?/EPA
umtea states tnviroriseniBi «e»eoivit
EnvirorroentaL Protection Laboratory
Agency Corvallis OR 97333
Office of Research and Development
EPA/Q-95/OQ2
FLORIDA REGIONALIZATION
PROJECT
n
SOUTHEASTERN PUIKS CCOREGION (65)
Southern Pine Plains and Kills (SSI)
OoughfMjf/Uonorino Plains
Til ton Upland/Tallahassee Kills (65fi)
SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN ECORCGION (75)
Gull Coast rio!*aods (7S«)
Soultiiestem floriiio Flotvoods (7St)
Ctnlrol riorido Ridqts anif Uplands (75c)
[astern florido Flaltoods J75d)
Okcftnoket Swamps and Plains (?5e)
S<« lilond Flgtvaods j?5f)
SOUTKfRN FLORIDA COASTAL PLAIN CCORECION (7fi)
619 Cyprtss (7Eb)
ttianii Ridae/Allanlic Coos to! Strip (76c)
Southern Coosl ond Islands (76d)
-------
-------
FLORIDA REGIONALIZATION PROJECT
Glenn E. Griffith1
James M. Omemik"1
Christina M. Rohm2
Suzanne M. Pierson2
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
"Project Officer
(503) 754-4458
*ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
August 11, 1994
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97333
-------
,1
I
I
.1
I
1
-------
ABSTRACT
Ecoregion frameworks are valuable tools for environmental resource inventory and
assessment, for setting resource management goals, and for developing biological criteria
and water quality standards. In a cooperative project with the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other interested
agencies, we have defined ecological regions and subregions of Florida, and have selected
sets of stream reference sites within most of the subregions. The ecoregions and reference
sites can be used to better understand regional variations in stream quality, to assess
attainable conditions and to structure aquatic resource regulatory programs. In conjunction
with this effort we have reviewed aquatic classifications of Florida, and have analyzed fish
species distribution patterns.
u
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
FIGURES iv
TABLES v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi
1. ECOREGION/SUBREGION FRAMEWORK. 1
1,1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 METHODS 2
1.3 REGIONAL DESCRIPTIONS 4
Southeastern Plains Ecoregion 4
Southern Pine Plains and Hills Subregion 5
Dougherty/Maiianna Plains Subregion 8
Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills Subregion. , 11
Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion 14
Gulf Coast Flatwoods Subregion 14
Southwestern Florida Flatwoods Subregion 14
Central Florida Ridges and Uplands Subregion 20
Eastern Florida Flatwoods Subregion 22
Okefenokee Swamps and Plains Subregion 26
Sea Island Flatwoods Subregion 26
Southern Florida Coastal Plain Ecoregion 31
Everglades Subregion.... 32
Big Cypress Subregion 32
Miami Ridge/Atlantic Coastal Strip Subregion 37
Southern Coast and Islands Subregion 37
2. AQUATIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF FLORIDA. 38
2.1 INTRODUCTION 38
2.2 STREAMS 38
2.3 LAKES 41
2.4 SPRINGS 42
2.5 MARSHES 42
2.6 SWAMPS 42
3. STREAM REFERENCE SITE SELECTION 43
4. FLORIDA FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS 46
4.1 INTRODUCTION 46
4.2 METHODS 46
4.3 SELECTED RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 48
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53
REFERENCES ". : 55
APPENDICES
A. CANDIDATE STREAM REFERENCE SITES, APRIL 1992 64
B. STREAM REFERENCE SITE STATUS, OCTOBER 1992 80
111
-------
FIGUHES
Number Page
1 Ecoregions and subregions of Florida. ...insert
2 Detrended correspondence analysis of 6frh species composition at low flow sites 50
3 Box plots of fish species richness at sites sampled 2-4 times in each water body
type for 2 subregions per ecoregion 52
PHOTOGRAPHS
1 Southern Pine Plains and Hills, agricultural and forest land use mosaic, Santa
Rosa County 6
2 Southern Pine Plains and Hills, typical pine plantation 6
3 Southern Pine Plains and Hills, East Fork Big Coldwater Creek, Blackwater
River State Forest, Santa Rosa County 7
4 Southern Pine Plains and Hills, Blackwater River, Okaloosa County. 1
5 Southern Pine Plains and Hills, clear, Rocky Creek, Walton County 8
6 Dougherty/Marianna Plains, agricultural hind with bays and sinkholes, Jackson
County . 9
1 Dougherty/Marianna Plains, typical red soil farmland, Jackson County 9
8 Dougherty/Marianna Plains, Econfina Creek, Bay County 10
9 Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills, mixed hind use, Gadsden County 11
10 Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills, suburban karst, near Tallahassee, Leon County. 12
11 Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills, agricultural area and riparian corridor,
Hamilton/Suwannee counties 12
12 Gulf Coast Flatwoods, Pensacola Bay, Gulf Breeze peninsula, Santa Rosa Sound,
Santa Rosa barrier island, Santa Rosa/Escambia counties 15
13 Gulf Coast Flatwoods, bottomland hardwoods, Chipola River near Honeyvile,
Gulf County 15
id On If Coast Flatwoods, Apalachicola National Forest management practices 16
15 Gulf Coast Flatwoods, Sandy Creek at tidal influence, Bay County 16
16 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, Little Manatee River riparian area,
Hillsborough County 17
17 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, CharHe Creek, Hardee County. 17
18 Southwestern Flordida Flatwoods, Green Swamp area, Polk/Sumter counties 18
19 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, cypress swamp, Charlie Bowlegs Creek, Highland
Hammock State Park, Highlands/Hardee counties 18
20 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, phosphate ™i™*g near Bartow, Polk County 19
21 Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, new citrus groves, Charlotte County 19
22 Central Florida Ridge and Uplands, rolling upland near Clermont, Lake County 20
23 Central Florida Ridge and Uplands, suburbanization, Polk County 21
24 Central Florida Ridge and Uplands, sinkhole hazards, Polk County 21
25 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, St. Johns River, Volusia/Seminole counties 23
26 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, Econlockhatchee River, Orange County 23
27 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, Merritt Island, Brevard County.... 24
28 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, Canaveral National Seashore, Volusia County 24
29 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, citrus groves and canals, St. Lucie County. 25
30 Eastern Florida Flatwoods, Kissimmee River canal, Okeechobee/Highlands counties.. 25
31 Okefenokee Swamps and Plains, Pinhook Swamp, Baker County 27
32 Okefenokee Swamps and Plains, pine plantation, Hamilton County.... 27
iv
-------
33 Sea Island Flatwoods, Pigeon Creek, Nassau County 28
34 Sea Island Flatwoods, Pigeon Creek watershed, Nassau County 28
35 Sea Island Flatwoods, Amelia Island, Nassau County 29
36 Sea Island Flat-woods, Ponte Vedra Beach, St. Johns County 29
37 Everglades, edge of agricultural area, Palm Beach County 33
38 Everglades, freshwater marl prairie, Dade County 33
39 Big Cypress, aerial oblique, Collier County 34
40 Big Cypress, Big Cypress Swamp, Collier County 34
41 Miami Ridge/Atlantic Coastal Strip, urban coast, Palm Beach County 36
42 Southern Coast and Islands, mangrove aerial oblique, Collier County 36
TABLES
Ktrmher
I 1-1 General characteristics of subregions of the Southeastern Plains
J Ecoregion (65) in Florida 13
1 1-2 General characteristics of subregions of the Southern Coastal
j1 Plain Ecoregion (75) in Florida 30
1-3 General characteristics of subregions of the Southern Florida
Coastal Plain Ecoregion (76) 37
2-1 Aquatic (mayfly) habitats (Berner and Pescador 1988) 39
J 2-2 Water-related natural community categories, groups and types
(Florida Natural Areas Inventory 1990) 39
2-3 A classification of Florida freshwaters (Steve Walsh, Florida Museum
J of Natural History) 39
2-4 A classification of Florida's aquatic systems (Frydenborg 1991) 39
2-5 Classification of streams, rivers, and lakes (Layfield and Barbour 1991) 39
I 4-1 Water body types used to classify sampling sites in Florida Museum of Natural
, I History fish database 47
I 4-2 List of "signature fishes" by subregion. (Species appearing in more than 16% of the
| samples from each subregion. Numbers indicate actual percentage of sites in the
subregion at which the species was collected) 51
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support for this project was provided to ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc., by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under contract No. 68-C8-0006. The authors thank.
Ellen McCamra and Jim Hulbert of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
for their support, and the staff members of the DEP district offices and other Florida
agencies who cooperated in this project.
-------
SECTION 1
ECOREGION/SUBREGION FRAMEWORK
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Spatial frameworks are important for structuring the research, assessment, monitoring,
and management of environmental resources. Ecological regions, defined in general terms
as regions of relative homogeneity in ecological systems and relationships between
organisms and their environments, have been developed in the the United States (Bailey
1976; Omernik 1987), Canada (Wiken 1986), New Zealand (Biggs et aL 1990) and other
countries for these organizational purposes. Ecoregions are usually defined by patterns of
homogeneity in a combination of factors such as climate, physiography, geology, soils, and
vegetation. These regions also define areas within which there are different patterns in
human stresses on the environment and different patterns in the existing and attainable
quality of environmental resources. Ecoregion classifications are effective for national and
regional environmental resource inventory and assessment, for setting regional resource
management goals, and for developing biological criteria and water quality standards
(Gallant et aL, 1989; Hughes et aL, 1990; Hughes 1989; Environment Canada 1989; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board 1991; Warry and Hanau 1993).
The development of ecoregions in North America has evolved considerably in recent
years (Bailey et al. 1985; Omernik and Gallant 1990). The first compilation of ecoregions of
the conterminous United States by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
performed at a relatively cursory scale, 1:3,168,000, and was published at a smaller scale,
1:7,500,000 (Omernik 1987). The approach recognized that the combination and relative
importance of characteristics that explain ecosystem regionally vary from one place to
another and from one hierarchical level to another. This is similar to the approach used by
Environment Canada (Wiken 1986). In describing ecoregionalization in Canada, Wiken
(1986) stated:
"Ecological land classification is a process of delineating and classifying
ecologically distinctive areas of the earth's surface. Each area can be viewed
as a discrete system which has resulted from the mesh and interplay of the
geologic, landform, soil, vegetative, climatic, wildlife, water and human factors
which may be present. The dominance of any one or a number of these
factors varies with the given ecological land unit. This holistic approach to
land classification can be applied incrementally on a scale-related basis from
very site-specific ecosystems to very broad ecosystems."
The ecoregions defined by Omernik (1987) were shown to be useful for stratifying
streams in Arkansas (Rohm et aL 1987), Nebraska (Bazata 1991), Ohio (Larsen et al. 1986),
Oregon (Hughes et al. 1987; Whittier et al. 1988), Washington (Plotnikoff 1992), and
-------
Wisconsin (Lyons 1989). Arkansas, Minnesota, and Ohio have used the 1987 ecoregion map
to set water quality standards (Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
1988), lake management goals (Heiskaiy and Wilson 1989), and to develop biological criteria
(Ohio EPA 1988). Many state agencies, however, have found the resolution of the regions
in the 1:7,500,000 scale map to be of insufficient detail to meet their needs. This has led
to several collaborative projects, with states, EPA regional offices, and EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory in Corvallis, OR (ERL-C), to refine ecoregions and define subregions at
a larger (1:250,000) scale. In addition to Florida, these projects cover Iowa, Massachusetts,
the Coast Range and Columbia Plateau of Oregon and Washington, and parts of
Mississippi, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland and West Virginia.
Sets of regional reference sites within an ecoregion or subregion can give managers and
scientists a better understanding of attainable water body conditions. The biota and
physical and chemical habitats characteristic of these regional reference sites serve as
benchmarks for comparison to more disturbed streams, lakes, and wetlands in the same
region (Hughes et aL, 1986; Hughes et aL 1993; Hughes in press). These sites indicate the
range of conditions that could reasonably be expected in an ecoregion or subregion, given
natural Limits and present or possible land use practices.
In a cooperative project with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), the U.S. EPA, and other interested parties, we have refined aquatic ecoregions and
defined subregions, and have selected candidate stream reference sites. In this section we
discuss the method and materials used to define subregions of the Southeastern Plains
Ecoregion, the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion and the Southern Florida Coastal Plain
Ecoregion and provide descriptions of the significant characteristics in each subregion.
It is important to note that the regions and subregions defined are general ecological
regions and not special purpose regions. During the planning stages of the project, a
question was posed to the Florida DEP personnel regarding the type of regional framework
they desired. Did they want special purpose regions reflecting spatial patterns in the
attainable quality of ecosystem components such as macroinvertebrates or fish, or did they
want a more holistic framework that would not address any single component perfectly, but
would instead be generally useful for many environmental resources? The answer was that
their immediate needs were for the more general, multi-purpose ecoregion framework.
1.2 METHODS
In brief, the procedures used to accomplish the regionalization process include
compiling and reviewing relevant materials, maps, and data; outlining the regional
characteristics; drafting the regional and subregional boundaries; digitizing the boundary
lines, creating digital, coverages, and producing cartographic products; and revising as
needed after review by state managers and scientists. In our regionalization process we
-------
employ primarily qualitative methods. That is, expert judgement is applied throughout the
selection, analysis, and classification of data to form the regions, basing judgments on the
quantity and quality of reference data and on interpretation of the relationships between
the data and other environmental factors. More detailed descriptions on methods,
materials, rationale, and philosophy for regionalization can be found in Omemik-(1987),
Gallant et al, (1989), and Omemik and Gallant (1990).
Maps of environmental characteristics and other documents were collected from the
state of Florida and from ERL-C. The most important of these are listed in the References
section. The most useful map types for our ecoregion delineation are usually physiography
or land-surface form, geology, soils, climate, vegetation, and land use. Physiographic and
land surface-form information were gathered from many sources including Brooks (1981b;
1982), White (1970), Puri and Vernon (1964), Clark and Zisa (1976), Sapp and Emplaincourt
(1975), Fenneman (1938), and Hammond (1970). Geology maps included the l:250,000-scale
Environmental Geology Series from the Florida Bureau of Geology, state scale maps (Brooks
198la; Vernon and Puri 1964; Osborne et al, 1989; Lawton 1977) and national scale maps
such as Hunt (1979) and King and Biekman (1974). Soils information was obtained from
the Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations and U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (1962), Caldwell and Johnson (1982), USDA-SCS (1984),
USDA (1973), Perkins and Shaffer (1977) and preliminary l:250,000-seale SCS State Soil
Geographic Data Base (STATSGO) soil maps. Additional soils information was obtained for
some areas from the USDA's county-level soil survey publications. Climate information was
collected from Bradley (1974), Fernald (1981), and Jordan (1984). For land use/land cover
we used primarily the l:250,000-scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, 1:500,000-scale
maps for adjacent states (Lineback and Weaver, 1985), as well as the general classification
of Anderson (1970). The vegetation and forest cover maps we used included Davis (1943,
1967), those in the state atlases (Fernald 1981; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981) and
the national atlas (Kuchler, 1970; U.S. Forest Service, 1970), and a recent vegetation
classification of Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery (1985*1989) developed by the Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. In addition, a map produced from composited
mult;-temporal Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite data was also
used to assess boundaries and regional differences. This .AVHRR data is currently being
used by the USGS EROS Data Center to characterize land cover of the conterminous
United States (Loveland et al., 1991).
