# R ARE AND 

# I MPERILED 

# F ISH 

# S PECIES OF 

# F LORIDA

# : A W ATERSHED 

# PERSPECTIVE



# Theodore Hoehn

1998

Office of Environmental Services Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600

# R ARE AND 

# I MPERILED 

# F ISH 

# S PECIES OF 

# F LORIDA

# : A W ATERSHED 

# 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 (ph oto by Donald Ray) Lower right: Digital Ortho Quad of the Big Escambia Creek watershed F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION

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.iii R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn

E

XECUTIVE S UMMARY

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 mi 2 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 ofnorthwestern 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. Waterquality 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 ManagementConcern, 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 begiven 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 ofManagement 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 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION

A

CKNOWLEDGMENTS

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 providedguidance 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 collectingand 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. CharlesBoydstun, 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 trendinformation. 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.v R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn

T

ABLE O F C ONTENTS

Executive S umma ry

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

Ackn owledgments

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

I nt r oduction

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

M ethods

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B asic G eographic I nformation S ystem D ata La yers

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 C riteria for I dentification of Ra r e and I mperiled F ishes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 W atershed-based D istribution M aps for S t r eam F ishes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 S pecies Richness H ot S pots b y W atershed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Watershed Ranking Based on Species Rarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Water Quality Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Land Cover and Conservation Lands Acreage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

R

esults

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 D istributions of S t r eam F ishes and W atershed W ater Q uality S tatus

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 S pecies Richness b y W atershed

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 S ub-basin Rankings B ased on S pecies Rarity

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 S tatus of W ater Q uality in S ub-basins with Ra r e or I mperiled S t r eam F ishes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 S ub-basins of M anagement Concern

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 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
I mpo r tant H abitat and P ublic Land Ownership within S ub-basins

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

D iscussion

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 B iogeography

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 D etermination of S tatus

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 GIS D ata N eeds and A pplications

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 The N eed for Additional S u rvey and M onitoring

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 B est M anagement P ractices

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Land Acquisition

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 R

egulato ry M echanisms

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Comp r ehensive Land Use P lanning

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 F utu r e N eeds

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54vi

R

ecommendations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Literatu r e Cited

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSIONR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn 1



## I NTRODUCTION

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 regulationand 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 tosuggest 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. Angermeierand 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) alsohave 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 integratingthe 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 rareand endangered fishes and mussels in relation to pollution sources in several Virginia rivers. They also assessed the relative protection afforded the speciesthrough 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 fordefining 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 theF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 2

highest diversity of fishes, and the fish fauna becomes increasingly depauperate as one moves down theFlorida 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 maybe affecting in-stream water quality or habitat conditions. 5. Provide recommendations aimed at resolving problems with data collection and land management.R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn 3

BASIC GEOGRAPHIC I NFORMATION SYSTEM D ATA L

AYERS

This project relied upon the use of computerized information and analysis of selected data setsavailable 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, toperform 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. Thisresulted 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 FloridaDepartment 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 4,534sub-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 forthe State of Florida (Section 305(b) report) characterizes water quality conditions and trends in rivers andstreams. 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 sourcepollution, 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 awatershed 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 Chapter62-302 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; 

## M ETHODSF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 4

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)

— allsurface 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, NationalAudubon 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 documentedoccurrences 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 statewideaerial 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 thelong-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 theMuseum. 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, andCornell 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 fishpopulations 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 trendanalysis 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.R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 somesites 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 theoriginal 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 usingprocedures 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 compareddifferences 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 phaseof 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.

