During the summer months, modified

flows to permit navigation on the river can produce

substantial differences in flow velocities, water

volumes, and river stage. Channel modifications have

resulted in the removal of important rock habitat and

smothering of additional habitat.

The upper Apalachicola River Sub-basins of

Management Concern are characterized as having

steep slopes along the stream banks. Many of the

sub-basin streams are unique geological features

called steepheads, which form from groundwater

seepage flow from the bases of sand ridges as opposed

to flowing over the soil surface. Because of the steep

slopes associated with these sub-basins, non-point

source pollution and sedimentation from agriculture

and silviculture can quickly degrade steephead

streams. Mosquito Creek (WBID #386), Flat Creek

(WBID #487), and Sweetwater Creek (WBID #728)

have elevated turbidity, suspended solids, and bacterial levels. The Mosquito Creek problems are due in

part to discharges from the city of Chattahoochee

and the Florida State Hospital. Recent analysis suggests that nutrient enrichment is occurring in the

sub-basin (DEP 1996).

The lower Apalachicola River and the Chipola

River Sub-basins of Management Concern do not

have steep slopes like those in the sub-basins found in

the upper Apalachicola basin. The lower river subbasins have broad floodplains characterized by

bottomland hardwood forests and cypress and bay

swamps. Where the uplands start, pinelands and

hardwood hammocks are the primary land cover.

Silviculture is the main source of non-point source

pollution and sedimentation into these sub-basins.

Silvicultural clear-cuts of the bottomland hardwood

forests have caused turbidity violations in several subbasins (DEP 1996). Agricultural runoff has

contributed to the eutrophication of the Dead LakesChipola River (WBID #51A) sub-basin (DEP 1996).

Ochlockonee River Basin

Alabama shad, gulf sturgeon, and Suwannee bass

have been observed in the Ochlockonee River Subbasins of Management Concern. The upper sub-basin

(WBID #1297F) receives high turbidity waters and

increased sedimentation due to agricultural runoff in

Georgia and has elevated levels of bacteria and nutrients from upstream point sources (DEP 1996).

Agricultural and silvicultural practices and impoundments within the upper basin are contributing to

increased turbidity and sedimentation (DEP 1996).

The middle reach sub-basin immediately below the

Lake Talquin dam (WBID #1297B) has shown elevated levels of copper at concentrations known to be

chronically toxic. Road maintenance has also

contributed high levels of sediment and increased

turbidity and bacterial levels in Caney and Pine

creeks within this sub-basin (DEP 1996).

Aucilla and Econfina-Fenholloway River Basins

Blackbanded sunfish have been observed in the

Aucilla River and Econfina-Fenholloway River Subbasins of Management Concern. The upper Aucilla

River and the Econfina River are typically swampy

with low flows, low dissolved oxygen, and naturally

acidic waters. Both rivers are surrounded by silvicultural and agricultural land uses. DEP reported nutrient, sediment, and turbidity as the major water

quality parameters of concern in the upper Aucilla

River. The Econfina River partially meets water quality standards for bacterial levels and does not meet

standards for metals, specifically cadmium. Timber
48 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

companies in the river basins are working to correct

past hydrologic alterations to restore much of the

area’s natural flow patterns (DEP 1996).

Withlacoochee River (N), Suwannee River, and

Santa Fe River Basins

Alabama shad, gulf sturgeon, blackbanded sunfish, mountain mullet, and Suwannee bass have been

observed in the Withlacoochee River (N), Suwannee

River, and Santa Fe River Sub-basins of Management

Concern. The Withlacoochee River (N) and the

upper Suwannee River share similar features and

land-cover patterns. The major vegetation type in

these Sub-basins of Management Concern in both

the Withlacoochee and upper Suwannee is pinelands.

However, the rivers differ with respect to the potential causes of water quality impairment. The

Withlacoochee River (N) receives predominantly

agricultural runoff and the discharges from upstream

municipal, industrial, and agricultural sources in

Georgia. The upper Suwannee sub-basins, in particular the Roaring Creek sub-basin (WBID #3392), are

primarily impacted by phosphate mining operations.

The original Roaring Creek stream channel has been

mined for phosphate, and a new channel was created

(DEP 1996). Most of the soils in the lower Suwannee

River basin are well drained which allows runoff to

percolate through the soil rather than drain directly

into the streams and rivers. The lower Suwannee

River basin has seen an increase in dairy farms and

other agricultural operations which have contributed

to concern over groundwater quality. The primary

discharger into the lower Suwannee is the Gold Kist

poultry processing plant (DEP 1996). Some of the

nutrient, bacteria, and turbidity problems within the

Santa Fe River (WBID #3605D) are probably due, in

part, to cattle farming (DEP 1996). Downstream of

this sub-basin the river goes underground at O’Leno

State Park and rises after about 3 miles. At the confluence of the Santa Fe River and the Suwannee

River, there appears to be minimal surface water

runoff into the streams and creeks. However, preliminary testing indicates a strong potential for increased

nitrates in the groundwater and springs from the surrounding dairy farms (DEP 1996).