We used USGS 1:250,000-scale topographic maps as the base for delineating the
ecoregion and subregion boundaries. Although some maps in this series are old, it does
provide quality in terms of the relative consistency and comparability of the series across
Florida, in the accuracy of the topographic information portrayed, and in the locational
control. It is also a very convenient scale. Fifteen of these maps give complete coverage of
-------
the state.
The following section describes the revised ecoregions and proposed subregions in
Florida (Figure 1). Although these subregions still retain some heterogeneity in factors that
can affect water quality and biotic characteristics, the framework is an improvement on the
earlier national-scale ecoregions, and provides more homogeneous units for inventorying,
monitoring, and assessing surface waters than commonly used hydrologic unit frameworks
or generalized physiographic districts.
1.3 REGIONAL DESCRIPTIONS
"Of coune, no dauificatum lyitem fiti th« IM! rituaticn perfectly, litre are alwayf plot* of land, or water, that don't fit any
category, or teem to fit two categories equally wall,' (Simons 1989, p.58).
SOUTHEASTERN PLAINS ECOREGION (#65)
Subregions: States:
- Southern Pine Plains and Hills AL, FL, GA, MS
- Dougherty/Marianna Plains AL, FL, GA
- Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills FL, GA
In north Florida, the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion occupies the hilly, pine and mixed
hardwood forest area along the borders with Alabama and Georgia. The rolling hills of this
area include Florida's highest elevation point, 345 feet, in northwest Walton County. The
ecoregion has been characterized as containing smooth to irregular plains; oak/hickory/pine
and southern mixed forests; a mosaic of cropland, pasture, woodland and forest; and mostly
ultisol soils (Omernik 1987).
The southern boundary of this ecoregion has some heterogeneous characteristics, but
the '.weight of mapped evidence supports the placement of our line. General soils and Major
Land Resource Area (MLRA) maps, physiography maps, geology maps, relief maps,
vegetation maps and regional maps show relatively close agreement for the division. Areas
of uncertainty do exist however. In the western panhandle, the new ecoregion line has
been moved slightly further south than the boundary shown by Omernik (1987). In
Okaloosa and Walton counties, much of the Eglin Ridge area was previously in the
Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion (#75). Many of the physiographic, geologic, soils and
vegetation maps show this area having similar characteristics with the Florida area to the
north in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (#65), The .AVHRR imagery, however, shows
the Eglin area within a more southerly region. The break between the clay-rich Miocene
deposits to the north and the sandy PlioVPleistocene deposits is not always apparent, but
there are dayhill/sandhill vegetative differences (Myers 1990).
There is some uncertainty about where the eastern and southeastern boundary of the
Southeastern Plains Ecoregion should be placed in Florida. Omernifc's 1987 boundary on
the east extends from Union County north to Lake City and Jasper and into Georgia. This
-------
line occurs at an obvious break in the land use mosaic and follows closely the physiographic
division boundary of Brooks (1981b), and the North Central Florida Ridge MLRA boundary
(USDA-SCS 1981). The boundary between the Central Florida Ridge MLRA and the
Southern Coastal Plain MLRA is drawn near Madison in Madison county, and Hammond's
(1970) land form class boundary separating irregular plains from flat plains occurs further
west, roughly between the Aucilla River and Monticello in Jefferson County. Either of
these lines seem suitable for enclosing the more hilly areas. The areas to the east of
Madison and around Live Oak are plains of less relief and internal drainage and resemble
areas to the south more than the hilly region to the west. While the division between
Florida's Northern Highlands and Central Highlands is not prominent (White 1970),
Omernik's 1987 ecoregion boundary is similar to the MLRA's (USDA-SCS 1981), and both
occur at a soil temperature line dividing thermic from hyperthennic soil temperature
regimes (Caldwell and Johnson 1982). The Suwanee River forms the eastern boundary of
the panhandle, according to Clewel (1985), and forms a significant phytogeographic
boundary. Many species of the panhandle occur no further east, and many other species of
peninsular Florida occur no further west (Clewell 1985).
Southern Ping Plfljflg snd Hills •Sybregion (65f)
Called the Pine Hills or Piney Woods in Mississippi and Southern Pine Hills in
Alabama, this subregion in Florida includes the Western Highlands or what Brooks (1982)
refers to as the Blackwater Hills and Escambia Terraced Lands. In Alabama and
Mississippi there is a slightly different mix of vegetation and land use in these southern
plains compared to the Southeastern Plains and "Hills subregion to the north, and streams
tend to be darker and more acidic as one moves south toward the Florida border. The oak-
hickory-loblolly/shortleaf pine forest of the north is replaced by the Southern mixed forest of
beeeh-sweetgum-magnolia-lonfleafMash pine-oak forest in this subregion. Elevations are
generally 200-550 feet, 100-300 feet in the Florida portion, with relief of 100-200 feet
between hill and stream bottoms. The hill summits and higher elevations are composed of
the Citronelle formation, generally sandy, gravelly, and porous, and more resistent to
erosion than the older underlying Miocene sandstones. Most of this subregion is woodland
and forest with some cropland and pasture (photo 1). This area of the Panhandle receives
some of the highest mean annual precipitation totals (generally 60-75 inches) and the
coolest mean minimum and mean maximum temperatures in the state (Bradley 1972;
Fernald 1981).
In Florida, the main section of this subregion is confined to Escambia, Santa Rosa,
Okaloosa, and Walton counties. As recommended by the DEP district biologist (Don Ray,
DEP-Pensacola, personal communication), we have added an extension of this subregion
across Bay, Calhoun, and Liberty counties. Although this could be considered a transitional
-------
1
]
Photo 1
I'hotns 1 and 2. Forest lana usc/lar.a ci^ur prudnmmaces m the Southern Pine Plains and Hills,
although some areas have a lore-it and iimcuiturai luna use mosaic. Pine plantations generally
receive intensive manaKemerH prscw-e-
-------
I
!
i
!
D
0
I
1
0
Q
0
3
i
I
i
i
Photr, :•!
Photm. i and 4. ban civ-bottom ad. blackwater stream1; .ch as East F-'rk Bij; Coldwater Creek
(above1 and the Blaekwat^r River ihelnw dre common n this suhregirjn The tea-colored waters
are often h«rh in firfranic acids, tannins, and lif,Tiitis [e^Lhed frnm decomposing plant litter.
Photo 4
-------
3
area, it was felt that the soils.
surficial materials, stream
substrate and velocity, made the
surface waters here more typical
of subregion 65f rather than the
coastal fiatwoods region.
un* "i. ('letir, satidv- fiottom streams are also found in this
f, H'Jcky <'reek in Walton Comity.
Dougherty/Marianna Plains SubregipnjjiSgj
Most of Jackson County, FL ana surrounding counties are influenced by the near-
surface limestone region that Brooks :I981b) calls the Dougherty Karst District and Harper
(1914, called the Lime Sink Region. The subregion extends well into Alabama and Georgia,
but not all of it has the distinct karsi type features as found in Florida. Although called
plains, the subregion also has some rsiline: low hills. It is. however, generally more fiat
than surrounding areas and has more intensive agriculture (photos 6 and 7). Portions of
the subregion contain relatively few -mail .surface streams (photo 8). The general soils and
vegetation maps do not always distinguish this subregion, but the geologic and
physiographic maps do. Clewell (1985 states that some northern plant species found in the
Marianna lowlands are found nowhere -Ise in Florida,
;
j
D
D
J
a
D
J
3
1
-------
i
1
-
D
I)
I
;
;
0
!
Photo
Phnws n and 7, The DuuHnanv/Munanna -Jlains is a region of muru intensive apncuiture than nther
parts or tht PanhandJt; N'Jtu thu vmKnoits und bav swamcs labnvei in .jacksmn C'ouncy. Red day
soils are ivpical in mans aroas nr this rvmon.
Photo 7
-------
1
There is i question of how tar i.jMth to expend this subregion into Florida. The
Marianna Lowlands meet a belt of hiirn ?ana hills just south of Dry Creek in Jackson
Countv Called the Compass LUKP riijjniancis Brooks 1982 or the New Hope Ridge (Pun
and Vprnon 19641. this area itoes aopear tc- Belong in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion
i#65i. The lake area in southern Washmsion County, the Crvstal Lake Karst or Greenhead
Slope, was within Omerniks H987 .'ioutnern Coastal Plain Ecoregion f#75), however that
boundarv has been adjusted to the south allowing these karst lakes to be included within
the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (=65 . VVhether this lake area should be included in the
Dough en vTVIarianna Plains subregion. due to the obvious limestone/karst landscape, or in
the Southern Pine Plains and Hills =ubre£ion because of its more hilly nature, or in the
Southern Coastal Plain ecoregion because of its slightly different more recent geologic
formation could be debated. On the physiography map by Wolfe et al., (1988) these more
hilly lake areas are considered part of the Northern Highlands rather than the Marianna
Lowlands. Brooks (1981b) includes them ail in his Dougherty Karst District. Wolfe et al.,
(19881 also note that the karst lake; of the Panhandle fit the Florida Natural Area
Inventory's (1990) Sandhill Upland Lake category better than their Sinkhole Lake type. We
include this lake area in the Doug-hen:v•.Marianna Plains subregion, but one could also
consider it a region within the region.
The western boundary of this .•subregion. for lack of better evidence, could follow the
physiographic district line of Brooks •'('4>l :J; north central Walton County, where one does
1
1
n
D
J
i
-------
<
]
!
1
]
1
I
!
]
1
I
see surface water differences between the karst features to the east and the more dissected
hilly area to the west. This line also crosses into Alabama near the Covmgton
County Geneva County line where Hodgkins et al., (1976) drew their Wiregrass Plains
boundary.
Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills Subregion i65hj
This subregion combines some heterogeneous hilly and upland areas, and it has some
geologic similarities to highland areas further west. Pine/hardwood forests are extensive on
both clay and sandv soils, and some agriculture is found throughout, especially to the east.
At the western end, the biotically distinctive area of the Appalachicola Bluffs and Ravines
grades into the Quincy Hills and the Tallahassee Hills. Towards the east, the relief
diminishes substantially with more rolling hills, solution basins and lower swampy areas.
This eastern area is a transition, with characteristics similar to the upland areas to the
south. The boundary with the Okefenokee subregion is fairly evident, but the southern
boundary is not easily determined
The eastern portion of this subreeion could easily be defined as a separate region, and
its character is not described by the -ubregion name of Tifton Upland/Tallahassee Hills.
From just east of Monticello in Jefferson founty up to Valdosta, GA and then south past
Typical mixttd land use nf Ih..- Tifton Upland, Oadsden County.
11
-------
I
I
1
I
I
i'hfiui Hi. Suburban Xcir^t m-ar
--"? .^ -T • ..turn
3
.1
1
]
Photo II. Cropland/Dasmro and noanun •,•-'"jd'.r. HamiU'in-Suwannee counties.
u
-------
J
Lake City, it is generally a low rolling karst plain with few streams present. There is a
gradual transition in the State Line Hills, and Brooks fl981bi notes that the Greenville
Islands and Swamps area in Madison County is similar to the Tallahassee Red Hills to the
west. The hills become more isolated, however, as one moves east toward the more flat
karst plains, and some regional schemes show a distinctive lime-sink area extending up
toward Valdosta (Harper 1914; Wharton 1978). .Although the topic of dividing this
subregion was discussed, the Florida DEP participants in this project were disinclined to
make such a division.
Table 1-1. General characteristics of subregions of the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (65) in Florida.
Subregion
Landform
Potential natural
vegetation
Land use/
land cover
Soils
Southern Pine
Plains and Hills
(6Sf)
Dougherty/
Mariannn Plains
(65gt
Tifton Upland/
Tallahassee Hills
Irregular plains, 50-
75% of gentle slope ts
on upland. Elevation
100-30(ia. Relief 100-
200ft.
Flat plains to
i rregula r plains.
Elevation 75-200ft.
Relief 511-100ft.
irregular plains, flat
sandy plains.
Elevation 75-30Qft.
Relief 50-200ft.
Mixed hardwood and
pines forest, lottgleaf
pine and xerophytic
oaks
Evergreen forest,
mixed forest, cropland
and pasture
LQtisols. Entisnls
Mixed hardwood and Cropland and pasture. Ultisols
pines forest, loDgleaf mixed forest,
pine and xerophytic evergreen forest
oaks
Mixed hardwood and
pines forest, longieaf
pine and xerophytic
oaks
Evergreen forest.
cropland and pasture,
mixed forest
Ultisols, Entisols
13
-------
SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN ECOREGION (#75,
Subregions: States:
- Gulf Coast Flatwoods AL. FL. MS
Southwestern Florida Flatwoods PL
Central Florida Ridges and Uplands FL
Eastern Florida Flatwoods FL
Okefenokee Swamps and Plains FL, GA
- Sea Island Flatwoods FL, GA
Within the state, the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion covers parts of northern Florida
and all of central Florida. It is a region of some heterogeneity, including swampy lowlands
along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts as well as an area of discontinuous highlands that
include numerous lakes. From the national scale, Omernik (1987! characterized the
ecoregion as flat plains (10-50% covered by standing water); southern mixed forest (beech,
sweetgum, magnolia, pine, oak) and southern floodplain forest (oak, tupelo, baldcypress);
land uses of forest and woodland grazed, woodland and forest with some cropland and
pasture, and swamp; and wet soils (aquods, aquents, aquepts, aquultsl.
Gulf Coast Flatwoods Subregion (75ai
This subregion stretches from coastal Mississippi into western Pasco County, Florida.
There are heterogeneous areas and habitats within the subregion, including coastal lagoons
and mangrove; swamp and marsh; the clastic, non-karst terraces and deltas of the
Appalachicola; limestone plains and rocklands; and paleo sand dune areas. Along the coast,
the coastal strand and pine scrub vegetation found on dunes, spits and barrier islands of
the Panhandle, changes to mangrove and coastal marshes from Wakulla to Pasco counties.
In gejietm, pine flatwoods mixed with some hardwood forest and swamp vegetation
characterize the inland region. The Appalachicola National Forest and private pine
plantations cover a large part of this subregion in Florida.
Southwestern Florida Flatwoods Subregion (75b?
This flatwoods subregion includes barrier islands and peninsulas, Gulf coastal lowlands
and valleys, as well as higher elevation areas such as the De Soto Plain and the Polk or
Bone Valley Upland. This subregion contains most of the forested Green Swamp area,
extensive areas of pasture and rangeland, spreading urbanization, disturbed lands from
phosphate mining, and citrus.groves to the south.
South of the Caloosahatchie valley the flatwoods grade into the Big Cypress area.
Davis (1943 p.47) notes the difficulty of denning a southern boundary for this region as it
nears the Big Cypress. He suggested his "western flatlands" region would be divided into a
northern and southern part by the Caloosahatchie valley, with the southern part being less
well drained, with thin sand soils over marl and limestone or calcareous sandstone. These
conditions give rise to "cabbage palm hammocks and other plants that prefer near-neutral
14
-------
i
Photo 12. Pensacrjla Bay, Gulf Breeze
peninsula. Santa Rosa Sound and
barrier island. =ama Rosa and
Escambm counties. Gulf Coast
Flatwoods
I
i
!
D
I
]
0
D
i
J
0
i
Photo 13. Bottomland bardwrvidn. (Jhiptjia Rivur nc-ar Hnney\'Ule. Gulf Couniy. Gulf Coast Flatwoods subregion.