C RITERIA FOR I DENTIFICATION OF R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISHES

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 streamseliminated the following species from further consideration in this project: mangrove rivulus, sea lamprey, opossum pipefish, spottail goby, slashcheek goby, big-F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 6

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. W ATERSHED

- BASED D ISTRIBUTION M APS FOR S TREAM F ISHES

Fish species occurrence records were plotted on the watershed/sub-basin coverage provided by DEP. Distribution maps or GIS coverages were created foreach 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.R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn 7

S PECIES R ICHNESS H OT S POTS BY W ATERSHED

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 informationon 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 reproductivesuccess or the number of individuals present at a specific location is usually not available or practical toobtain 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) guidelinesfor 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 uponrelative 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 22F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 8

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 populationshave already been heavily depleted by deleterious conditions; and (3) species that maystill 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 def initions. 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 42R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 anumeric 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 forcomment or re-ranking. While some of their individual scores differed from the average rarity score, thecombined 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 thatweighted 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 wereobtained 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 withinthe sub-basins was calculated based upon the procedures described by Cox et al. (1994).10 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION

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 basinbelow 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). D ISTRIBUTIONS OF S TREAM F ISHES AND W ATERSHED W ATER Q UALITY S TATUS 

## R

ESULTS



# 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

Stable11 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn

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 occurrencerecord 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 dataindicates that significant portions of subbasins which comprise the Gulf sturgeon ’srange 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 use12 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION

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, andincreased 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. Loftus13 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 hardsubstrate 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 Riverbasin, currently does not meet its designated use classification. The Nassau River (WBID #2148B), into which Alligator Creek flows, shows some water qualityimpairment and is also showing a worsening 10-year trend. The St. Johns River (WBID #2213A

–

WBID #2213F) belowthe 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 Burgess14 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION

The Alabama shad is an anadromous species that migrates up Gulfcoastal 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 Bass15 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 riverbasins 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’Neil16 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 pointand 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 Gilmore17 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# Crystal Darter Crystallaria asprella

The crystal darter is found only in large rivers and is confined to areas with acombination 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 oftenmove 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 EscambiaRiver 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 intolerantof non-point source pollution, sedimentation, nutrients, and substrate alterations (Gilbert 1992e). The upper Escambia River sub-basin (WBID #10C), which contains occurrence records from BigEscambia 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 ’ Neil18 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# Bluestripe Shiner Cyprinella callitaenia

The bluestripe shiner is endemic tothe Apalachicola River system. It is typically found in the main stem of the river andits 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 thesub-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 ’ Neil19 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 Snelson1992). Occurrence records for the blackbanded sunfish are scattered throughout northeast Florida (Figure 10a). Because thepreferred 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). Theremaining 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 Burkhead20 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# Harlequin Darter Etheostoma histrio

The harlequin darter is usually foundin 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 impairedwater 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 ’ Neil21 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 andWildlife 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 andpartially 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 roadculverts 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 Burkhead22 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 encroachinginto 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 eachof 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 Burgess23 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 Bass24 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# Cypress Darter Etheostoma proeliare

The cypress darter is found in slow moving sloughs, creeks, and flowingpools 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, afactor 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 ’ Neil25 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 containingthe 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 ’ Neil26 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 someimpairment 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 watershed s

Stable Partially meets use Gray Bass27 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# Cypress Minnow Hybognathus hayi

The cypress minnow has been foundin large streams and rivers, usually in backwaters and sluggish pools having sand andsilt 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 ’ Neil28 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 wasfirst collected in Florida in 1975, indicating that it probably was introduced (Gilbert 1992k). (A detailed discussionregarding 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 Bass29 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# Bandfin Shiner Luxilus zonistius

The bandfin shiner typically occursin 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. Freeman30 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 orruns. 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 someimpairment 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 Bass31 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 OchlockoneeRiver 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 inFlorida (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 theypartially 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 Burgess32 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# Shoal Bass Micropterus n. sp. cf coosae

The shoal bass is restricted to large riverine shoals of the main stem rivers andlarge 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 shownin 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 River sub-basin (Figure 23b). Figure 23a. Distribution of shoal bass.