St. Marys and Nassau River Basins

Blueback herring and blackbanded sunfish have

been observed in the St. Marys River and Nassau

River Sub-basins of Management Concern. Both

rivers drain forests and wetlands and have naturally

low levels of dissolved oxygen and high color and

acidity. The majority of both river basins are relatively undeveloped with silviculture being the dominant

land use. The Alligator Creek/Mills Creek watersheds

(WBID #2153) are moderately impaired due to

nutrients from septic tanks, dairies, and urban activities. Wastewater effluent from the town of Callahan

also contributes to the nutrient problems of Alligator

Creek (DEP 1996).

Oklawaha River and St. Johns River Basins

Blueback herring, blackbanded sunfish, bluenose

shiner, river goby, shortnose sturgeon, and tessellated

darter have been observed from the Oklawaha River

and St. Johns River Sub-basins of Management

Concern. Agriculture and silviculture are the main

land use activities within the Orange Lake (WBID

#2747) and Orange Creek (WBID #2749) sub-basins

of the Oklawaha River. These sub-basins have shown

problems with dissolved oxygen, bacteria, and various

metals (DEP 1996). The Palatlakaha River (WBID

#2839) and Oklawaha River (WBID #2740A) subbasins have shown degrading trends in nutrients, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen which may be due, in

part, to agricultural activities throughout both subbasins (DEP 1996). Water quality in the upper St.

Johns River Sub-basins of Management Concern has

suffered primarily due to nutrients, low dissolved

oxygen, and turbidity from wastewater treatment

plant effluent. Many of the smaller wastewater treatment plants have been connected to larger regional

plants. This has resulted in decreases in direct effluent

discharge to the river and an improvement in much

of the area (DEP 1996). The majority of the water

quality problems in the lower St. Johns River Subbasins of Management Concern are the result of

municipal and industrial point source discharges. The

lower St. Johns River is one of the state’s most industrialized areas. Increased nutrients, sedimentation,

and metals, and low dissolved oxygen have been

reported in the majority of the sub-basins (DEP

1996). The Black Creek sub-basins (WBID #2415)

are showing problems with dissolved oxygen and

metals as a result of urban and agricultural runoff

(DEP 1996).

Upper East Coast, Middle East Coast, and South

Indian River Basins

Mountain mullet has been reported from the

Upper East Coast, Middle East Coast, and South

Indian River Sub-basins of Management Concern

with the exception of the Sebastian River sub-basin

(WBID #3129B). River goby has only been reported

from the Sebastian River Sub-basin of Management

Concern in this area. Water quality and turbidity
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 49

within Spruce Creek (WBID #2674), Upper East

Coast Basin, is substantially affected by agricultural

runoff, which has resulted in a degrading trend over

the past 10 years (DEP 1996). In the Middle East

Coast Basin high nutrient levels have been found in

the upper Mosquito Lagoon sub-basin (WBID

#2924B), probably due to the number of septic tanks

within the sparse urban areas adjacent to the

National Seashore. In the past, Crane Creek (WBID

#3085) was significantly impacted by two of the city

of Melbourne’s wastewater treatment plant

discharges, but these discharges have now been

removed from Crane Creek (DEP 1996). The South

Indian River basin contains the Sebastian River

(WBID #3129B) and the Belcher Canal (WBID

#3163) Sub-basins of Management Concern. The

Sebastian River sub-basin has many dairy farms and

rangelands, the runoff from which has led to elevated

bacterial and nutrient levels and low dissolved oxygen

(DEP 1996). Drainage from orange groves,

grasslands, and urban areas delivers elevated nutrients

and excess fresh water to the estuarine areas in the

Belcher Canal sub-basin (DEP 1996).

IMPORTANT HABITAT AND PUBLIC LAND OWNERSHIP

WITHIN SUB-BASINS CONTAINING RARE OR

IMPERILED STREAM FISHES

The Florida Natural Areas Inventory has identified 300,057 acres, or 7.3% of the total acreage within sub-basins containing rare or imperiled fish

species, as being areas of conservation interest or

potential natural areas. These areas contain

documented occurrences of rare or imperiled species

or outstanding examples or populations of animals,

plants, or natural communities. The GFC identified

478,671 acres, or 11.7% of the total acreage within

sub-basins containing rare or imperiled fish species as

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas for various

upland species or plant communities.

Similar percentages of areas of conservation interest, potential natural areas, and Strategic Habitat

Conservation Areas can be found in the Sub-basins of

Management Concern. Of the 2,169,549 acres contained in Sub-basins of Management Concern, only

6%, or 136,759 acres, have been identified as areas of

conservation interest and potential natural areas.

Eight percent, or 177,425 acres, of Sub-basins of

Management Concern has been identified as Strategic

Habitat Conservation Areas. The Sub-basins of

Management Concern west of the Suwannee River

basin contain the majority of the areas of

conservation interest, potential natural areas, and

Strategic Habitat Conservation Areas. A portion, but

not all, of the areas of conservation interest, potential

natural areas, and Strategic Habitat Conservation

Areas are contained on lands identified for

acquisition by the state.

The total area of all sub-basins containing rare or

listed fish species is 4,099,243 acres. The total area of

the sub-basins that is in public ownership is 832,255

acres. Thus, 20.3% of all sub-basins containing rare

or imperiled fishes is in public ownership. Total

length of rivers and streams within the sub-basins

containing rare or imperiled fish species is 8,485 linear miles, of which 2,546 miles are within public or

conservation lands. The remaining 5,939 river and

stream miles are not within public or conservation

lands and are subject to the effects of the surrounding

land use practices within the watershed.