15
-------
J'hocr- 14. ApaJachicoia National Fnre^i iriuT3uurbmeni gracciccs fiulf Coast Flat woods
iu ifl. .-andv Cretk ai ndal influenct
ilnuntv. llulf Cna.-E Fldtwraids suhrem
16
1
I
1
J
0
0
.1
3
J
J
I
3
I
-------
1
1
1
I
fl
J
J
D
3
D
D
f]
]
0
U
U
Photo 16. Littlt Manatee River ripanan
area Hillsborough County, Southwestern Florida
Flacwoods sub re EH™.
Phofri 1" Charlie *'rt*k. Hardu't' I'l.unlv.
Southwestern Plonda r"iiiiwnixts Miforuinnn
-------
fjtf. Its Th« (Ireer) Swamp =irea. I'.M'K Mimt^r counties. Southwestern Florida Flatwoods subrepon.
Photo 19, I'ypress swamp, Charlie BowleBS I'
Highland Hamtii'jck State Park, Hichkmdi
m Flnnda FlatWrt»wfas -.
3
1
i
i
i
1
i
I
I
-------
1
I
n
i
i
:
D
3
:
;
D
Phfilr, i
><: itid 21. Typical land diHturranct.^ in cha ?-ouinwes«>rn Florida Fiat woods subregioD
include onrjspnatu rnmina ahun: '''
-------
or alkaline soil conditions." (Davis 1943.. The southern section was also characterized by
Davis as having a great number of marsh, swamp, and open water depressions.
Central Florida Ridges and Uplands Subregion -75ci
The area from the Lake Wales Ridge/Intraridge Valley in the south, through the
highland dune area of Ocala National Forest, and into the Trail Ridge area in the north,
may comprise the longest smooth line of genetically associated lakes in the United States.
according to White {1970;. The sana hill karst area characterized by xeric hills and
solution basins is the principle recharge area of the Floridan aquifer. The soils tend to be
thick, acidic, sandy, and excessively to moderately drained. The natural vegetation
consisted of forests of longleaf pine, turkev oak and wiregrass (Davis 1967), and the current
land cover includes citrus orchards, herbaceous rangeland, cropland and pasture, and
urban/built-up land.
In delineating this area, several questions were raised about the dominant
characteristics and proper areas to include in ihe subregion. It was debated whether to
define one central ridge/uplands subregion. several disjunct units of the same subregion, or
several upland subregions. As White =19^0 notes and the USDA-SCS MLRA is drawn, the
general area also encloses large !o\viana^ Unt could define a subregion of the most
prominant ridge; and highlands, ana aiiotnr-r that covers the lower sandy uplands. When
does d highland or ridge become a iowUmu'1 For example, in the Brooksville/Weeki Wachee
I
I
1
1
D
1
Q
D
D
J
J
J
t'hotn H. Hotting upland with L-onnr--iim ir-m ciinis iu pina, nuar (Itfrmont, Laka (Bounty, Central
Kli>ndu "ItdL'e1- aria Uplands Mitiri-s." >n
-------
1
!
;
o
Photos 23 and 24. Increasing urban/suburbanization itccasionaDy meets geologic hazards such as
sinkholes. Pnlk County, CenLrai Flonca liid^BS and Uplands,
i
Photrj 2
21
-------
area in Hernando County and down into Pasco County there are sandy areas with karst
features, longleaf pine/turkey oak vegetation like the highlands, but elevations are less than »
75 feet. How do the ridges differ from one another? While there is heterogeneity in all the ]
subregions, are the various highland ridge lake areas that different from one another?
Davis' (1967) natural vegetation map shows a difference between the Lake District areas I
(longleaf pine and xerophytic oak) and the upland areas (e.g., Sumter Upland, classified as
hardwood forests). Near Gainesville and the Western Valley or Haile Limestone Plain, -*
there are karst plains with low hills, originally with hardwood forests. Should this be J
included in the Ridges and Uplands subregion, and what would be considered upland vs.
lowland in this area? 1
These questions and others like them were not always answered easily, highlighting
the fact that there are heterogeneous characteristics and subtle gradations within a central -.
ridge and upland subregion. When one generalizes, either/or decisions (upland or lowland) f
are made that always leave room for debate, but the attempt for this subregion was to
include most all of the upland xeric, sandy well drained areas and prominant ridges. The |
STATSGO soils maps, county soil surveys, and physiographic maps were useful in this
effort.
J
Eastem_Florida_Elatwoo-ds--5ubEggign (75d)
Originating from sequences of barrier islands and lagoons in Pliocene and Pleistocene |
time, the subregion is ribbed by sand ridges and some intervening swampy lowlands. Sand, -
silt and clay soils are mostly of poor drainage, but it is a diverse area of coastal strips,
valleys, ridges, and plains. Land uses include cropland and pasture, pine plantations, non- |
forested wetlands, and urban/suburban. On our first draft map we delineated a St. Johns
marsh area containing characteristics from both ecoregion 75 and 76. While historically |
this area had similar features such as muck soils and sawgrass marshes as found in the
Everglades area, much of the area has been transformed, and the DEP district biologists
suggested that it not be defined as a separate area from the flatwoods subregion. f
There is no strong evidence for a well-defined boundary between the Southwestern
Florida Flatwoods and the Eastern Florida Flatwoods subregions in the Glades County area. I
Our first draft map had a boundary similar to Brooks' (1981) physiographic division across 3
the northeastern part of Glades County, and similar to where Davis (1943) drew the
western boundary of his Istokpoga-Indian Prairie Basin. DEP biologists suggested that the J
streams in Hendry and Glades counties resembled streams in the Eastern Florida
Flatwoods more than the Southwestern Florida Flatwoods, and that the boundary should be I
moved further west. Much of this area is described as prairie, including the palm savanna J
and freshwater marsh Indian Prairie reported by Harper (1927) and the wet and dry
prairies depicted by Davis (1943, 1967). Our revised boundary is drawn to include most of {
22
-------
[
1
!
Photo 25. st Johns Riv«r, Vfilusia/Sfermnnk- •viuntie-. Eastern Florida Flatwnods subregion.
Photo 26. Econlockhatchee River, Orange I'nunty, Eastern Florida Flatwoods subrepion.
23
-------
]
']
1
Photo 27
f'hntfjs ^7 dnd US. Only d few cria.sted drua.s .if (.he Easmrti flnnda FliCM'oods subregion remain
relatively undisturbed hv human deiuldDmsint. Ahnvc. Memtt Island National Wildlife Refuge,
Rrevara (Inutrtv; helmv '"dtiavera: ,\(Uitin
-------
I
!
I
I
0
I
f]
D
0
1
0
i
u
[I
;
fhou
Photos 1!9 and HO. The sniuhem port inn nf the c, an tern Florida Ratwnnds has heun trans termed
to citrus KTOVOS and jrraztat; lund, with «XLBnsiv« -jandiztition. St. Lucie County (above).
Kissimmee River L-atiai, Okeathnhuu/Highlands muncies i below I.
Photo
25
-------
the prairie areas in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods. Although this boundary placement is
not as far to the west and southwest as some biologists recommended (Rick Cantrell, DEP-
Tallahassee, personal communication), it at least puts Fisheating Creek and Gator Slough
in the Eastern Florida Flatwoods.
s Plains and Swamps_SubTegion_C75eJ
Containing the headwaters of the Suwannee and St. Marys Rivers, this region contains
plains or terraces and basins of peat and muck deposits with marsh and swamp forests.
Although not recognized on several types of maps (MLRA, and some physiographic region
maps), this area has different topography, soils, mosaic of land use, and vegetation than
surrounding subregions. The swampy areas grade into poorly drained flatwoods. The
subregion in Florida is not substantial in size; it includes the Pinhook Swamp area, the
Osceola National Forest, and extends south near Lake City in Columbia County and the
Baker County/Union County line. The boundary is similar to the one defined by Brooks
(1981b) down to the Lake City Ridge, and the southern boundary can be determined from
the STATSGO soils maps. For Georgia, it is a larger and more important subregion.
Although our region in Georgia would generally be confined to the more hydric bog swamp
Okefenoke area, Veatch and Stephenson's (1911} physiographic map of the Georgia coastal
plain shows an Okefenokee Plain region extending from Florida to the South Carolina
border.
Sea Island Flatwoods Subregion _(_75fl
In Georgia and part of Florida, this is an area mostly of clastic sediments where fluvial
processes of eastward-flowing streams and rivers help shape the landscape. Broad coastal
barrier islands, salt marshes, plains, and ridges create some ecological habitat diversity.
This flatwoods subregion includes Trail Ridge, which differs in character from north to
south. Differences in drainage and soils create flatwoods on the northern part of Trail
Ridge and longleaf pine/turkey oak to the south. The subregion also contains upland plains
of flatwoods with marshes, swamps, and lakes. The soils in this area are characterized
generally as poorly drained spodosols.
The boundary between the Sea Island Flatwoods and the Eastern Florida Flatwoods to
the south is vague and uncertain. Brooks' (1981b) physiographic district boundary is
slightly further to the south than the division indicated by the soils maps. The DEP
district biologist (Lee Banks, DEP- Jacksonville, personal communication) recommended a
more northerly boundary line and our division tends to follow the break indicated by soils.
-------
,1
!
I
I
D
D
Q
0
J
D
Photo 'i\ The extensive Pinhonk ""-'.vamc- Rak',-r i^nuniy Okofenokee swamps and Plains subreglon.
Phnto 32. Pine plantation. HamiHi>;i i'i>unty, ' Jkol'unnkee Swamps and Plains subregion.
27
J
-------
Phot/) 33
Photos 5)3 and 34. Pigeon i're«k ana -vatersned, Nassau founty, Sea Inland Flatwpods suhreElon.
•'hotc-
I
I
I
I
'1
D
3
J
J
28
J
-------
I
1
D
n
j
o
u
I
w and. Nassau ('nuniv - ^ island'Fiaovotids
Hfi f''intu \i.'dra U«ach. St. .l"bn~ ' "
Klatwnrds subrefnon.
-------
Table 1-2. General characteristics of subregions of the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion (75) in Florida.
Subregion
Landform
Potential natural
vegetation
Land use/
land cover
Soils
Gulf Coast
Flatwoods (7Ga)
Southwestern
Florida Flatwooda
(75b)
Central Florida
Ridges and Uplands
(75c)
Eastern Florida
Flatwoods (75d)
Okefenokee
Swamp* and Plains
(75e)
Sea Island
Flatwoods (750
Flat plain, 10-50%
and >50% covered, by
standing water.
Elevation 0-12Qft
Relief 0-lOOft.
Plat plain, 10-50%
and >50% covered by
standing water.
Elevation 0-200ft
Relief 0-100ft
Generally flat plains
or rolling plains with
sandy highlands and
ridges. Elevation 50-
200ft. Belief 2Q-100ft
Flat plain, 10-50%
and >50% covered by
standing water.
Elevation 0-150ft.
Relief 0-75ft
Flat plain, >50%
covered by standing
water. Elevation 100-
175ft Relief 0-oOft.
Flat plain, 10-50%
covered by standing
water. Elevation 0-
250ft Relief 0-1
Pine Qatwoods.
swamp forests
Pine Datwoods,
grasslands of prairie
type
Longteaf pine forests
and Kerophytic oaks
Pine flatwoods,
grasslands of prairie
type, freshwater
marshes, swamp
forests
Swamp forest, pine
llaiwoods
Pine flatwoods
Evergreen forest,
forested wetland,
mixed forest land,
cropland and pasture
Cropland and pasture,
herbaceous rangeland,
orchards and groves
Orchards and groves.
cropland and pasture,
evergreen forest,
urb&n/liuilt up
Cropland and pasture,
herbaceous raageland,
evergreen forest,
forested and
nonforested wetland,
orchard/groves
Forested wetland,
evergreen forest
Evergreen forest.
forested wetland,
cropland and pasture
Spodosols, Ultisols
Spodosols, Entisols
EntUols, Alfisols
Spodosols, Entisols,
Histosols
Inceptisols, Spodosols
Spodosols, Ultisols,
Inceptisols, Rntisois
30
-------
SOUTHERN FLORIDA COASTAL PLAIN ECQREGION (#76)
Subregions;
- Everglades
- Big Cypress
- Miami Ridge and Atlantic Coastal Strip
- Southern Coast and Islands
The Southern Florida Coastal Plain Ecoregion has been characterized generally as flat
plains with wet soils, marshland and swamp land cover with everglades and palmetto
prairie vegetation types (Omernik 1987). Southern Florida contains some distinctive
ecological subregions, however, and relatively slight differences in elevation and landform
have important consequences for vegetation and the diversity of habitat types. The climate
is considered subtropical to tropical with a pronounced summer wet season. It is also a
region where humans have caused extensive hydrological and biological alterations (e.g.,
McPherson et al, 1976; Wilson and Porras 1983).
In addition to the usual thematic component maps, there are several general regional
schemes of south Florida that tend to reinforce the group of subregions listed above.
Harper's map (1927 p. 32) captures these general regions, though not all boundaries were
shown "...because too little known at present," Davis (1943) includes a more precise map,
and McPherson et al., (1976), Snyder et al, (1990) and Craig (1991) follow the same general
regional breakdown.
The Southern Florida Coastal Plain ecoregion boundary (Omernik 1987) has been
moved further south, closer to Lake Okeechobee, and is similar to the MLRA boundary.
Omernik's 1987 ecoregion Line followed closely Hammond's (1970) landform class ("more
than 50% covered by standing water"), extending up the Eastern Valley. However,
nrr.err.ik's (1987) ecoregion line appears to divide some distinct regions such as the prairie
areas north of Lake Okeechobee (Harper 1927), or the flatwoods areas [ie., western
flatlands and eastern flatlands of Davis (1943), the flatwoods regions of Harper (1927), the
Eastern and Southwestern physiographic districts of Brooks (1981), and the flatlands
physiographic regions shown in McPherson et al (1976)]. The more dramatic changes one
sees in moving from central Florida into southern Florida generally occur at or below Lake
Okeechobee. The evidence, in addition to the sources cited above, also include the
vegetation maps of Kuchler (1966) and Davis (1943), the AVHRR-NDVI data, the soils and
MLRA map of Caldwell and Johnson (1982), and certain thematic maps in the Atlas of
Florida (Fernald 1981). An examination of U.S. elevation data (USGS EROS Data Center
1990) shows an elevation class boundary similar to our boundary for the Southern Florida
Coastal Plain Ecoregion. (The elevation map also shows a close correlation and partial
explanation for the ecoregion/subregion divisions throughout EPA Region 4). There is also
6 evidence from several mapped characteristics of similarities between the St. Johns Marsh
area and the Everglades to the south. As White (1970) notes it is a transition area, and it
31
-------
makes for a broad fuzzy ecoregion boundary. *"!
Everglades Subregion_(76a)
This subregion includes Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area, the water 1
J
conservation areas, and the sawgrass and sloughs of the national park. For some water
quality studies, one would want to further divide this subregion. The Everglades n
Agricultural Area would be an important cultural overlay because land use and water I
quality are different from the rest of the Everglades.