Figure 23b . Watershed water quality status. Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use Gray Bass33 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 riverredhorse populations have occurred in disturbed or polluted areas near cities and heavily farmed areas (Gilbert and Snelson Jr. 1992a). Spawning appears to occur inmid-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 theEscambia 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 Ogilvie34 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 theexception of the Apalachicola river subbasin (WBID #375D) which partially meets its designated use classification (Figure 25b). Figure 25a. Distribution of grayfin redhorse.

Figure 25b . Watershed water quality status. Occurrence watersheds

Improving

Stable

Fully meets use

Partially meets use Patrick E. O ’ Neil35 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# Southern Bluehead Chub Nocomis leptocephalus bellicus

The southern bluehead chub prefers small- to medium-sized, generally weedless streams 3 to 15 meters wide, and avoidslarger 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 domedstone 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 Bass36 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 Branchdoes not meet its designated use classification, while Canoe Creek, Big Escambia Creek, Holly Creek, and Moore Creek have partially impaired water quality andpartially 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 Bass37 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 rathershallow backwater pools (1m depth) connected to the main stream, but in whichno 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 Bass38 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 Bass39 R

ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn



# 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 speciesranges from Louisiana to the eastern portion of the Mobile basin with the Escambia River drainage being the onlybasin 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). Thelimited 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) havesome 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 Bass40 F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION



# 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 thewestern 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 NinemileCreek (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 ’ NeilR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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.

S TATUS OF W ATER Q UALITY IN S UB

- BASINS WITH R

ARE OR I MPERILED S TREAM F ISHES

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-lowranking (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 tolow ranks, all contain species that are limited in distribution in Florida. Spruce and Crane creeks containsome 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 Riversub-basin (WBID #2148B), Oklawaha River subS PECIES R ICHNESS BY W ATERSHED

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 Riverbasin 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.

S UB

- BASIN R ANKINGS BASED ON S PECIES R ARITY

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 extensiveriverbed 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 mediumF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 42

Figure 32. Number of imperiled species of fishes in watersheds. 1

– 2

3

–4

5

– 7

8

– 14 Number of SpeciesR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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)F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 44

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 goalof 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.

S UB

- BASINS OF M ANAGEMENT C ONCERN

Many of the problems associated with the impairment and degradation of water quality can, in part, be attributed to land use practices and alterationof upland habitats within the watershed. Each watershed has its own topographic, soil, vegetative community, and land use characteristics which affectthe aquatic environment and which may require areaspecific management attention. DEP has, throughthe 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 thatindicate impairment are closely associated with specific land uses or land use activities. Water qualityimpairment 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, butthe 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 ofaquatic 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 chemicaloxygen demand which decreases dissolved oxygen levels. Low dissolved oxygen levels can affect the viability of eggs and the metabolism of fish. Very lowdissolved 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, FloridaR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn 45

Figure 34. Sub-basins of Management Concern. Sub-basins of Management ConcernF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 46

chub, southern logperch, goldstripe darter, roughshiner, 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 communitywhich 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 ofManagement 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 EscambiaRiver 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 changedfrom soybean to cotton production (Gray Bass, personal communication). However, it is uncertain if this will change the amounts of runoff and non-pointsource loadings that have been observed in those subbasins. DEP (1996) reported that the pesticideguthion 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). TheNWFWMD (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 arepredominantly 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 nutrientR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 wastewatertreatment 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 inthe 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 hardwoodforests have caused turbidity violations in several subbasins (DEP 1996). Agricultural runoff hascontributed to the eutrophication of the Dead LakesChipola River (WBID #51A) sub-basin (DEP 1996).

Ochlockonee River Basin

Alabama shad, gulf sturgeon, and Suwannee basshave 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 inGeorgia 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 theLake 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 theAucilla 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 naturallyacidic 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 AucillaRiver. The Econfina River partially meets water quality standards for bacterial levels and does not meet standards for metals, specifically cadmium. TimberF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 48

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 inGeorgia. 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 ’ LenoState 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 waterrunoff into the streams and creeks. However, preliminary testing indicates a strong potential for increasednitrates 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 andacidity. 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 tonutrients 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, inpart, 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 treatmentplant 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 waterquality 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 turbidityR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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).