Figure 35 shows that most of the public lands

within the sub-basins are along the floodplains of

major rivers. Few public lands contain important

tributary streams or their sub-basins. Approximately

357,803 acres of land on the state land acquisition

lists (Conservation and Recreation Lands and Save

Our Rivers) are within sub-basins containing rare or

imperiled fish species. Most proposed land

acquisitions are along the main stems of the rivers in

medium to medium-low ranked sub-basins. The percentage of Sub-basins of Management Concern on

public or conservation lands is similar at 19% of the

total acreage. An additional 8%, 169,469 acres, within the Sub-basins of Management Concern is on state

land acquisition lists.
50 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Figure 35. Public lands containing watersheds with rare or imperiled fish species.

Occurrence watersheds on public lands

Public lands

Occurrence watersheds
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 51

BIOGEOGRAPHY

This study identified and ranked the relative

endangerment or rarity of stream fishes within the

geographic boundaries of the state of Florida. Many

of Florida’s rarest fishes occur in the panhandle, the

southernmost biogeographic limit of many species.

Many rivers in the panhandle drain inland areas of

temperate North America that have a higher number

of fish species (Swift et al. 1986, Gilbert 1987). The

peninsula of Florida has lower diversity of stream

fishes as a result of its periodic isolation during geologic time when the peninsula was separated from

mainland areas of high faunal diversity, and due to

the relative uniformity of Florida habitats (Burgess

and Franz 1978, Swift et al. 1986, Gilbert 1987).

Therefore, it is not surprising that rivers which

extend into the piedmont or Appalachian plateau

have greater numbers of rare or endangered species,

or, that the number of species within the basins of

individual rivers declines from the panhandle to the

peninsula. The fish community similarities among

Florida river systems and the species that occur within river systems have also been well documented

(Bass 1983, Swift et al. 1986, Gilbert 1987).

DETERMINATION OF STATUS

An issue that has not been resolved is that of

determining the management objectives and needs of

the species evaluated in this report. No standardized

method exists to quantify the threats to or rarity of

the species. The Florida Natural Areas Inventory uses

a scoring method that ranks species based upon population size estimates and occurrences within the state

and globally. However, this methodology has flaws

when applied to fish, since it is difficult to determine

population sizes, and large numbers of individuals

may be present within an entire river system and yet

be subject to considerable threats due to habitat

requirements or pollution incidents. The methods

used by FCREPA, which provide clear definitions,

are more subjective and rely upon collections and

personal observations. Millsap et al. (1990) used a

complex ranking methodology that looked at population size, range, distribution, trends, specialization,

reproductive potential, action variables, and various

supplemental variables. Fisheries professionals, when

asked to rank relative rarity or endangerment, ranked

the species based upon their field knowledge of the

species. For the purposes of this study, we took the

approach of averaging the rarity values of FNAI and

FCREPA, since each methodology was based upon

established practices and procedures. Regardless of

which methodology is used, the rarity or

endangerment of a species is based on how often a

species has been collected, cataloged in museums, or

observed by ichthyologists and fisheries professionals;

or it is based on knowledge of a species habitat

requirements, tolerance of pollutants, and threats to

its habitat.

GIS DATA NEEDS AND APPLICATIONS

Obtaining occurrence records from museum collections and from state fishery professionals is the

first step in developing a picture of a species range

and distribution. Unfortunately, occurrence records

often contain imprecise information on sample locations. Many collection records are identified only by

section, township, and range. Location descriptions,

such as at the bridge crossing of a specific road or so

many miles from a given location, also are common.

Few records provide accurate latitude and longitude

coordinates useful in creating a GIS database.

However, museum curators are starting the process of

ascertaining latitude and longitude coordinates for

most of their collections. State fishery professionals

are also beginning to use GPS in their routine sampling and reporting. This study has demonstrated one

method of converting locational information into

spatially referenced data points. The recording of latitude and longitude on data sheets from routine sampling or for vouchered specimens should become a

standardized practice since the technology exists to

inexpensively determine accurate locations. Once

fish-sampling records are spatially referenced, GIS

technology can be used for large-scale evaluations of

species presence and status to aid in making management decisions.

GIS technology is increasingly being used to link

databases that have been developed by state and federal agencies, university researchers, and private corporations. The use of a uniform base layer, like the

USGS hydrologic unit code, provides an established

link to many of these databases. Further, the delineated hydrologic unit or sub-basin allows an analysis of

activities or conditions within specific areas of the

landscape that affect aquatic resources. The use of the

basin or watershed approach in the analysis of aquatic

resources is increasingly common among researchers

(Angermeier and Bailey 1992, Angermeier 1995,

Meixler et al. 1996, Scott et al. 1996), state agencies

(e.g., Missouri Resource Assessment Program, South

DISCUSSION
52 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Virginia

Fish and Wildlife, Pennsylvania Department of Fish

and Game, Florida Department of Environmental

Protection), and federal agencies (e.g., EPA, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, USGS).

THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY AND

MONITORING

In this study, linking fish occurrence data with

hydrologic unit or sub-basin delineations revealed

that 259 river or stream sub-basins within Florida

contain records of rare or imperiled fishes (Figure

32). Several of the sub-basins were identified as supporting rare or imperiled fishes based on museum

records over 15 years old. The lack of newer

occurrence information may be either an artifact of

some species occurring in habitats that are not

routinely sampled or it may be a true indication of a

species rarity.

Routine sampling of small streams and rivers has

decreased or has been discontinued by government

agencies in the 1990s. Few academic researchers have

conducted basinwide field surveys since the late

1970s and early 1980s. Sub-basins identified as supporting rare or imperiled fishes using only museum

records older than 15 years need to be resurveyed to

determine whether or not the species are still present.

This analysis has indicated a need to conduct

additional field surveys to better understand the current distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of some species. The life histories of most of

the species in this study are not known or have been

poorly documented. Examples of species in need of

additional field surveys to determine population status, life history, or habitat requirements, and to determine if they still occur in Florida, are the crystal

darter, cypress darter, harlequin darter, goldstripe

darter, cypress minnow, bluenose shiner, and river

redhorse.

The 259 sub-basins where rare and imperiled

fishes have been recorded are in need of further

research to identify specific threats to the species so

that conservation or management actions can be

implemented. The majority of the species in this project are intolerant of various pollutants, are vulnerable to habitat degradation, or have limited or isolated

populations. Changes to water quality, flow, or habitat may result in the loss of one or more species from

a sub-basin or, ultimately, a species may be extirpated

from Florida. Periodic monitoring of water quality,

stream habitat structure, and invertebrate

populations, along with surveys for the fish species,

should be undertaken to determine water quality and

biological trends in the sub-basins and to allow corrective action to be taken before significant problems

develop.

Of the 259 identified sub-basins, 126 sub-basins

were found to have water quality that is either

impaired or is degrading (84 sub-basins), or past sampling efforts have been insufficient to allow for a

determination of water quality status (42 sub-basins).

The majority of the 126 Sub-basins of Management

Concern (Figure 34) have sediment, nutrient, or dissolved oxygen problems that may affect rare or

imperiled fishes, and their spawning habitats and

food supplies. Additional monitoring or surveys are

needed to determine the most appropriate

management strategies, which should be followed by

immediate implementation, interagency cooperation,

and coordination with landowners in the basin to

correct problems within the sub-basins. With

additional monitoring, some of the sub-basins may

be eliminated as Sub-basins of Management Concern

if they meet water quality standards, support their

designated uses, have stable or improving trends, or it

is found that some species are more widespread than

previously thought.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Many of the highly ranked Sub-basins of

Management Concern in the panhandle have known

water pollution problems (e.g., sedimentation, excess

turbidity, nutrient enrichment) due to land use practices, steep slopes, and erodible soil (DEP 1994b,

1996; NWFWMD 1994, 1996, 1997). Silvicultural

Best Management Practices (BMPs) suggest the use

of special management zones to protect water quality

and stream-side habitats. These special management

zones, which are buffer zones between forest clearcuts and a stream, range from 11 meters to over 90

meters from a stream bank. A recent study of four

north Florida sites by DEP indicates the silvicultural

BMPs are effective in preventing water quality problems in streams adjacent to lands that are clearcut

(DEP 1997a).

The Northwest Florida Water Management

District, in both the Pensacola Bay System

(NWFWMD 1997) and the Choctawhatchee River

and Bay System (NWFWMD 1996) Surface Water

Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, has

developed project outlines to investigate runoff and

non-point source problems that occur within designated sub-basins of these river systems. An assessment
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 53

of how well all existing BMPs are working to reduce

pollution problems is part of the project outline.

However, sub-basins have not been selected to conduct the assessments.

DEP (1996) has indicated that the U.S. Natural

Resources Conservation Service has projects to

address runoff in the Canoe Creek and Pine Barren

Creek sub-basins of the Escambia River. Some work

has been completed in the Canoe Creek sub-basin,

but substantial work remains uncompleted. An assessment of the effectiveness of the existing BMPs within

the sub-basins identified as containing rare or imperiled fish species should be a priority in each of the

water management districts’ SWIM plans, DEP’s

Non-point Source and Water Quality Monitoring

programs, and part of U.S. Natural Resources

Conservation Service projects in the panhandle.

However, cooperation with landowners will be necessary for implementation of any recommended

changes in BMPs.

In addition, there is a need to address sedimentation problems that are due to unpaved roads in many

Sub-basins of Management Concern. Interagency

coordination with local governments may provide

site-specific solutions to remedy some of the

sedimentation problems. One solution would be

paving of dirt roads; however, a funding mechanism

for the paving would need to be developed for the

affected counties. DEP has applied for a grant to

work with the counties to develop BMPs for dirt

road maintenance activities as an alternative to

paving. The development of road maintenance BMPs

would start in 1997 or 1998 (Dick Fancher, personal

communication).

LAND ACQUISITION

Since 1975, approximately 2,061,835 acres have

been purchased through the various state land acquisition programs (Doug Bailey, personal communication). The focus of the riverine acquisitions has been

along the main stems and floodplains of the major

rivers of the state plus a few tributary streams.