There is also a question about the characteristics to use in determining the eastern 1
boundary of the Everglades along the Atlantic coastal strip/Miami ridge: current land use
and hydrologic realities or presettlement conditions? Our line tends to follow the land use ' l
and hydrologic canalization influences but is somewhat rounded and generalized especially „ J
in a few places where the wetter less developed areas occur at the western edge of the
built-up urban/suburban and agriculture area. 1
The Everglades is an important and unique ecosystem, with the park designated as an
International Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site, but its integrity is threatened ~j
by the processes of agriculture and urbanization that surround the "River of Grass." j
Big Cypress, Subregion_176b) 1
Boundaries of the Big Cypress subregion are not easily determined. Davis (1943, p.48)
noted that, "No one has definitely defined or circumscribed this region," and (p. 47) that |
"...it is difficult to define the exact northern boundary of the Big Cypress region," so that ,j
"only an arbitrary line" between the area and the western flatlands could be drawn. There
is also some fuzziness in the eastern boundary, and the mix of vegetation along the 1
boundary has changed in recent decades as shown by mapped evidence. "The eastern
boundary of the Big Cypress extends over into the Everglades basin, but these cypress i
forest areas, even if in the Everglades basin, are not considered a part of the Everglades," J
(Davis 1943, p.48). The SCS Soil Survey of Hendry County notes that the boundary
between the Everglades and adjacent physiographic provinces has been defined using J
vegetation and is placed where the characteristic sedges of the Everglades, including
sawgrass, are replaced by true grasses, pines, or cypress. It is interesting to note the - »
changes in areas of green tint ("woodland" or "woods-brushwood") from the 1956 edition of j
the Miami 1:250,000 USGS topographic map to the 1988 edition along this eastern
boundary, or the change from the 1956 West Palm Beach 1:250,000 map to the 1985 Ft. |
Lauderdale 1:100,000 map. The woodland/nonwoodland interface has generally moved
several miles to the west on the newer maps. The SCS, in developing their STATSGO soil »
map, followed the 1956 green tint/white tint interface almost exactly to separate association J
208 from 213.
32
-------
n
i
i
i
i
o
i
D
J
a
j
—
irijiy-- ijj'.i-
mjfr--m— ------ - -. —
1' oto :i" Ed^e ot' Everc)adt;> Ajrnruj
aire Jeauh County, Everglades suhregion.
F'hotfi -IS. Freshwater marl prairiu. [luciu ('••unLV, tlvurelades subregion.
-------
j
-'to ana 4H. 3ip s '.TUSS -.wnmt. ' ..ilk-T i
-------
1
1
0
D
0
0
D
Maps by Craig (1991) and Brooks (1981) recognize Devil's Garden, Immokalee Rise, and
Corkscrew Swamp to the north of the Big Cypress, while Snyder et al., (1990), has a more
northerly Big Cypress Swamp. All three areas have some cypress swamp, wet prairie and
flatwoods. Davis (1943) extends his Western Flatwoods into the northern part of Collier
County, Harper (1927) shows a very vague (no) boundary between the flatwoods and Big
Cypress. One could consider a Big Cypress subregion, with some heterogeneous
characteristics, extending almost to the Caloosahatchee Valley. Even on the USGS
1;250,000 topographic maps, this area is labeled as Everglades and one could include this in
Ecoregion 76. The headwaters of the Big Cypress watershed (Drew and Schomer 1984) are
different from the areas to the south, however, and there are some similarities between the
Immokalee Rise and the De Soto plain across the Caloosahatchie.
The western boundary of the Big Cypress subregion trends due south near Estero Bay,
generally staying three to seven miles inland from the coast down toward Naples. This is
supported by somewhat similar regional boundaries shown by Craig (1991), McPherson
(1976), Davis (1943), and Snyder et al., (1990), as well as other thematic maps. DEP
biologists have also suggested that the streams such as the Estero, Imperial, and
Cocohatchee Rivers are different from the freshwaters found in the Big Cypress to the east
(Richard Cantrell, DEP-Tallahassee; Ford Walton, DEP-Punta Gorda, personal
communications }.
Ridge/ Atlantic Cpastal Strip Subregion (76c)
At 27 degrees latitude, where the Florida Atlantic coast starts to trend from the
northwest to due south, the convergence of boundaries of the Southern Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (#76), the Atlantic Coastal Strip subregion and the Eastern Flatwoods subregion
creates some uncertainty about where the lines should cross the coastal ridges. Brooks'
(1981) physiographic district boundary skirts the east side of the Loxahatchee Slough and
extends to the ocean near Juno, just north of Lake Worth. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge
region shown by Craig (1991) ends just below Jupiter Inlet. Soils and vegetation maps tend
to support the Eastern Flatwoods extending south to near Ft. Lauderdale. The Miami Rock
Ridge is somewhat different from the Atlantic Coastal Strip, however the proliferation of
pavement from South Miami to West Palm Beach (80+ miles) tends to create a more
homogeneous area. Snyder et al., (1990) provides an informative discussion of the South
Florida Rockland, which includes limestone outcrop areas outside of this subregion.
The western boundary area of this subregion, especially west and northwest of Miami,
was previously more characteristic of the Everglades subregion with wet to dry prairie
marshes on marl and rockland, and sawgrass marshes (Davis 1967). Much of it is now in
agriculture and pasture with advancing suburbanization.
35
-------
.1
n
!
i
i
i
j
D
41 In- urhiin ji.a--:, " L]TV
hdt;e/AllanUi '' iasta.1 Stnp subregion.
]
.•i r 'r.Hitr i 'nuncy, ^uuihern Cnasi and Islands suhrepion.
D
J
D
J
-------
South
Islands Subreion f76d)
This subregion includes the low coastal areas of the Tea Thousand Islands and Cape
Sable, the islands of Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys. Fresh surface water habitats are
generally limited or non-existent in this subregion. There are differences between the
various types of keys and islands, but in considering general regions for a state as large as
Florida, this inclusion still keeps the region sufficiently homogeneous. The diversity of
island types relates mainly to origin and structure, such as the coral reefs of the Keys, the
vennetid reefs of the Ten Thousand Islands, and the low non-rocky sediment-trapped
islands in Florida Bay. The subregion has the greatest areal extent of mangroves in the
state and several large areas of saltwater marsh.
Table 1-8. General characteristic* erf nbregfons of the Southern Florid* Coastal Plato Beoragioa (78).
Bnbr*giosi
L*adform
Potential natural
Soil*
Everglade* (76*)
Big Cypress (76b)
Miami ItidfiW
Atlantic Coastal
Strip (7«c)
BoBtfaarn Coast and
Island* (7Bd)
Fiat plain,, >60%
covered by standing
water. Elevation 0-
SfifL B*lfaf 0-10ft
Flat plain, >fiO%
covered by standing
water. Elevation 6-
8Qft Relief 0-1 Oft.
Flat plain,
covered by standing
water. Eev«tjon 0-
20ft lUUef 0-lfift.
Fbt plain, >60%
eoratvd by standing
waUr, tidal dou^u,
npeo lagoon, low
iMS-cO) ridge deposits,
ami roofs and
island*. Elevation
<«ft itoiief
-------
SECTION 2
AQUATIC CLASSIFICATIONS OF FLORIDA
'A duHficattam abfluld b* ibdfnid in- • *p*a&c pupatr. it wffl mnljr MTV* two diff««nt paipe*»* equally w«D," (Grig?
1965).
2.1 INTRODUCTION
One goal of this project is to stratify the considerable biological variability of Florida
through the uae of a hierarchical set of ecological regions and water body types. Water
body types are usually classified using physical, chemical, or biological criteria or some
combination of the three. The classification of Florida water body types is a challenging
task due to the complexity and uniqueness of the state's hydrologic systems. One must
approach such a task cautiously and humbly, because our collective knowledge of the
processes and distributions of natural features is fragmentary, and because the complexity,
diversity and subtle gradations of these systems can make even a seemingly good
classification ineffective and less useful. We also need respect for and an understanding of
previous classification attempts, thus this short review of aquatic classifications in Florida
might be useful
Comprehensive classifications that attempt to cover all the water body types can be
found from several sources. Berner and Pescadores (1988) classification was used to
describe mayfly habitats (Table 2.1). The Florida Natural Areas Inventory's hierarchical
classification of natural communities (Natural Community Categories, Groups, and Types)
has three Categories, based on hydrology and vegetation, that cover water body types:
Palustrine, Riverine and Lacustrine (Table 2.2). The Florida Museum of Natural History is
using seventeen freshwater types for their fish database (Table 2.3). A Florida Department
cf Environmental Regulation biologist (Frydenborg 1991) uses a classification of aquatic
systems for development of an "eco-unit concept" (Table 2.4). Layfield and Harbour (1991)
proposed a stream and lake classification for their community bioassessment project (Table
2.5).
2.2 STREAMS
For streams, Beck (1965) aimed "to propose a uniform classification of the lotic habitats
of Florida." He reviewed similar previous classifications (ie., Rogers 1933; Can- 1940; Hobbs
1942; Berner 1950; and Herring 1951) and defined "five chemically, physically, and
biologically distinct stream types." These are:
Sand-bottomed stream
Calcareous stream
Larger rivers
Swamp and bog stream
Canals
38
-------
Table *-l. Aquatic (aMyftr) habitat*
(Burner and Peacador lt88) _
iBtetfavlttont Creeks
Farwuneot Croaks
Sand-bottomed creeks with little vegetation
Sand-tottamed cnwks dioked with vegetation
SnUjottoroed creeks with MttJe vegetation
ait-bottomed melt* choked with vegetation
Hirer*
Stagnant rivers
Slow-flowing deep riven
Larger calcareous stream*
MtdiaB aad Pool*
Road* dfl ditches
Boot* (transitory)
Table 14. A
«M»n W*1*K Florida Hi
«t Florida trachvaten
imrnvm of Natural Hlrtory)
Snkbole poods
Fluctuating ponds
Temporary woods pood*
Sporadic poods
Jmme rink
Stnami flowing into lake
Streams flowing oat of lake
Stream t flowing in and oat of lake
Landlocked lake
KtveriM take (St. Jofani River)
faponnded lake
IVEB8 AND BTREAMS
Baavy flow (>160 eb) with awlimant bottom
Lam flow (»-lSO «&} with aadimant bottom
•fodante How (1-UJ eft) with «ed1SO A) with ealonoot bottom
flow (»-150 A) with eakanotu bottom
Bow U-19.B c&) with eakanou botto
Large flw
Moderate
Low flow <<1 c&) with talearwtu bottom
Cypn»»
lakes
ant-bottomad lakes
Disappearing lakes
H*r*hM
Florida Keys
B8TUARINE
BnckJib
Swamps
Cyprus cwunps
Table S-t. A (dMBdfloatton of Florida't
(Fiyd«Bbor«
Table *•£. Water-ralated natural
o»t«KOriM, group* and! type* (Florida
Natural Armms Inventory lt»0)
LAJCUBTRINE
Clastic Upland Lake
Coaita] Done Lake
Coattal Rocklaod Lake
Mver Fkndplain Lake and Swamp Lake
Handbill Upland Lake
RIVERINE
ADnvial Stream
Blackwatar
Seepage
SpriDg-ran Slnani
PALU8TBJNE
WETFLATLANDS
Bydric Hamroock
Marl Prairie
Wet Flatwoods
W«t Prairie
SEEPAGE WBUANDS
LENTIC
Karit solution lake
Rabet Mtwiry lake
Streaawaipture lake
Ftotfaed a-ndfer lake
Ofiwn
Marsh
Swamp
Temporary pond
Coastal dona pond
Ltmc
ADvvial rivar
Bladrwatsr atraam
Bog-fed stream
Floridu aquifer-fed atream
BnrBdal aquifer*)
BBTUARINE
_
Had flats
fwMe M. CVutttkation
tohaa (Layflaid an
1M1)
BottmUand Forejit
Flocdplain Formt
FloodplaiD Marsh
LAKES
Karrt
Tectonic
Swamp
otnuid
Swale
BASIN WETLANDS
ButoUanh
Badn Swamp
Bog
DfpranloQ llanb
DOOM Swamp
Bverfbm
«TBEAHS AND BIVEBB
Tannic
Ssnd boiUan
Bead bottom with aprlof InflmaoM
Swamp and nog
Alluvial
CakarsoM and apring
39
-------
Clewell (1991) Tnai«tf»tna there has been no concerted effort to categorize Florida's
diverse streams, and criticized Beck's classification for being inconsistent in the use of
characteristics to diatinquish stream types. "Two stream types were based on the nature of
bottom sediments (sand-bottomed streams and swamp-and-bog streams), one on dissolved
solids (calcareous streams), one on size (larger rivers), and one on channel origin (canals),*
(Clewell 1991). Doubting that a consistent, multipurpose classification could be devised,
Clewell instead offers a characterization of contrasting stream types for attaining an
appreciation of Florida streams. The four contrasting stream types he describes are:
Blackwater streams
Spring runs
Alluvial rivers
Tidal rivers.
For panhandle blackwater streams, Wolfe et al, (1988) combined Beck's sand-bottomed
stream with the swamp and bog stream, "because the latter is merely a slower moving,
lower volume version of the former; the swamp and bog stream ... grades downstream into
a sand-bottomed stream if the drainage system is large enough." Their text goes on,
however, to explain how the two stream types differ.
That Beck was inconsistent in the use of characteristics to distinguish stream types is
of less concern than the ultimate utility of the classification. Similar to defining regions
where the determining characteristics and their relative importance may vary from one
area to another, the criteria to classify streams may be different to get the most useful
separation of stream types. This idea may be difficult to accept by a strict taxonomist.
For resource managers, however, that have a good understanding of the nature and
variability of these aquatic systems and realize there are many shades of gray, it may be
at.t,c|>taule to use different characteristics and careful identification to obtain a more
meaningful classification.
Nordlie (1990) discussed Florida stream classification efforts, concluding that Beck's
was the most widely used. He believed that the Florida Natural Areas Inventory scheme
suffered from the same disadvantages that other systems do and offered no additional
advantages. One of Nordlie's concerns was the difficulty of giving a single classification to
a stream because there may be several sources of inflow along its course that changes its
character. Some rivers originate from artesian springs and then become brown and acidic
from swamp discharge and surface runoff, e.g., the Aucilla River. Others originate as acidic
brownwater streams but receive spring input in their midreaches, e.g., the Suwannee and
Waccasassa, Others may be extensively altered by engineering or pollution. Nordlie went
on to classify thirty-three major Florida waterways using Beck's system. Although he
recognized that different sections of a river should have different classifications, he did not
attempt to do so.
Estevez et al, (1984) divided Florida rivers into alluvial, spring-fed, and blackwater
40
-------
, but also noted that many rivers (e.g., the Suwannee) show characteristics of all three
types in different reaches or at different times of the year.
One can see some similarity in the different stream classifications devised for Florida.
Initial group discussions with the DEP district biologists and other personnel, however, did
not lead to any consensus on an appropriate stream classification for the
regionalization/reference site project. Some efforts are underway to develop a more site-
specific classification that includes factors such as stream size, Telocity, substrate, energy
source and pH. In the interim, a relatively simple scheme ouch as sand bottom, sand
bottom with spring influence, swamp and bog, alluvial, and miscellaneous will be
considered.
2.3 LAKES
In the Water Resources Atlas of Florida, Estevez et al., (1984, p. 96) classifies lakes
simply as acid dear, acid colored, or alkaline clear. Also in the Atlas, Palmer (1984, p.62)
discusses the lake types as impoundments, solution lakes (two basic types), lakes in relict
sea bottom depressions, and lakes formed by erosion and sedimentation processes in rivers.
He also shows the percentage of total hikes classified by stream connection, ie,, no inlets
and outlets, inlets and outlets, outlets only, inlets only. The Florida Museum of Natural
History used this common straightforward hydrologic classification (Table 3) but at least
70% of Florida's 7800+ lakes are of the landlocked" type (no inlet or outlet). A more
useful classification would require subdividing this one class, Berner and Pescador (1988)
used bottom type, sand or silt, for their lakes and several criteria for ponds, but did not
make a dear distinction between a lake and a pond.