I MPORTANT HABITAT AND P UBLIC L AND O WNERSHIP

WITHIN S UB

- BASINS C ONTAINING R ARE OR I MPERILED S TREAM F ISHES

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-basinscontaining 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 inmedium to medium-low ranked sub-basins. The percentage of Sub-basins of Management Concern on public or conservation lands is similar at 19% of thetotal acreage. An additional 8%, 169,469 acres, within the Sub-basins of Management Concern is on state land acquisition lists.F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 50

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

Public lands

Occurrence watershedsR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— Hoehn 51

B IOGEOGRAPHY

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 streamfishes 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 amongFlorida river systems and the species that occur within river systems have also been well documented (Bass 1983, Swift et al. 1986, Gilbert 1987).

D ETERMINATION OF S TATUS

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 usesa 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 acomplex 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 D ATA NEEDS AND A PPLICATIONS

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 recordsoften 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 professionalsare also beginning to use GPS in their routine sampling and reporting. This study has demonstrated one method of converting locational information intospatially 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 ofspecies presence and status to aid in making management decisions. GIS technology is increasingly being used to linkdatabases 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 establishedlink 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 

## D ISCUSSIONF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 52

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).

T HE NEED FOR A DDITIONAL S URVEY AND M ONITORING

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 (Figure32). 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 late1970s 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 conductadditional 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 ofadditional 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 beimplemented. The majority of the species in this project are intolerant of various pollutants, are vulnerable to habitat degradation, or have limited or isolatedpopulations. 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 andbiological 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 eitherimpaired 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 ManagementConcern (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.

B EST M ANAGEMENT P RACTICES

Many of the highly ranked Sub-basins of Management Concern in the panhandle have known water pollution problems (e.g., sedimentation, excessturbidity, 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 managementzones, 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 silviculturalBMPs 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 andnon-point source problems that occur within designated sub-basins of these river systems. An assessmentR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 withinthe 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).

L

AND A CQUISITION

Since 1975, approximately 2,061,835 acres havebeen 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, themajority 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 buffersaround streams, could provide an economical alternative to fee-simple acquisition.

R

EGULATORY M ECHANISMS

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 ofFlorida. More stringent requirements may be necessary for these dischargers as their permits are renewed. However, in the majority of the Sub-basinsof 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-basinwhere a proposed project may occur. This identification of sub-basins containing rare or imperiledspecies 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 ariver or stream. However, as in most stream restoration projects, without removing the upslope cause of the problem, the restoration or mitigation will not besuccessful (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 flowsF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 54

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 adoptminimum 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 UnitedStates 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 tohydrologic flow alterations within their known habitats. Increased attention should be given to the subbasins containing rare or imperiled species as each ofthe water management districts works to develop criteria for minimum flows and levels.

C OMPREHENSIVE L AND U SE P LANNING

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).

F UTURE 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. ”R ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 thecurrent 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 populationstatus, 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 lifehistories, and then develop conservation and management actions to reduce or eliminate these threats.

• Periodic monitoring of water quality, stream habitat structure, and invertebrate populations shouldbe conducted along with surveys for fishes to determine trends in the sub-basins and to allow correctiveaction 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 theirspawning habitats and food supplies. Where applicable, develop and implement an interagency-landowner management strategy to address or correct identified problems, and, if necessary, determineacceptable 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-basinscontaining 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 inland use, water quality, and benthic invertebrate populations, and develop conservation and management actions to address adverse changes. 

## R

ECOMMENDATIONSF LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 56

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 ofgeographic 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 ofEnvironmental 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, andJ. 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 

## C ITEDR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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.F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 58

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 FishR ARE AND I MPERILED F ISH S PECIES OF F LORIDA

— 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 watershedscale 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 Baysystem 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.F LORIDA GAME AND F RESH W ATER F ISH C OMMISSION 60

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