Through the Save Our Rivers program approximately

849,808 acres has been acquired for public use along

rivers and streams (DEP 1997b). However, the

majority of the tributary streams within the subbasins identified by this project are not currently

being considered for state acquisition. Tributary

streams with sufficient buffer areas adjacent to the

streams should be considered for acquisition, based

upon the sub-basin ranking, by various state and

local government acquisition programs. The use of

conservation easements, with adequate buffers

around streams, could provide an economical alternative to fee-simple acquisition.

REGULATORY MECHANISMS

Several regulatory mechanisms, principally permitting and enforcement procedures, could be

employed to address some of the identified problems

in the Sub-basins of Management Concern. Most of

the Sub-basins of Management Concern have water

quality problems. Water quality problems in a few

sub-basins may be attributable to point source

discharges within Florida and some outside of

Florida. More stringent requirements may be necessary for these dischargers as their permits are

renewed. However, in the majority of the Sub-basins

of Management Concern, loss of wetlands, degradation of stream-side habitat, and non-point source

issues are the primary permitting issues. Often the

permit processor is unaware that a particular rare or

imperiled species may be present within the sub-basin

where a proposed project may occur. This identification of sub-basins containing rare or imperiled

species of fishes should easily provide applicants, permit processors, and permit reviewers with new information for application to proposed or existing

projects.

While regulatory programs routinely focus on

avoiding or minimizing impacts from a proposed or

existing project, they also allow for mitigation. Many

of the Sub-basins of Management Concern could be

targeted for mitigation or restoration projects as a

condition of a wetland use permit. Mitigation

projects could include construction of sediment

basins to contain runoff prior to entering a stream,

physical removal of sediments that have filled in

streams, planting of canopy trees where vegetative

conversion has occurred along the riparian zone, or

enhancement of existing habitat structure within a

river or stream. However, as in most stream restoration projects, without removing the upslope cause of

the problem, the restoration or mitigation will not be

successful (Roper et al. 1997). Restoration or mitigation projects should be designed to benefit the functioning of the entire sub-basin and ecosystem

(Kauffman et al. 1997).

Typically, protection and conservation measures

for streams have been focused on upland land use

and water quality permitting. However, recent

changes to state and federal statutes have highlighted

the need for protection of water flows in rivers and

streams through the establishment of minimum flows
54 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

and levels. While water rights and water issues are

not new, they have been receiving greater attention in

recent years in the eastern United States and in

Florida. The Florida Legislature amended Chapter

373, Florida Statutes, to require the Water

Management Districts to develop and adopt

minimum flows and levels for water bodies throughout the state. In some cases, interstate coordination

will be required to develop minimum flows and levels

as upstream states’ water demands increase, thereby

reducing the flows entering Florida.

Several committees currently are discussing interstate river issues on the Perdido River and in the

Apalachicola and Suwannee river basins. The Florida,

Georgia, and Alabama legislatures and the United

States Congress adopted, in 1997, the ApalachicolaChattahoochee-Flint River Basin Compact. This

compact should lead to the allocation of water

among the three states and the protection of Florida’s

riverine and estuarine resources. The Central and

South Florida canal network is under intense study to

determine changes necessary to ensure that adequate

quantities of water flow to the Everglades during the

appropriate seasons. The Central and South Florida

restudy also will be reviewing flows from canals

throughout the populated areas of South Florida. In

South Florida, the river goby and mountain mullet

are two examples of species that are imperiled due to

hydrologic flow alterations within their known habitats. Increased attention should be given to the subbasins containing rare or imperiled species as each of

the water management districts works to develop criteria for minimum flows and levels.

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING

One of the most important conservation tools

rests with local governments and regional planning

councils. Each local government and regional

planning council is charged, through the Local

Government Comprehensive Planning and Land

Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida

Statutes, to develop land use planning documents

which are the blueprints for growth in areas under

their jurisdiction. Comprehensive land use plans

must take into consideration rare or imperiled species

occurrences and habitat information in determining

where and what type of development will occur.

Development along the rivers or streams identified in

this project should be carefully considered to ensure

that riparian zone habitat is not destroyed or altered

and that additional runoff does not enter the systems.

Further, changes in land use should also be carefully

reviewed within these sub-basins. Degradation of the

streams may not occur at first, but, as sub-basins

develop, stream quality becomes increasingly worse

(Klein 1979).

FUTURE NEEDS

This study addressed rare and imperiled fish

species distributions and sub-basins containing these

species at the macro level. Additional stream habitat

and stream morphology data are needed to refine the

analysis of fish habitat needs at the scale suggested by

the national aquatic gap analysis protocols. However,

substantial field surveys will be required to obtain

this level of detail for statewide analysis. Further work

is also needed to define and identify areas of “quality”

fish assemblages, to determine typical habitat requirements at the community level, and to look at trends

within fish assemblages. Additional analysis is also

needed to compare benthic macro-invertebrate trends

with changes in land use, water quality, fish

occurrences, and the fish community. As Angermeier

and Schlosser (1995) stated, “Species-specific

approaches should be complemented by efforts to

protect distinctive assemblages (defined to include

guilds, communities, landscapes, and biomes), which

provide the ecological and evolutionary context for

populations.”
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 55

• Standardize the criteria used to quantify and

define rare, endangered, and threatened fish species.

• Biologists should routinely record the location

(latitude/longitude) of all field surveys and samples.

• Conduct field surveys to determine fish species

presence and abundance in sub-basins that have not

been sampled in over 15 years.