Huber et al., (1982) undertook a trophic state index classification of Florida's lakes in
response to the requirements of the EPA's Clean Lakes Program. Lakes were first
classified as nitrogen limited, phosphorus limited, or nutrient balanced. 573 lakes were
classified by an average trophic state index (TSI) as well as by several subindkes.
Hydrologic lake types (inflow, outflow, inflow-outflow, seepage, unspecified) were found to
not be a major factor influencing TSI values.
Myers and Edmiston's (1983) Florida lake classification project grouped lakes into
"poor" or "lair to good* classes using trophic state index. They then prioritized lakes for
restoration using a quantitative scheme based on the trophic state, recreational use, public
interest, impaired use, nutrient loading, and the importance as a public water body. They
listed the top 50 lakes in Florida in need of restoration. Most all occurred in central
Florida and were affected by cultural eutrophication. Myers and Edmiston also formulated
& ranking scheme for the top 50 lakes in Florida most deserving protection and
preservation (ie., those with good quality, public interest, recreation use, importance as
water body), and these were located throughout the state.
41
-------
2.4 SPRINGS
Springs have been categorized by Whitford (1956).
Soft freshwater
Hard freshwater
Oligohaline
Mesohaline
Sulfide
Salt sulfide
Slack and Rosenau (1979) divided first magnitude springs (average flow >100 cubic feet
per second) from second magnitude springs (average flow 10-100 cubic feet per second) and
mapped the chemical types of Florida springs as calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate, sodium
chloride, mixed, and calcium sulfate, Rosenau et aL, (1977) provides the most detailed
state publication on the springs of Florida.
2.5 MARSHES
Marshes of Florida have been summarized comprehensively by Kushlan (1990). He has
categorized the freshwater marshes into five major groups based on factors that "vary from
one physiographic region to the next." The distribution of marshes may be explained
through a combination of local and regional topography, rainfall, evaporation and geology.
The major groups from higher to lower elevation are:
Highland marshes
Flatwoods marshes
Kisaimmee marsh complex
St. Johns marshes
Everglades
Kushlan further divides marshes into "six major categories" or predominant plant
associations: water lily marsh, submersed marsh, cattail marsh, flag marsh, saw grass
marsh and wet prairie. He also discusses invertebrates, fish, and other "inrsh a"imalg
2.6 SWAMPS
In classifying surface waters, consideration of forested wetlands, or swamps, highlights
the difficulty of distinquiahing between land and water in Florida, One cannot understand
the biological integrity of a water body without considering closely integrated adjacent
swamp ecosystems. Ewel (1990) summarizes the current knowledge of swamp ecosystems
in Florida, and uses two broad divisions of a classification based on the National Wetlands
Inventory: River Swamps (whitewater floodplain forest, blackwater floodplain forest, spring
run swamp) and Stillwater Swamps (bay swamp, cypress pond, cypress savanna, cypress-
strand, gum pond, hydric hammock, lake fringe swamp, malaleuca swamp, mixed hardwood
swamp, shrub bog).
42
-------
t '
SECTION 3
STREAM REFERENCE SITE SELECTION
' To develop biological criteria and evaluate impaired water bodies, it is important to
establish reference conditions that are suitable for comparison. A key function of an
; ecoregion framework is its use in selecting regional reference sites and facilitating the
assessment of regionally attainable conditions. Ideally, control aites for estimating
attainable conditions should be as minimally disturbed as possible yet representative of the
' streams for which they are to be controls (Hughes, et aL, 1986). Although no two streams
are alike, we hypothesize that streams within an ecoregion or subregion will have generally
, similar characteristics as compared to all streams within a state or larger area. Because of
! the variety of stream types, extent of karst topography and relative lack of elevatkmal
differences in Florida, as compared to much of the conterminous United States, it is also
;i important to classify stream types and to consider groundwater influences. Different
stream types can occur in each subregion and groundwater influences may tend to mask
regional differences. Additional classifications or hierarchical levels may be needed to sort
out differing stream segments and habitat types.
General guidelines for selecting reference sites have been given in Hughes et al, (1986)
• and by Gallant et al., (1989). The process, however, is being refined as experience is
gained in current and ongoing ecoregion/reference site projects (e.g., Alabama/Mississippi,
Iowa, and EPA Region III). For any given project it may be necessary to modify or expand
general procedures; due to varying characteristics or objectives in different areas, it is
difficult to follow strictly a detailed rule-based approach that will be applicable to all
i regions. Our process of selecting candidate reference sites in Florida is outlined below:
1). We defined regions and subregions within which there is apparent homogeneity in a
combination of geographic characteristics that are likely to be associated with resource
quality, quantity, and types of stresses.
i •
2). We generally characterized disturbance (such as area! or nonpoint source pollution, and
local or point sources of pollution} in each ecoregion and subregion and analyzed geographic
characteristics to better understand representative or typical conditions. What comprises
disturbance may vary considerably from one region to another. In regions with nutrient-
? rich soils, poor drainage, but great agricultural potential, all streams may have been
. channelized at one time or another, and all watersheds may have a high'percentage of
agricultural land use. Reference streams in such a region comprise those with few if any
point sources, lack of recent channelization activity, and riparian zones with a relatively
large percentage of woody vegetation. Regions with nutrient-poor soils, lacking agricultural
r potential, and containing a different set of identifying landscape characteristics such as
43
-------
coniferous forests and clear streams and lakes, are likely to be affected by different types of
stressors. Relative lack of sHvicuitural activities or heavy recreational usage may be
important criteria in selecting minimally-impacted, representative reference streams in i
these regions. - J
3). A set of stream sites with approximated surface watersheds that appear relatively |
undisturbed and completely within the ecoregion or subregion was chosen. The actual
number of sites/watersheds selected was a function of the apparent homogeneity or .
heterogeneity of the region, the size of the region, hydrologic characteristics, and simply J
how many stream sites/watersheds were available for selection. The point of diminishing
returns, regarding the number of streams necessary to address regional attainable quality l;
and within-region variability, may be reached with only a few sites in regions that are
relatively homogeneous and/or small. Complex regions, on the other hand, are likely to
require a large number of sites. Another consideration was access, ie., do roads get the
biologists near enough to the stream section for sampling? Disturbance and typicalness
were interpreted from information shown on l:250,000-scale and l:100,000-scale USGS i
topographic maps, land use and soils maps, and Landsat imagery. The existence of
populated areas, industry, agricultural land use, forestry, mining, catfish ponds, fish
hatcheries, transportation routes, etc., were all interpreted from mapped information. The
1988 and 1990 Florida Water Quality Assessment 305(b) reports were also consulted for
each potential site to assess water chemistry/quality, and point- or non-point source
pollution impacts. The number of preliminary candidate sites per subregion varied, ranging 1
from only eight in subregion 75C, the Central Florida Ridges and Uplands where relatively
few streams are found, to twenty sites in subregion 75D, the Eastern Florida Flatwoods. A
list of the candidate sites was developed that included the subregion, site number, stream
name and location, major basin, county, l:100,000-scale map name, DEP district, estimated
watershed area (if determinable), and additional comments. This was given to the state
biologists along with photocopies of the exact site locations.
i
4). Each set of sites was reviewed by state biologists, and sites were visited during ground
reconnaissance to get a sense for the usefulness of the regions, the characteristics that
comprise reference sites in each region, the range of characteristics and types of
disturbances in each region, and how site characteristics and stream types vary between
regions. In this process, sites that were found unsuitable were dropped (because of
disturbances not apparent on the maps or due to anomalous situations) and other sites
could be added.
44
-------
5j Aerial reconnaissance was conducted to identify disturbances not observable from the
ground, to get a better sense for the spatial patterns of disturbances and geographic
characteristics in each region, and to photograph typical characteristics, site locations, or
disturbances for use in briefings and publications.
It should be remembered that all of the reference sites have some level of disturbance.
There are no pristine, unimpacted watersheds in Florida, or, considering atmospheric
deposition of contaminants, anywhere else in the U.S. The least or minimally impacted
sites were looked for, but levels of impact are relative on a regional bask. The
characteristics of appropriate reference sites will be different in different ecoregions and
subregions and for different waterbody and habitat types- I* *& desirable, therefore, to have
a large number of candidate reference sites for each region to help define the different
types of streams, to illustrate the natural variability within similar stream types, and to
clarify the factors that characterize the best sites from factors present in the lower quality
sites.
45
-------
SECTION 4
FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The natural regions delineated for the state of Florida characterize areas of similarity
with respect to environmental factors that affect aquatic resources. Specifically, the regions
subsume broad scale differences in the physical-chemical environment that influence the
types of fishes found. Differences in factors such as gradient, clarity, productivity,
temperature and dissolved oxygen affect the suitability of waters for various fishes and tend
to be integrated and represented by the delineated regions. Water body type and
watershed area will also influence the distribution of particular types of fishes.
As part of the regionalization project, we used information on the distribution of fish
species collected throughout the state (Burgess and Walsh 1991) to examine differences in
fish assemblages and the degree to which the differences corresponded to the delineated
regions. We did not attempt to delineate fish fauna! regions. Such an endeavor would
require incorporation of additional background information beyond the scope of this study
(e.g., present and historical connections between drainage basins, species introductions,
changes in sea level, and community dynamics life** competition and predation). Our
purpose was to focus on the characteristics of the current physical-chemical environment
that vary regionally and affect the suitability of fish habitats.
4.2 METHODS
Catalogued material from the Florida Museum of Natural History fish collection was
used to characterize the fish assemblages throughout the state. Written descriptions of
sampling sites were used by museum personnel to identify water body types (Table 4-1) and
site locations on 1^250,000-scale USGS maps. Locations were digitized by ERL-C personnel
to provide exact latitude and longitude coordinates and subregion classification.
Sampling methods and the degree to which methods were documented for the samples in
the collection were not consistent. For this reason the fish assemblages were characterized
in terms of fish species presence or absence rather than actual abundances. A more
quantitative analysis would be inappropriate given the lack of uniformity in sampling
methods. In many instancM, more than one sample was collected at a particular site. The
number of samples was tabulated and data were combined to characterize the fishes at
each site.
A master database was designed with one record for each site. The,fish species
occurring at that site were flagged. All data were double entered and verified prior to
production of site-by-species matrices for statistical manipulation.
46
-------
Table 4-1. Classification of Florida Freahwaters: the water body types used to
classify each sampling site in the Florida Museum of Natural History database.
LAKES
(1) Streams flowing into a lake
(2) Streams flowing out of a lake
(3) Streams flowing in and out of a lake
(4) Landlocked lake
(5) Riverine lake (St. Johns River)
(6) Impounded lake
RIVERS AND STREAMS
(7) Heavy flow (>150 cfs} with sediment bottom
(8) Large flow (20-150 da) with sediment bottom
(9) Moderate flow (1-19.9 cfs) with sediment bottom
(10) Low flow (<1 cfs) with sediment bottom
(11) Heavy flow O150 cfs) with calcareous bottom
(12) Large flow (20-150 cfs) with calcareous bottom
(13) Moderate flow (1-19.9 cfs) with calcareous bottom
(14) Low flow (<1 cfs) with calcareous bottom
LARGE MARSHES
(15) Everglades-Big Cypress
SUBTROPICAL PERIPHERAL
(16) Florida Keys
ESTUARINE
(17) Brackish
Several types of multivariate statistical methods have been shown particularly effective
in depicting regional differences in fish assemblages. We employed two basic statistical
approaches. The first was to display cites in multi-dimensional apace, based on the
similarity of the fish species present, and compare site groupings with groupings based on
subregion membership. We used clustering and ordination techniques for this purpose and
color-coded the sites in the resulting plots by subregion membership. Correspondence
between similar species groupings and subregion membership were then evaluated.
The other basic approach employed was to classify sites a priori, by subregion, and
evaluate subregional differences in characteristics of the fish assemblages. We constructed
ordered tables of dominant species ("species signatures1') and box-plots of species richness
for each subregion and then evaluated differences between the subregions.
It should be noted that species richness will vary, regardless of subregional differences.
In proportion to both sampling intensity and watershed size. For this reason, plots were
drafted using only sites sampled more than once (generally 2-4 times) and sites were pooled
based on major water body types sampled (as a crude surrogate for watershed area; see
Table 4-1).
47
-------
4.3 SELECTED RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Extensive detrended correspondence analyses of the database, partitioned both
geographically and by water body type, indicated some subregional differences. Analysis of
all of the low flow sites sampled more than once throughout the state yields a
representative summary of these analyses (Figure 2X Sites from subregion 65f, the
Southern Pine Plains gnH Hills, appear the most tightly clustered (similar in terms of fi«h
species composition), followed by those from subregion 75e, Okefenokee Swamps and Plains.
Sites from the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (65) generally appear to the left of sites from
the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion (75) with the exceptions of subregions 75a (Gulf Coast
Flatwoods) and 65h (Tifton Upland/Tallahasee Hills) which overlap the sites of the opposite
ecoregion significantly.
Cluster analysis of the Panhandle portion of the database, the portion which had
revealed the clearest subregional separation, yielded a large number of distinct clusters.
The degree of separation by subregion was analogous to that of the detrended
correspondence analysis with a slightly stronger separation of the clusters of sites from the
Southern Pine Plains and Hills subregion (650.
The ordered table of characteristic species illustrated that while there are some species
generally common to most subregions, there are definite shifts in the characteristic species
from one subregion to the next (Table 4-2). In order to achieve this level of distinctiveness,
the criterion for inclusion in the table was adjusted to species found at greater than 16% of
the sites in the subregion.
Preliminary analyses of species richness, by subregion, had indicated that distinct
differences might exist between regions. After sites were partitioned to correct for
potentially confounding effects of sampling intensity and watershed size, box plots by
subregion did reveal differences (Figure 3). Most noticeable is the fact that the most
frequently sampled water body types differ by subregion. It remains to be determined
whether these differences in water body type are truly representative of waters within the
regions or merely arti&cta of the way in which sampling sites were chosen. Regardless, it
appears that fish assemblages in low flow sites in the Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (65)
seem most diverse, contrasted with low flow sites in the Southern Coastal Plain Ecoregion
(75). Species richness was low in the sampled sites of the Southern Florida Coastal Plain
Ecoregion (76), particularly in subregion 76d.
In summary, our analysis of the fish collection of the Florida Museum of Natural
History indicates that there are some regional differences in the types of fishes found
throughout the state of Florida. Differences an most evident between sites of the
Southeastern Plains Ecoregion (66) and the rest of the state. Variation in species
composition among sites within the same subregion is quite high. A large amount of this
48
-------
variation is suspected to result from the lack of controlled site selection and sampling
processes; the museum fish database contains whatever specimens were of interest to
investigators for a variety of reasons. It is expected that standardized survey techniques
employed to sample sites selected as truly representative of those in each suhregion would
yield more pronounced regional differences.
49
-------
J
]
:l
-------
o
o
CD
CO
"x
<
O
O
o
o
OJ
o -
• 65f 9 75a « 76a
© 65g * 75b * 76b
• 65h • 75c % 76c
• 75d *76d
~T
0
75f
100
200
300
400
500
600
Axis I
Figure 2. Detrended correspondence analysis of fish species composition at low flow sites in
Florida sampled more than once (minus three outliers).
-------
;
i
.
I
-------
Table 4-2. List of "signature fishes" or those species appearing in more than 16% of the
samples taken from each subregion. Numbers indicate actual percentage of sites in the
ou at which the species was collected.
j
j
65F 65G 65H 75A 75B 75C 75D 75E 75F 76A 76B 76C 76D
PTERON2 46.1
ETHEOS1233.3
FUNDUL9 33.3
NOTURU1 26.2
ERIMYZ2 26.2
ICHGAG 23 . 4
NOTROP5 22.7
LEPOMI5 20.6
ERIBUC 17.7
CYPRIN3 24.3 21.4
ETHEOS3 24.1 22.3
NOTROP4 23.2
ETHEOS1 17 . 6
NOTURU3 52.5 23.2
FUNDUL5 18.4 30.4 16.9
NOTROP9 56.7 32.1 23.2
PTERON1 66.6 26. B 22.5 16.6
PERCIN1 70.9 2B.6 35.2 16.0 23-3
APRSAY 26.2 26.8 25.3 23.3 34.6 21.0
ESSOX1 22.7 35.7 17.6 22.8 34.6
LEPOMI1 34.5 24.4
CENMAC 22.3 19.0 34.6
ElxASSOl 17.6 20.7 42.3
LEPOMI4 29.5 27.6 16.6 37.1
LEPOMI6 21.1 16.4 16.7 30.6
NOTROPB 17.6 16.7 19.8 IB. 6
ENNEAC2 17.6 16.0 16.2 21.2 21.0
ERIMYZ1 16
ETHEOS4
GAMBUE1 34
LABSIC
Liti-vm^
LEPOMI3
LEPOMI7 42
MICROP4 21
NOTCRY
HETFOR
JORFLO
FUNDUL2
FUNDUL8
FUNDUL11
ACAPOM
NOTURU2
LEPOMM
ENNEAC3
NOTROP2
POELAT
LUCIAN1
AMEIUR3
FUNDUL3
LEPISO3
LUCIAN2
'CYPVAR
MENID:I
FUNDUL6
HENIDI2
.3 22.3 17.6 17
16.6 16.4 24
.0 50. 9 42.3 42.1 50
36.4 35.9 23.0 31
^J.7 29.6 21.3 36
40.2 41.5 21.5 31
.6 28.6 IB. 3 26.4 2B
.3 33.9 31.0 28.0 23
24.1 29.6 20
16.0 37
26
31
36
23
.2
.1
.0
.9
.2
.9
.4
.3
.7
.1
.4
.0
.2
.3
16
40
21
21
34
26
15
17
21
16
19
18
.0
.7
.3
.3
.7
.0
.3
.3
.3
.0
.0
.7
16.
16.
39.
29.
24.
27.
19.
21.
21.
25.
19.
19.
27.
26.
2
7 19
2 36
6 25
8 25
3 17
2
3 17
5
1
0
28
2
19
17
25
32
6
B
17
.2
.5
.0
.0
.3
.3
.8
.2
.3
.0
.7
.3
17.4 16
19
43.0 65
34.9 21
22.1 54
22.1 37
26.7 56
27.9 37
17.4 32
54
45
43
21.0
53
48
33
12
30
.1
.4
.5
.0
.6
.1
.1
.1
.3
.6
.2
.5
.2
.4
.9
.9
.6
69
46
23
30
23
46
53
53
46
53
23
30
.2
.2
.1
.B
.1
.2
.6
.6
.2
.8
.1
.B
27.9 31.3
19.1
20.6 29.2
20.6
20.8
29.2
22.9
20. B
IB. 8
16.7
51
-------
Table 4-2 (cont.) KEY TO SPECIES ACRONYMS:
PTERON2 Pteronotropis signipinnis
ETHEOS12 Etheostoma (Ulocentra) n. sp
FUNDUL9 Fundulus olivaceus
NOTURU1 Noturus funebris
ERIKYZ2 Erimyzon tenuis
ICHGAG Ichthyomyzon gagei
NOTROP5 Notropis longirostris
LEPOMI5 Lepomis megalotis
ERIBOC Ericyrnba buccata
CYPRIN3 Cyprinella venusta
ETHEOS3 Etheostoma edwini
NOTROP4 Notropis harper!
ETHEOS1 Etheostoma bifacia
NOTURU3 Noturus leptacanthus
FUNDUL5 Fundulus escambiae
NOTROP9 Notropis texanus
PTERON1 Pteronotropis hypselopterus
PERCIN1 Percina nigrofasciata
APRSAY Aphredoderus sayanus
ESOX1 Esox americanus
LEPOMI1 Lepomis auritus
CENMAC Centrarchus macropterus
ELASSO1 Elassoma evergladei
LEPOHI4 Lepomis marginatus
LEPOMI6 Lepomis microlophus
NOTROP8 Notropis petersoni
ENNEAC2 Enneacanthus gloriosus
ERIMYZ1 Erimyzon sucetta
ETKEOS4 Etheostoma fusiforme
GAMBUS1 Gambusia holbrooki
LABSIC Labidesthes sicculus
LEPOMI2 Lepomis gulosus
LEPOMI3 Lepomis macrochirus
LEPOMI7 Lepomis punctatus
MICROP4 Micropterus salmoides
NOTCRY Notemigonus crysoleucas
HETFOR Heterandria formosa
JORFLO Jordanella floridae
FUNDUL2 Fundulus chrysotus
FUNDUL8 Fundulus lineolatus
FUNDUL11 Fundulus seminolis
ACAPOM Acantharchus pomotis
NOTURU2 Noturus gyrinus
LEPOMH Leptolucania ommata
ENNEAC3 Enneacanthus obesus
NOTROP2 Notropis chalybaeus
POELAT Poecilia latipinna
LUCIAN1 Lucania goodei
AMEIUR3 Ameiurus natalis
FUNDOL3 Fundulus confluentus
LEPIS03 Lepisosteus platyrhincus
LUCIAN2 Lucania parva
CYPVAR Cyprinodon variegatus
MENIDI1 Menidia beryllina
FUNDUL6 Fundulus grandis
MENIDI2 Menidia peninsulas
flagfin shiner
blackspotted topminnow
black madtom
sharpfin chubsucker
southern brook lamprey
longnose shiner
longear sunfish
silverjaw minnow
blacktail shiner
brown darter
redeye chub
Florida sand darter
speckled madtom
russetfin topminnow
weed shiner
sailfin shiner
blackbanded darter
pirate perch
redfin pickerel
redbreast sunfish
flier
Everglades pygroy sunfish
dollar sunfish
redear sunfish
coastal shiner
bluespotted sunfish
lake chubsucker
swamp darter
eastern mosquitofish
brook silverside
warmouth
bluegill
spotted sunfish
largemouth bass
golden shiner
least killifish
flag fish
golden topminnow
lined topminnow
Seminole killifish
mud sunfish
tadpole madtom
pygmy killifish
banded sunfish
ironcolor shiner
sailfin molly
bluefin killifish
yellow bullhead
marsh killifish
Florida gar
rainwater killifish
sheepshead minnow
inland silverside
gulf killifish
tidewater silverside
-------
1
!
Figure 3. Box plots of fish species richness at sites sampled 2-4 times in each water body
type lor two subregions per ecoregion. Water body types displayed indicate those most
frequently sampled in each subregion. Water body codes are as in Table 4-1.
j
D
J
:
!
Lentic
Low Row
*
-
Moderate to Heavy Flow
uj.S
O.B
Z pi
Si
oj
ui s1
if
G.
_l
in
2
.0.
0
(T4B
i
O
CO!
(T413)-
<** it]
(10)
(M)
|l»
P51
M.rshes
botlocn
Mod«r*it la
fWWH^Jf nOW
*ni«KJ bottom
30
25
20
15
10
5
.30
.25
.20
.15
10
.30
.25
.20
.15
10
- 5
1 °
.30
J5
.10
- 5
- 0
.30
.25
.20
.15
10
. 5
.30
.25
.20
.15
10
CO
TJ
m
O
m
CO
O
m
**dirncnt bonom
52
-------
SECTIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The definition of an ecoregion framework for Florida was not a simple task, due in part
to the complex mosaic of landscape characteristics and the subtle changes in this mosaic
from one place to another, relative to other areas of the United States. Compared to other
states, however, Florida does seem to have a rich collection of maps, books, documents and
databases describing its physical features and biotic distributions. This abundance of
material provided some confidence in our decisions for regional delineations. Despite the
volumes of written material, the multitude of maps and graphs, and the gigabytes of
government agency data, the spatial distributions and variations in quality of terrestrial
and aquatic habitats and associated biota are not as well known or documented as is
needed for effective management or regulatory practices. With increasing population
growth and landscape alteration, there may be uncertainty about just what is being lost;
hence, it becomes imperative to find appropriate areas or biotic communities to use for
comparisons of resource quality.
Our ecoregion framework for Florida is a general framework for the state to be used
for environmental resource assessment and management. Because regions are mental
constructs and boundaries are defined with certain purposes in mind, the interest in «*2h n
framework should not be in its absolute truth but in its utility. Does it provide a
mechanism to better understand spatial variations in ecosystem potential or in the nature
and quality of environmental resources? We believe that the framework along with the
selection of stream reference sites can help build the foundation for a better understanding
of regional differences. The ecoregion map is a hypothesis, a potentially useful framework
to be debated, tested, and improved.
One need this project helped to highlight, but failed to completely reconcile, was the
development of a useful classification of streams. While this report included a review of
aquatic classifications used in Florida, and several group discussions about stream types
were held with DEP district biologists and others, a consensus could not be reached on
classes of streams that had relevance across the state yet were reflective of local conditions
and processes. For the sake of agreement and to begin assessment of reference site data, a
general classification was adopted (EA Engineering, Science, and Technology and Tetra
Tech, Inc. 1994). The need for comparison and extrapolation may show that this general
stream typing is not adequate to represent certain stream characteristics. Because the
topic was not easily resolved, there may be some reluctance to revisit the issue, but DEP
staff- should continue to discuss and develop the classification if there are obvious
shortcomings with the one currently adopted.
Although the mapping of water body types was one of the original tasks for this
project, it became clear that what could be mapped with the data available was not very
53
-------
useful to the biologists and water quality managers. We did convert some of the lake data
bases, such as the Florida Lake Gazetteer and Huber's (1982) Classification of Florida
Lakes, to ARC/INFO files and produced draft maps of some of the physical feature types,
but for stream types, data on the geographic extent is scarce. Once the DEP biologists
reach a consensus on an effective classification scheme for characterization and typing of
the reference streams, an effort should be made extend this work to other stream reaches.
This must be viewed as a long-term project, but much of this information may already
reside in the minds of the district biologists, and it should be relatively straight-forward to
mark reaches on an agreed scale of map for later digitization.
Along with the classification of reference sites, more effort should be made to assess
their representativeness. This is difficult in a state like Florida, where regional patterns
are often composed of complex mosaics and many systems appear unique. Because classic
topographic watersheds have little meaning in much of Florida, more work needs to be done
in characterizing land patterns and hydrologic flows that affect the reference sites and
would influence comparisons with other streams. There also should be more analysis and
evaluation of the larger river biological station reference sites that were chosen by a
different process than the other stream reference sites (Layfield and Barbour 1991). Until
more is known about these sites and the relative contributions of multiple regional
influences, we recommend that these reference site data bases be kept separate.
In addition to the use of reference sites for assessing attainable water quality, the
ecoregion framework could also be used to organize and analyze the current status of
surface water conditions. Current status could be determined by sampling a random
selection of streams within the regions. The EMAP grid could be used to select these sites,
and, if sampled regularly, the values could be compared to those of the reference sites to
Ltl>. oaacao cumulative impacts and temporal trends. Although the amount and distribution
of least-impacted and most-impacted surface water varies from one region to another, a
logical scheme for inventorying the extent of surface water resources and their quality
(relative degradation) would couple an ecoregion reference site framework with a systematic
EMAP grid. Data from sets of regional reference sites representing least* and most-
impacted conditions (selected qualitatively) would be compared and grouped with data from
randomly selected sets of EMAP grid sites.
To make conclusions about this regionalization project does not imply that the work is
completed. The hypothesis that a regional framework and sets of regional reference sites
can give managers and scientists a better understanding of the spatial variations in the
chemical, physical and biological components of streams in Florida is intuitive but must be
tested. Significant time and effort is required for the collection and analysis of data to
more fully understand attainable surface water quality. To use that knowledge to actually
improve the quality of waterbodies across the state wfll be a continuing challenge in
overcoming narrow interests and institutional barriers.
54
-------
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.R. 1970. Major land uses. Map scale 1:7,500,000. In: The national atlas of the
United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. pp.158-159.
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. 1988. Regulation establishing water
quality standards for surface waters of the State of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR. 77p.
Bailey, R.G. 1976. Ecoregions of the United States. (Map). U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Sendee, Ogden, UT.
Bailey, R.G., S.C. Zoltai, and E.B. Wiken. 1985. Ecological -regionalization in Canada and
the United States. Geoforum 16(3):265-275.
Bass, D.G., Jr. and D.T. Cox. 1985. River habitat and fishery resources of Florida. In:
Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources. W. Seamon Jr., (ed). Florida Chapter,
American Fisheries Society, Kiaaimmee, FL. pp. 121-187.
Bazata, K 1991. Nebraska stream classification study. Water Quality Division, Nebraska
Department of Environmental Control, Lincoln, NE.
Beaver, J.R., T.L. Crisman, and J.S. Bays. 1981. Thermal regimes of Florida lakes.
Hydrobtologia 83: 267-273.
Beck, W.M., Jr. 1965. The streams of Florida. Bulletin of the Florida State Itluaeum,
Biological Sciences 10(3):91-126.
Berner, L. 1950. The mayflies of Florida. University of Florida Press. Biological Sciences
Series 4(4):l-267.
Berner, L. and M.L. Pescador. 1988. The mayflies of Florida. University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville. 415p.
Bradley, J.T. 1974. The climate of Florida. In: Climates of the States. Volume I - Eastern
States. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
pp.45-70.
Brooks, H.K. 1981a. Geologic map of Florida. Scale 1:500,000. Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Brooks, H.K. 1981b. Physiographic divisions. Scale 1:500,000. Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Brooks, H.K. 1982. Guide to the physiographic divisions of Florida. Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Burgess, G.H. and S.J. Walsh. 1991. Final Report: Cooperative UF/DER/EPA Florida
ichthyofaunal regionalization/bioaasessment project. Florida Museum of Natural History,
Gainesville, FL 12p.
Caldwell, RE. and RW. Johnson. 1982. General soil map - Florida, Scale 1:1,000,000. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with University of
Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences and Agricultural Experiment Stations,
Soil Science Department.
55
-------
Canfield, D.E., Jr., and M.V. Hoyer. 1988. Regional geology and the chemical and trophic
state characteristics of Florida lakes. Lake and Reservoir Management 4(1):21-31.
Carr, A.F., Jr. 1940. A contribution of the herpetology of Florida. University of Florida
Publication, Biological Science Series 3(1}:1-11B.
Ceryak, R,, M.S. Knapp, and T. Bumson, 1983. The geology and water resources of the
er Suwannee River basin, Florida. Florida
logy Report of Investigations No. 87. 165p.
upper Suwannee River basin, Florida. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Geolc
Clark, W.Z., Jr. and A.C. Zisa. 1976 (Reprinted 1988). Physiographic map of Georgia. Scale
1:2,000,000. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Geologic Survey Branch,
Environmental Protection Division.
CleweU, A.F. 1985. Guide to the vascular plants of the Florida panhandle. Florida State
University Press, Tallahassee. 605p.
Clewell, A.F. 1991. Florida rivers: the physical environment. In: The Rivers of Florida. R.J,
Livingston (ed.). Springer-Verlag Inc., New York, pp.17-30.