• Conduct field surveys to better understand the

current distribution, life history, and habitat requirements of rare or imperiled fish species. Crystal darter,

cypress darter, harlequin darter, goldstripe darter,

cypress minnow, bluenose shiner, and river redhorse

are in need of field surveys to determine population

status, life history, habitat requirements, and to determine continued presence in Florida.

• Conduct research to determine the specific

threats to rare or imperiled fish species and their life

histories, and then develop conservation and management actions to reduce or eliminate these threats.

• Periodic monitoring of water quality, stream

habitat structure, and invertebrate populations should

be conducted along with surveys for fishes to determine trends in the sub-basins and to allow corrective

action to be taken before significant problems develop.

• Conduct additional monitoring in Sub-basins of

Management Concern to determine which specific

water quality constituents affect the species, and their

spawning habitats and food supplies. Where applicable, develop and implement an interagency-landowner management strategy to address or correct

identified problems, and, if necessary, determine

acceptable loadings for specific water quality parameters.

• Conduct an assessment of existing silvicultural

and agricultural BMPs within sub-basins containing

rare or imperiled fish species, identify recommended

changes to improve the BMPs, and work with affected landowners and user groups to implement any recommended changes.

• Develop BMPs for dirt road maintenance in

areas identified as having a history of sedimentation

problems from unpaved roads.

• Acquisition of public or private conservation

lands should focus on tributary streams with

sufficient buffer areas along the streams.

• Additional consideration should be given to subbasins containing rare or imperiled fish species by

applicants, permit processors, and permit reviewers

when considering proposed projects or modifications

or renewals to existing projects requiring

environmental resource permits.

• Sub-basins of Management Concern could be

targeted for potential mitigation or restoration

through wetland use permit conditions if a specific

restoration need has been identified.

• Increased attention should be given to sub-basins

containing rare or imperiled fish species in the development of minimum flows and levels criteria by

Florida’s Water Management Districts.

• Additional consideration should be given to subbasins containing rare or imperiled fish species by

local governments in review of their comprehensive

land use plans and in review of proposed land use

changes.

• Future studies are needed to define and identify

areas of “quality” fish assemblages and to assess population trends within these assemblages in order to

identify further research and monitoring needs.

Compare changes in fish assemblages with changes in

land use, water quality, and benthic invertebrate populations, and develop conservation and management

actions to address adverse changes.

RECOMMENDATIONS
56 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Angermeier, P. L. 1995. Ecological attributes of

extinction-prone species: loss of freshwater fishes

of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9(1):143–158.

Angermeier, P. L., and A. Bailey. 1992. Use of

geographic information system in the conservation of rivers in Virginia, USA. Pages 151–160 in

P. J. Boon, P. Calow, and G. E. Petts, editors.

River Conservation and Management. John

Wiley and Sons. New York.

Angermeier, P. L., and I. J. Schlosser. 1995.

Conserving aquatic biodiversity: beyond species

and populations. American Fisheries Society

Symposium 17:402–414.

Barbour, M. T., J. Gerritsen, and J. S. White. 1996.

Development of the stream condition index

(SCI) for Florida. Florida Department of

Environmental Protection, Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Management Section. Tallahassee.

Bass., D. G. 1983. Rivers of Florida and their fishes.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission. Completion Report, North Florida

Streams Research Project, Wallop-Breaux Project

F-36. Tallahassee.

Bass., D. G. 1993. Fish community analysis. Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission.

Completion Report, North Florida Streams

Research Project, Wallop-Breaux Project F-36.

Tallahassee.

Bass., D. G. 1995. Checklist of fishes recorded from

rivers of Florida. Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission. Wallop-Breaux Project F-36.

Tallahassee.

Bortone, S. A. 1993. Life history, habitat assessment

and systematics of the blackmouth shiner

(Notropis sp.), Blackwater River drainage. Florida

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,

Nongame Wildlife Program Final Report, Project

NG88-025. Tallahassee.

Bortone, S. A., and C. R. Gilbert. 1992. Blackmouth

shiner, Notropis melanostomus. Pages 58–62 in

C.R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota

of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Burgess, G. H. 1980a. Blueback herring, Alosa aestivalis. Page 61 in D. S Lee, C. R. Gilbert, C. H.

Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. A. McAllister, and J.

R. Stauffer Jr. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of

Natural History. Raleigh.

Burgess, G. H. 1980b. Alabama shad, Alosa

alabamae. Page 62 in D. S Lee, C. R. Gilbert, C.

H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. A. McAllister, and

J. R. Stauffer Jr. Atlas of North American freshwater fishes. North Carolina State Museum of

Natural History. Raleigh.

Burgess, G. H., and R. Franz. 1978. Zoogeography

of the aquatic fauna of the St. Johns River system

with comments on adjacent peninsular faunas.

American Midland Naturalist 100(1):160–170.

Burgess, G. H., C. R. Gilbert, V. Guillory, and D. C.

Taphron. 1977. Distributional notes on some

North Florida freshwater fishes. Florida Scientist

40(1):33–41.

Burkhead, N. M., J. D. Williams, and R. W. Yerger.

1992. Okaloosa darter, Etheostoma okaloosae.

Pages 23–30 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes.

University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Cox, J., R. Kautz, M. MacLaughlin, T. Gilbert. 1994.