Cooke, C.W. 1939. Scenery of Florida interpreted by a geologist. Florida Geological Survey
Bulletin No. 17.
Cooke, C.W. 1945. Geology of Florida. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 29.
Craig, A.K. 1991. The physical environment of south Florida. In: South Florida: The Winds
of Change. T.D. Boswell
-------
Ewel, K.C. 1990. Swamps. In: Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds.).
University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, pp. 281*323.
Fenneman, N.M. 1938. Physiography of eastern United States. McGraw-Hill, New York
7l4p.
Fernald, EA, (ed). 1981. Atlas of Florida. Institute of Science and Public Affairs. Florida
State University. Tallahassee. 276p.
Fernald, E.A. and D.J. Fatten (eds.). 1984, Water resources atlas of Florida. Florida -State
University. Tallahassee. FL.
Florida Natural Areas Inventory. 1990. Guide to the natural communities of Florida,
Florida Natural Areas Inventory and Florida Department of Natural Resources, Talkhasee.
lllp.
Florida Resources and Environmental Analysis Center. 1989. Florida rivers assessment.
Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee. 452p.
Florida State Board of Conservation. 1966. Gazeteer of Florida streams. Division of Water
Resources and Conservation, Tallahassee, FL.
Friedemarm, M. and J. Hand. 1989. Typical water quality values for Florida's lakes,
streams, and estuaries. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Surface
Water Management, Tallahassee, FL. 23pp + appendix.
Frydenborg, R, 1991. Water quality standards meeting, Region IV. Atlanta. August 21.
Grigg, D. 1965. The logic of regional systems. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 55:465-491.
Gallant, A.L., T.R, Whittier, D.P. Larsen, J.M. Omernik, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Regionalization as a tool for managing environmental resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, CorvaUis, Oregon. 152p.
Hammond, E.H. 1970. Classes of land-surface form. Map scale 1:7,500,000. In: The
national atlas of the United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
pp. 62-63.
Hampson, P.S. 1984. Wetlands in Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Bureau of
Geology Map Series No. 109. Tallahassee, FL.
Hand, J. and M. Paulic. 1992. 1992 Florida water quality assessment, 305(b) technical
appendix. Bureau of Surface Water Management, Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. Tallahassee, FL. 355p.
Harper, R.M. 1914. Geography and vegetation of northern Florida. Florida Geological
Survey 6th Annual Report pp. 163-487.
Harper, R.M. 1915. Vegetation types. In: Natural resources of an area in central Florida.
E.H. Sellards et al, (eds.). Florida Geological Survey 7th Annual Report, pp. 135-188.
Harper, RM. 1921. Geography of central Florida. Florida Geological Survey 13th Annual
Report, pp. 71-307.
57
-------
Harper, R.M. 1927, Natural resources of southern Florida. Florida Geological Survey 18th
Annual Report, pp.27-206.
Head, C.M. and R.B. Marcus. 1984. The face of Florida. Kendall-Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Heath, R,C, and C.S, Conover. 1981. Hydrologic almanac of Florida. U.S. Geological Survey
Open File Report 81-1107. Tallahassee, FL. 239p.
Heiskary, S.A. and C.B. Wilson. 1989. The regional nature of lake water quality across
Minnesota: an analysis for improving resource management. Journal of the Minnesota
Academy of Sciences 55(l):71-77.
Hellier, T.R., Jr. 1967. The fishes of the Santa Fe River system. Bulletin of the Florida
State Museum, Biological Sciences ll(l):l-46.
Herring, J.L. 1951. The aquatic and semi-aquatic Hemiptera of northern Florida. Part 4:
Classification of habitats and keys to the species. Florida Entomologist 34: 141-161.
Hobbs, H.H., Jr. 1942. The crayfishes of Florida. University of Florida Publications,
Biological Sciences Series 3(2):1-179.
Hodgkins, E.J., T.K. Cannon and W.F. Miller. 1976. Forest habitat regions from satellite
imagery, states of Alabama and Mississippi. Map scale approximately 1:1,000,000.
Supplement to Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 210. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Hubbell, T.H., A.M. Laessle and J.C. Dickinson. 1956. The Flint-Chattahoochee-Apalachicola
region and and its environments. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences
HU1-72.
Huber, W.C., P.L Brezonik, J.P. Heaney, R.E. Dickinson, S.D. Preston, D.S. Dworaik, and
M.A. DeMaio. 1982. A classification of Florida lakes. Final Report ENV-05-82-1 to Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation. Tallahassee, FL.
nugnes, it.M. In press. Defining acceptable condition. In: Biological Assessment and
Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision Making. T.P. Simon and W. Davis
(eds.). Lewis Publishing, Chelsea, ML
Hughes, R.M. 1989, Ecoregional biological criteria. In: Proceedings of an EPA Conference,
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Dallas, Texas, March 1989. pp. 147-151.
Hughes, R.M., and 15 coauthors. 1993. Development of lake condition indicators for EMAP -
1991 pilot. In: EMAP-Surface Waters 1991 Pilot Report. D.P. Larsen and S.J. Christie
(eds.). EPA/620/R-93/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. pp.7-90.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Qmernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for
assessing stream potentials. Environmental Management 10(5): 629-635.
Hughes, R.M., E. Rezstad, and C.E. Bond. 1987. The relationship of aquatic ecoregions,
river basins, and physiographic provinces to the ichthyogeographic regions of Oregon.
Copeia 1987(2);423-432.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, C.M. Rohm, and D.P. Larsen. 1990. A regional framework for
establishing recovery criteria. Environmental Management 14(5):673-683.
58
-------
Hunt, C.B. 1979. Surficial geology. Map scale 1:7,500,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Rest on,
VA.
Jordan, C.L. 1984. Florida's weather and climate: implications for water. Chapter 3. In:
Water Resources Atlas of Florida. EA Fernald and D.J. Patton (eds.). Florida State
University, Tallahassee, pp. 18-35.
Kaufman, MI. 1975. Generalized distribution and concentration of orthophosphate in
Florida streams. U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 33.
Revised. .
Kaufman, M.I. 1975. The chemical type of water in Florida streams. U.S. Geological Survey,
Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 51. Revised.
Kaufman, M.I. 1975. The color of water in Florida streams and canals. U.S. Geological
Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 35.
Kaufman, M.I. 1975. The pH of water in Florida streams and canals. U.S. Geological
Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 37. Revised.
Kenner, W.E. 1975. Seasonal variation of streamflow in Florida. Map Series No. 31. Bureau
of Geology, Florida Department of Natural Resources, Tallahassee.
King, P.B., and H.M Biekman. 1974. Geologic map of the United Stales. Ivlup »c«ile
1:2,500,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Klein, H.F., J. Annbruster, B.F. McPherson, and H.J, Freiberger. 1975. Water and the
south Florida environment. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations 75-24.
Tallahassee, FL.
Kuchler, AW. 1970. Potential natural vegetation. Scale 1:7,500,000. In: The National Atlas
of the United States of America. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, D.C. pp. 89-91.
Kunneke, T. and T.F. Palik 1984. Northwestern Florida ecological characterization: an
ecological atlas. Map narratives. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/47.1. 323p.
Kurz, H. 1942. Florida dunes and scrub, vegetation and geology. Florida Geological Survey
Bulletin 23:1-154.
Kushlan, JA 1990, Freshwater marshes. In: Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J.
Ewel (eds.). University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, pp.324-363.
Larsen, D.P., R.M. Hughes, J.M. Omemik, D.R, Dudley, C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whittier, A.J.
Kinney, and A.L. Gallant. 1986. The correspondence between spatial patterns in fish
assemblages in Ohio streams and aquatic ecoregions. Environmental Management 10:815-
828.
Lawton, D.E. 1977. Geologic map of Georgia. Map scale 1:2,000,000. Department of Natural
Resources, Geologic and Water Resources Division.
Layfield, T. and M Barbour. 1991. Florida Community Bioassesament Project Preliminary
Data Report (Task 1). EA Report 60226.01. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, inc.
Sparks, MD
59
-------
Lineback, N.G., and C.T. Traylor. 1973. Atlas of Alabama. The University of Alabama
Press, University, AL. 138p.
Lineback, N.G., and D.C. Weaver. 1985. Land Use and Land Cover, State of Alabama. Scale
1:500,000. Cartographic Laboratory, Department of Geography, University of Alabama.
Livingston, R.J. (ed). 1991. The Rivers of Florida. Springer-Verlag. New York 289p.
Loveland, T.R., J.W. Merchant, D.O. Ohlen, J.F. Brown. 1991. Development of a land-cover
characteristics database for the conterminous U.S. Photogrammetric Engineering and
Remote Sensing 57(11):1453-1463.
Lyons, J. 1989. Correspondence between the distributions of fish assemblages in Wisconsin
streams and Omernik's ecoregions. American Midland Naturalist 122(1 ):163-182.
McPherson, B.F., G.Y. Hendrix, H. Klein, and H.M. Tyus. 1976. The environment of south
Florida: a summary report. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1011. Washington,
D.C. 77p.
Myers, R.L. 1990. Scrub and high pine. In: Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel
(eds.). University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, pp. 150-193.
Myers, V.B. and H.L. Edmiston. 1983. Florida lake classification and prioritization. Project
#8004388: Final report. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee.
77pp+ appendices.
Nordlie, F.G. 1990. Rivers and springs. In; Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel
(eds.). University of Central Florida Press, Orlando, pp. 392-425.
Ohio EPA. 1988. Biological criteria for the protection of aquatic life. Volume 1. The role of
biological data in water quality assessment. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Columbus, OH. 44p.
Umernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 77(1):118-125,
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1990. Defining regions for evaluating environmental
resources. In: Global Natural Resource Monitoring and Assessments. Proceedings of the
International Conference and Workshop, Venice, Italy, pp.936-947.
Oeborne, W.E., M.W. Srabo, C.W. Copeland, T.L. Neathery. 1989. Geologic map of Akbama.
Scale 1:500,000. Geological Survey of Alnhtmia, Special Map 221.
Palmer, S.L. 1984. Surface water. Chapter 5. In: Water Resources Atlas of Florida. E.A.
Fernald and D.J. Pattern (eds.). Florida State University, Tallahassee, pp.54-67.
Pascale, -C.S., J.R. Wagner, and J.E. Sohm, 1978. Hydrologic, geologic, and water quality
data, Ochlockonee River basin area, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource
Investigation 70-97.
Parker, G.G. et al, 1955. Water resources of southeastern Florida. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Supply Paper No. 1255.
60
-------
Perkins, H.F. and M.E, Shaffer. 1977, Soil associations and land use potential of Georgia
soils. Scale 1:750,000. Georgia Agricultural Experiment Stations and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Pfischner, F.L., Jr. 1968. Relation between land use and chemical characteristics of lakes in
southwestern Orange County, Florida. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 600-8.
pp.B190-B194.
Pirkle, E.G., Jr. 1956. Notes on physiographic features of Alachua County, Florida.
Q.J.Fla.Acad.Sci. 19:168-182..
Plotnikoff, R.W. 1992. Timber/fish/wildlife ecoregion bioassessment pilot project. Washington
Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. 57p.
Puri, H.S. and R.O. Vernon. 1964. Summary of the geology of Florida and a guidebook to
the classic exposures. Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 5. 312p.
Rogers, J.S. 1933. The ecological distribution of the crane-flies of northern Florida.
Ecological Monographs 3(l):l-74.
Rohm C.W., J.W. Giese, and C.C. Bennett. 1987. Evaluation of an aquatic ecoregion
classification of streams in Arkansas. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 4(1): 12 7-140.
Rosenau, J.C., G.L. Faulkner, C.W. Hendry, Jr., and R.W. Hull. 1977. Springs nf
Geological Bulletin No. 31. Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Geology,
Tallahassee, FL. 46 Ip.
Ross, L.T. and D.A, Jones. 1979. Biological aspects of water quality in Florida: Part I:
Escambia-Perdido, Choctawhatchee, Apalachicola, AutiUa-Ochlockonee-St, Marks, and
Suwannee drainage basins. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Technical
Series 4(3). Tallahassee, FL. 516p.
Sapp, C.D. and J. Emplaincourt. 1975. Physiographic regions of Alabama. Scale 1:1,000,000.
Geological Survey of Alabama, Map 168.
Schomer, N.S. and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecological characterization of the lower Everglades,
Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-6 2/58.1.
Washington, D.C. 246p.
Shafer, M.D., RE. Dickinson, J.P. Heaney, and W.C. Huber. 1986. Gazeteer of Florida
lakes, Florida Water Resources Research Center, Publication No, 96. University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Shannon, E.E. and P.L Brezonik. 1972. Limnological characteristics of north and central
Florida lakes. Limnology and Oceanography 17:97-110.
Simons, R.W. 1989. Terrestrial and freshwater habitats. Chapter 5. In: An Ecological
Characterization of the Florida Springs Coast (Draft). S.H. Wolfe (ei). U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-88/xz.x.
Sinclair, W.C. and J.W. Stewart. 1985. Sinkhole type, development, and distribution in
Florida. Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 110. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with
Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Water Resources Management, Florida
Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee.
61
-------
]
Slack, L.J. and D.A. Goolsby. 1976. Nitrogen loads and concentrations in Florida streams.
U.S. Geological Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 75. Florida Department
of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, FL.
Slack, L.J. and J.C. Rosenau. 1979. Water quality of Florida springs. Map Series 96. Florida
Bureau of Geology, U.S. Geological Survey. Tallahassee, FL.
Snell, L.J. and W.E. Kenner. 1974. Surface water features of Florida. U.S. Geological
Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 66.
Snyder, J.R., A Hemdon, and W.B. Robertson, Jr. 1990. South Florida rockland. In:
Ecosystems of Florida. R.L. Myers and J.J. Ewel (eds.X University of Central Florida Press,
Orlando, pp.230-277.
Stone, R.B. 1974. Low streamflow in Florida - magnitude and frequency. U.S. Geological
Survey, Florida Bureau of Geology Map Series No. 64.
University of Florida, Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences. 1983. Technical
report: a classification of Florida lakes. Two volumes. University of Florida, Gainesville.
491p.
f | U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Experiment Stations of the Southern States
J and Puerto Rico Land-Grant Universities, and USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Soils
of the southern states and Puerto Rico. Map scale 1:5,000,000. In: Soils of the southern
states and Puerto Rico. Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin No. 174. Forth Worth, TX.
104p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Land resource regions and
major land resource areas of the United States. Agriculture Handbook 296. USDA Soil
Conservation Service, Washington D.C. 156p.
n U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, Auburn University, and Alabama
{ Agriculture Experiment Stations. 1984. General soil map, State of Alabama. Scale
t J 1:1,000,000. USDA-SCS, Ft. Worth, TX.
( U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1985. 26 ecological communities
J of Florida. USDA-SCS, Gainesville, FL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Advisory Board. 1991. Evaluation of the
ecoregion concept, Report of The Ecoregions Subcommittee of The Ecological Processes and
,J Effects Committee. EPA-SAB-EPEC-91-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 25p.
J U.S. Forest Service. 1970. Major forest types. In: The national atlas of the United States of
America. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. pp. 154-155.
' | Vemon, R.O. and H.S. Purl 1964. Geologic map of Florida. Scale appro*. 1:2,000,000.
« I Division of Geology Map Series No. 18. U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with Florida
Board of Conservation, Tallahassee.
I Warry, N.D. and M. Hanau. 1993. The use of terrestrial eeoregions as a regional-scale
1 screen for selecting representative reference sites for water quality monitoring.