Closing the gaps in Florida’s wildlife habitat conservation system. Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission, Office of Environmental

Services. Tallahassee.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

1994a. Wetlands regulation tracking and assessment project-final report. Environmental

Resource Permitting Division. Report

DCA#93OS-07-13-16-004/DER# RG013.

Tallahassee.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

1994b. Florida non-point source assessment

report. 5 vols. Bureau of Surface Water

Management, Stormwater/Non-point Source

Management Section. Tallahassee.

LITERATURE CITED
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 57

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

1996. 1996 Water-quality assessment for the

State of Florida-Section 305(b). Division of

Water Facilities, Bureau of Water Resources

Protection. Tallahassee.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

1997a. Biological assessment of the effectiveness

of forestry best management practices. Division

of Administration and Technical Services, Bureau

of Laboratories. Tallahassee.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

1997b. Conservation and recreation lands

(CARL) annual report. Division of State Lands,

Office of Environmental Services. Tallahassee.

Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1996. Florida natural areas inventory data sets explanation. Florida

Natural Areas Inventory. Tallahassee.

Gilbert, C. R. 1978. Suwannee bass, Micropterus

notius. Pages 43–44 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida. Volume IV.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1987. Zoogeography of the freshwater

fish fauna of southern Georgia and peninsular

Florida. Brimleyana 13:25–54.

Gilbert, C. R., editor. 1992a. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University

Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992b. Shortnose sturgeon, Acipenser

brevirostrum. Pages 15–22 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida.

Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992c. Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser

oxyrinchus. Pages 31–39 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992d. Alligator gar, Atractosteus spatula. Pages 128–132 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992e. Crystal darter, Crystallaria

asprella. Pages 79–83 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992f. Bluestripe shiner, Cyprinella

callitaenia. Pages 49–53 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992g. Tessellated darter, Etheostoma

olmstedi maculaticeps. Pages 88–92 in C. R.

Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992h. Goldstripe darter, Etheostoma

parvipinne. Pages 169–172 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida.

Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992i. Southern starhead topminnow,

Fundulus dispar blairae. Pages 163–67 in C. R.

Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992j. Cypress Minnow, Hybognathus

hayi. Pages 54–57 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare

and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992k. Southern striped shiner,

Luxilus chrysocephalus isolepis. Pages 138–142 in

C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota

of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992l. Bandfin shiner, Luxilus

zonistius. Pages 143–147 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992m. Blacktip shiner, Lythrurus

atrapiculus. Pages 148–152 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida.

Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992n. Shoal bass, Micropterus n. sp.

cf coosae. Pages 98–104 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992o. Southern bluehead chub,

Nocomis leptocepha bellicus. Pages 153–157 in C.

R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.
58 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Gilbert, C. R. 1992p. Rough shiner, Notropis baileyi.

Pages 158–162 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes.

University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992q. Florida logperch, Percina n. sp.

cf caprodes. Pages 177–181 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida.

Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R. 1992r. Bluenose shiner, Pteronotropis

welaka. Pages 188–193 in C. R. Gilbert, editor.

Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II.

Fishes. University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and F. A. Snelson. 1992. Blackbanded

sunfish, Enneacanthus chaetodon. Pages 182–187

in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University

Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and F. F. Snelson Jr. 1992a. River redhorse, Moxostoma carinatum. Pages 40–44 in C.

R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and F. F. Snelson Jr. 1992b. Grayfin

redhorse, Moxostoma n. sp. cf poecilurum. Pages

45–48 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes.

University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and R. W. Yerger. 1992a. Harlequin

darter, Etheostoma histrio. Pages 84–87 in C. R.

Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and R. W. Yerger. 1992b. Cypress

darter, Etheostoma proeliare. Pages 173–176 in C.

R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and R. W. Yerger. 1992c. Florida

chub, Extrarius n. sp. cf aestivalis. Pages 133–137

in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered

biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University

Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Gilbert, C. R., and R. W. Yerger. 1992d. Saddleback

darter, Percina vigil. Pages 93–97 in C. R.

Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of

Florida. Volume II. Fishes. University Press of

Florida. Gainesville.

Gilmore, R. G. 1992. River goby, Awaous tajasica.

Pages 112–117 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and

endangered biota of Florida. Volume II. Fishes.

University Press of Florida. Gainesville.

Hughes, R. M., and R. F. Noss. 1992. Biological

diversity and biological integrity: current

concerns for lakes and streams. Fisheries

17(3):11–19.

Imhof, J. G., J. Fitzgibbon, and W. K. Annable.

1996. A hierarchical evaluation system for characterizing watershed ecosystems for fish habitat.

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic

Sciences 53(Supplement 1):312–326.

Jelks, H. L. 1997. Okaloosa darter (Etheostoma

okaloosae) technical/agency draft revised recovery

plan. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resource

Division, Florida Caribbean Science Center.

Gainesville.

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using

fish communities. Fisheries 6(6):21–27.

Kauffman, J. B., R. L. Beschta, N. Otting, and D.

Lytjen. 1977. An ecological perspective of riparian and stream restoration in the western United

States. Fisheries 22(5):12–24.

Klein, R. D. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality

impairment. Water Resources Bulletin

15(4):948–963.

Lagler, K. F. 1956. Freshwater fishery biology. Wm.

C. Brown Company. Dubuque, Iowa.

Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E.

Jenkins, D. A. McAllister, and J. R. Stauffer Jr.

1980 et seq. Atlas of North American freshwater

fishes. North Carolina State Museum of Natural

History. Raleigh.

Loftus, W. E. 1992. Mountain mullet. Agonostomus

monticola. Pages 163–168 in C. R. Gilbert, editor. Rare and endangered biota of Florida.

Volume II. Fishes. University Press of Florida.

Gainesville.

Logan, T. H. 1997. Florida’s endangered species,

threatened species, and species of special concern.

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
RARE AND IMPERILED FISH SPECIES OF FLORIDA—Hoehn 59

Commission, Bureau of Nongame Wildlife,

Division of Wildlife. Tallahassee.

Lyons, J. 1992. Using the index of biotic integrity

(IBI) to measure environmental quality in warm

water streams in Wisconsin. General Technical

Report NC-149. U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest

Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Mackenthun, K. M. 1969. The practice of water pollution biology. United States Department of

Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control

Administration. Washington, D.C.

Meixler, M. S., M. B. Bain, and G. H. Galbreath.

1996. Aquatic GAP analysis: tool for watershed

scale assessement of fluvial habitat and biodiversity. Proceedings of the ECOHYDRAULICS 2000

Symposium. Quebec City, Canada.

Mettee, M. F., P. E. O’Neil, and J. M. Pierson. 1996.

Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin.

Oxmoor House. Birmingham, Alabama.

Miller, D. L., P. M. Leonard, R. M. Hughes, J. R.

Karr, P. B. Moyle, L. H. Schrader, B. A.

Thompson, R. A. Daniels, K. D. Fausch, G. A.

Fitzhugh, J. R. Gammon, D. B. Halliwell, P. L.

Angermeier, and D. J. Orth. 1988. Regional

applications of an index of biotic integrity for use

in water resource management. Fisheries

13(5):12–20.

Millsap, B. A., J. A. Gore, D. E. Runde, and S. I.

Cerulean. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida.

Wildlife Monographs 111:1–57.

Northwest Florida Water Management District.

1994. Preliminary non-point source loading rate

analysis of the Pensacola Bay system. Water

Resources Special Report 92-2. Havana, Florida.

Northwest Florida Water Management District.

1996. The Choctawhatchee River and Bay

system surface water improvement and management plan. Program Development Series 96-4.

Havana, Florida.

Northwest Florida Water Management District.

1997. The Pensacola Bay system surface water

improvement and management plan. Program

Development Series 97-2. Havana, Florida.

O’Brien-White, S., and C. S. Thomason. 1995.

Evaluating fish habitat in a South Carolina

watershed using GIS. Proceedings of the Annual

Conference of the Southeastern Association of

Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49:153–166.

Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 1991. A field guide to

freshwater fishes. Houghton Mifflin. Boston,

Massachusetts.

Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K.

Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid

bioassessment protocol for use in streams and

rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Water. EPA/440/4-89/001. Washington, D.C.

Richards, C., and G. Host. 1994. Examining land

use influences on stream habitats and

macroinvertebrates: A GIS approach. Water

Resources Bulletin 30(4):729–738.

Robins, C. R. (Chairman), R. M. Bailey, C. E. Bond,

J. R. Brooker, E. A. Lachner, R. N. Lea, and W.

B. Scott. 1991. Common and scientific names of

fishes from the United States and Canada.

American Fisheries Society Special Publication

20, Fifth Edition. Bethesda, Maryland.

Roper, B. B., J. J. Dose, and J. E. Williams. 1977.

Stream restoration: Is fisheries biology enough?

Fisheries 22(5):6–11.

Scott, J. M., F. Davis, B. Csuti, R. Noss, B.

Butterfield, C. Groves, H. Anderson, S. Caicco,

F. D’Erchia, T. C. Edwards Jr., J. Ulliman, and

R. G. Wright. 1993. Gap Analysis: a geographic

approach to protection of biological diversity.

Wildlife Monographs 123:1–41.

Scott, J. M., T. H. Tear, and F. W. Davis, editors.

1996. Gap Analysis: a landscape approach to biodiversity planning. American Society for

Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Bethesda,

Maryland.

Swift, C. C., C. R. Gilbert, S. A. Bortone, G. H.

Burgess, and R. W. Yerger. 1986. Zoogeography

of the freshwater fishes of the southeastern

United States: Savannah River to Lake

Pontchartrain. Pages 213–265 in C. Hocutt and

E. O. Wiley, editors. The zoogeography of North

American freshwater fishes. John Wiley and Sons.

New York.
60 FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION

Welch, E. B., and T. Lindell. 1980. Ecological effects

of waste water. Cambridge University Press. New

York.

Welcomme, R. L. 1985. River fisheries. Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Technical Paper 262. New York.

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

1994. EPA reach file version 3.0 alpha release

(RF3-Alpha) technical reference. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Washington,

D.C.
This Agency does not allow

discrimination by race, color, nationality, sex, or handicap. If you

believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity or

facility of this agency, write to:

Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission,

620 S. Meridian St.,

Tallahassee, Fl. 32399-1600, or to

Office for Human Relations,

USFWS, Dept. of Interior,

Washington, D.C. 20240

Printed on Recycled Paper