Environmental Management 17(2):267-276.
62
J
-------
Wharton, C.H. 1978. The natural environments of Georgia. Geologic and Water Resources
Division and Resource Planning Section, Office of Planning and Research, Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta, GA. 227p.
White, N.A. 1958. Some geomorphic features of central peninsular Florida. Florida
Geological Survey Bulletin No. 41. Tallahassee.
White, W.A. 1970. The geomorphology of the Florida peninsula. Florida Department of
Natural Resources, Geological Bulletin No. 51.
Whitford, L.A, 1956. The communities of algae in the springs and spring streams of Florida.
Ecology 37: 433-442.
Whittier, T.R., R.M. Hughes, and D.P. Larsen. 1988. The correspondence between ecoregions
and spatial patterns in stream ecosystems in Oregon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and
Aquatic Science* 45:1264-1278.
Wiken, E. 1986. Terrestrial ecozones of Canada, Environment Canada. Ecological Land
Classification Series No. 19. Ottawa, Canada. 26p.
Wilson, L.D. and L. Porras. 1983. The ecological impact of man on the south Florida
herpetofauna. Special Publication No. 9. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History
and World Wildlife Fund. Lawrence, KS. 89p.
Wolfe, S.H., (ei). 1989. An ecological characterization of the Florida Springs Coast - Draft.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-88/n.x.
Wolfe, S.H., J.A. Reidenauer, and D.B, Means. 1988. An ecological characterization of the
Florida panhandle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(12); Minerals
Management Service OCS Study MMS 88-0063. 277p.
63
-------
APPENDIX A
Florida Streams
Potential Candidate Reference Sites
Ecoregion #65
ERL-C/US EPA
4-1-92
65F Southern Pine Plains and Hills
65F01 McDavid Creek at Hwy. 99
Perdido Basin
Escambia County
Bay Minette 1:100,000
Northwest District
65P02 E. Pork Big Cpldwater Creek
BLackwater Basin
Santa Rosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65P03 Big Juniper Creek
Blackwater Basin
Santa Rosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65F04 Sweetwater Creek
Blackwater Basin
Santa Rosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
Appros. Size
24 mi2
35 mi3
30 mi*
29 mi3
Blackwater Basin
Okaloosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65F06 Big Creek
Yellow River Basin
Okaloosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65P07 Turkey Gobbler Creek
Yellow River Basin
Okaloosa County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
23
lOrni*
Agricultural headwaters
may raise coliform
counts. WQI=21
Near state forest bdy.
or upstream at Hwy. 4.
At Hwy. 191 or could be
combined with 65P4 and
sampled below Sweet-
water Cr,
Above Cedar Creek May
want to move downstream for
larger watershed at
Hwy. 4 or next road down south
of Munson.
Some agricultural land
use, primarily in headwaters.
Some agriculture.
Laurel Hill ?
Need some representation
of sandy Eglin Ridge streams.
Which ones are
least disturbed? Air
Force base access?
64
-------
65F08 Little Alaqua Creek
Choctawhatchee Bay Basin
Walton County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65F09 Rocky Creek ab. Little Rocky
Choctawhatchee Bay Basin
Walton County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
24 mi1
Eglin AFB access?
38 mi3
District addtion. Eglin AFB. What
is non-
forested area in upper reaches?
Shrub and brusbland?
65F10 Mitchell Creek
Escan-bia River Basin
Escambia County
Bay Minette 1:100,000
Northwest District
lOmi1
District addition.
* Big Pine Barren Creek and Canoe Creek in Escambia County should also be considered
although they include significantly more agricultural activities. Some representation of the
agricultural areas might be desired. Canoe Creek has had reported fish declines, cedirr.er.t,
turbidity and pesticide problems, but has some ongoing SCS watershed projects. The size
of Big Pine Barren and human impacts in the upper reaches indicate some likely problems,
but the lower reaches and tributaries appear mostly forested.
65
-------
65G Dougherty/Marianna Plains
65G01 Sandy Creek ab. W. Sandy
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Walton County
Crestview 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G02 Parrot Creek
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Holmes County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G03 West Pittman Creek
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Holmes County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
Approx. Size
24 mf
15 mi8
30 mi2
Most all sites in this subregion
have agricultural land use in the
watersheds.
65G04 Reedy Creek
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Holmes County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G05 Limestone Creek
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Holmes County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
6SG06 Hard Labor Creek
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Washington County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G07 Econfina Creek
St. Andrews Bay Basin
Washington/Bay Counties
Panama City/Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
20 mi2
4 mi*
60 mi2
>90mii
Crossed by powerline, railroad,
and interstate.
How significant are these small
calcareous streams? WQI=17.
Catfish Branch and Paul Branch
to the west may be less impacted.
How small should we go for
reference sites?
Sedimentation from roads and
site preparation reported for Flat
Creek Cumulative impacts may
require search for least impacted
reaches.
Pina wata
Hwy 20 or above.
66
-------
65G08 Wrights Creek east of Noma
Choctawhatchee River Basin
Holmes County
Marianna/Dothan 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G09 Spring Branch
Chipola River Basin
Jackson County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G10 Pelt Creek
Chipola River Basin
Jackson County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G11 Tenmile Creek
Chipola River Basin
Calhoun County
Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
65G12 Ocheesee Creek
Apalachicola River Basin
Calhoun/Jackson County
Bainbridge/Marianna 1:100,000
Northwest District
35 mi1
12 mi*
Check with Vicki Bauer, AL.
DEM,
AtHwy 2
4 mij
30mia
Above confluence with Dry Creek.
New Hope Ridge.
At Road 274 west of Chason,
New Hope Ridge.
25 mi2
67
-------
tt&M lift on Upland/Tallahassee Hills
N,aj"p/Ix)cation Arox. Size
Comments
65H01 Crooked Creek
Apalachicola River Basin
Gadsden County
Bainbridge 1:100,000
Northwest District
65H02 Sweetwater Creek
Apalachicola River Basin
Liberty County
Bainbridge 1:100,000
Northwest District
65H03 Mule Cretk at Hwy 12
Ochlockonee River Basin
Liberty County
Bainbridge 1:100,000
Northwest District
65H04 Rocky Comfort Creek
Ochlockonee River Basin
Gadsden County
TaHah assee/Bainbridge
l:100,000's
Northwest District
65H05 Black Creek
St. Marks River Basin
Leon County
Bainbridge/Tallahassee
^1:100,000*8
Kuruiwest District
65H06 Welaunee Creek
Aucilla River Basin
Jefferson County
Perry 1:100,000
Northeast District?
16 mi'
13 mi!
11 mis
30 mi2
11 mi!
10 mi2
Apalachicola Blufis area may be
too unique, not representative of
subregion. Flat Creek has
Interstate thru the length of
watershed.
Unique?
More typical soils than Bluff
sites.
Agricultural area but appears to
have good riparian cover. Spring
may be located above Turkey
Creek and Road 65b bridge.
Flows into unnamed creek then
disappears into Copeland Sink.
Questionable.
West of Lake lamonia.
68
-------
Florida Streams
Potential Candidate Reference Sites
Ecoregion #75
ERL-CAJSEPA
4-1-92
75A Gulf Coast Flatwoods
75A01 Black Creek
Choctawhatchee Bay
Walton County
Fort Walton Beach/Panama
City/Marianna 1:100,000*3
Northwest District
Approi. Size
37 mi1
(26 mi8
above Camp
Cr.)
Is this a reasonable
substitute for Lafayette Cr. which
may have agric. impacts, and
includes some areas in 6SF?
(Lafayette deleted by district).
75A02 Big Crooked Creek
St. Andrews Bay
Bay County
Panama City 1:100,000
Northwest District
75A03 Sandy Creek
St. Andrews Bay
Bay County
Panama City 1:100,000
Northwest District
75A04 Kennedy Creek
Apalachicola River Basin
Liberty County
Panama City 1:100,000
Northwest District
75A05 New River
New River Basin
Liberty County
Tallahassee 1:100,000
Northwest District
75A06 Sopehoppy River
Ochlockonee River Basin
Wakulla County
Tallahassee 1:100,000
Northwest District
20mis
20 mi2
20
16+mi3
at Vilas,
50+mi2
below Bay
Creek.
48 mi8
(USGS) at
FS road
7,9mi nw
of Arran.
At Hwy 388.
Pine plantation impacts?
Above Mule Creek.
May be marginal.
At Cotton Landing Recreation
Site.
May be less disturbed above Vilas
at Hwy 65.
"One of the blackest of the
black-water streams."
Either crossing above Monkey
Creek
OFW waterbody.
69
-------
75A07 Juniper Creek ab. New River
Neve River Basin
Liberty County
Tallahassee 1:100,000
Northwest District
75A08 Econfina River
Steinhatchee River Basin
Taylor County
Perry 1:100,000
Northeast District
75A09 Spring Warrior at Rd 361
Steinhatchee River Basin
Taylor County
Cross City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75A10 Eightmile Creek
Steinhatchee River Basin
Dixie County
Cross City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75A11 Rocky Creek ab Gulf of Mexico
Steinhatchee River Basin
Dude County
Cross City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75A12 Waccasassa River at Hwy 24
Waccasassa River Basin
Levy County
Ocala 1:100,000
Northeast District?
75A13 Wekiva River at Rd 326
Waccasassa River Basin
Levy County
Ocala 1:100,000
Northeast District?
36 mi2
198 mi2
(USGS)at
crossing
above Hwy
98.
30-nni2
30+mi*
May want to move upstream
depending on silviculture impacts.
Adverse wq trends reported.
Some elevated levels of nutrients,
chlorophyl-a and bacteria
reported.
WQI only fair. Some high
bacteria counts. Is this typical of
area? What are small square
ponds on map?
Small coastal stream at Road
361.
Some silviculture activities.
70
-------
75B Southwestern Florida Flatwoods
Stl"Eflm NflPP/Location ApproT. Size
75B01 Little Withlacoochee River ?
Withlacoochee River Basin
Sumter/Hernando Counties
Inverness 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B02 Withlacoochee River, Hwy.471 ' ?
Withlacoochee River Basin
Pasco/Sumter/Polk Counties
Tarpon Springs/Kissimmee
l;100,000's
Southwest District
75B03 Pithlachascotee River east of
Moon Lake
Crystal River to St.
Petersburg Beach Basin
Pasco County
Tarpon Springs 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B04 Anclote River on private road
3.2mi nw of Odessa
Crystal R.-St.Pete.Bch. Basin
Pasco County
Tarpon Springs 1:100,000
Southwest District
>150 mia
(USGS)
68.1 mi2
(USGS)
At Hwy. 50 or above. Silviculture
and agriculture impacts, low DO,
Land use impacts, weed
problems, plus naturally
water quality.
Swamp or river?
Includes 75C?
Questionable site.
poor
Multiple impacts. May want to
move upstream of South Branch.
[Would upper Hillsborough River above Crystal Springs (and preferably above the airport
tributary) be a suitable and comparable swamp-and-bog type reference stream? Access?]
75B05 Little Manatee River ab.S.Pk
Little Manatee River Basin
Hillsborough County
St. Petersburg 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B06 South Fork Little Manatee R,
Little Manatee River Basin
Manatee/Hiilsborough Counties
St. Petersburg 1:100,000
Southwest District
88 mi1
Elevated bacteria and nutrients.
Any new phosphate mining?
35 mi1
71
-------
0
75BO? Charlie Creek above Little Charley
Bowiegs Cr., Hwy 64
Peace River Basin
Hardee County
Barlow 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B08 Oak Creek ab. Charlie Creek
Peace River Basin
Hardee County
Arcadia 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B09 Manatee River at Hwy 64
Manatee River Basin
Manatee County
Sarasota/St. Petersburg
l:000,000's
Southwest District
75B10 Myakka River ab Myakka City
Myakka River Basin
Manatee County
Sarasota 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B11 Horse Creek at Hwy 70
Peace River Basin
De Soto/Hardee Counties
Arcadia 1:100,000
Southwest District
Josnua Creek at Hwy 31
Peace River Basin
De Soto County
Arcadia 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B13 Prairie Creek at Hwy 31
Peace River Basin
De Soto County
Arcadia 1:100,000
Southwest District
75B14 Shell Creek above Prairie Cr.
Peace River Basin
Charlotte County
Fort Myers 1:100,000
South District
Better downstream?
55 mi2
Agriculture impacts.
60mis
60 mi2
May have too many impacts.
Phosphate rnioing in North Fork
headwaters? May want to delete.
Sluggish, marshy blackwater. No
flow here?
140 mi2
>70 mi2
Status of proposed phosphate
mining?
Agriculture and cattle.
233 mi2
(USGS)
Better quality downstream?
Affected by impoundment?
72
-------
75C Central Florida Ridges and Uplands
(A characteristic of this subregion is that there are few streams. There are some short lake
inlets or outlets, and also a few spring runs. The sites below may be some of the better
streams in the subregion, however the uniqueness of several of them raises the question of
comparability.)
gfrpftarr| frfapr^/Location Appror. Size QQirtmen^g
75C01 Cabbage Creek ab.L. Orange Cr. 15 mi*
Oklawaha River Basin
Putnam County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75C02 Deep Creek ab.Gum Cr, Hwy 315 6 mi*
Oklawaha River Basin
Putnam County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75C03 Acosta Crk. Hwy 309 n. Welaka 6 mia May be marginal.
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Putnam County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75C04 Juniper Creek (Ocala N.F.) ? Spring run.
Upper Si Johns River Basin
Marion County
Daytona Beach 1:100,000
Central District
75C05 Alexander Sp. Cr.(0cala N.F.) ? Where to sample?
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Lake County
Daytona Beach 1:100,000
Central District
75C06 Black Water Creek at Hw/ 44A ?
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Lake County
Orlando 1:100,000
Central District
75C07 Tiger Cr. ab Lake Weohyakapka ?
Kissimmee River Basin
Polk Counly
Bartow 1:100,000
Central District
73
-------
75C08 Livingston Cr. ab LkArbuckle
Kissimmee River Basin
Polk County
Barlow 1:100,000
Southwest District
75D Eastern Florida Platwoods
Stream Name/Location
Approi.Size
Comments
75D01 Rocky Creek e. of La Crosse
Santa Fe River Basin
Alachua County
Gainesville 1:100,000
Northeast District
75D02 Hatchet Creek at Hwy 26
Oklawaha River Basin
Alachua County
Gainesville 1:100,000
Northeast District
22 mis
Agricultural NFS impacts?
30
Landfill? Channelization?
Fairbanks and Waldo
development. WQI=20's.
[Need discussion about Orange Creek, Cabbage Creek, Little Orange Creek in Oklawaha
basin. High quality waters but flow through two different subregions].
75D03 Silver River
Oklawaha River Basin
Marion County
Daytona B,/Ocala l:100»000's
Central District
7&D04 Daisy Creek
Oklawaha River Basra
Marion County
Daytona Beach 1:100,000
Central District
75D05 Simms Creek ab. Etonia Cr.
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Putnam County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
NA
14 mi1
35 mi3
One of a kind in 75D?
Tourist springs in 75C.
Probably small flow. Turf farm
along Hwy 315 may impact
quality.
Upstream titanium mining? How
does poor water quality
downstream in Etonia & Rice
Creeks affect biota in Simms
Creek?
74
-------
75D06 Moses Creek w.of Crescent Bch
Upper East Coast Basin
St. Johns County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75D07 Pellicer Creek
Upper East Coast Basin
St. Johns/Flagler Counties
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75D08 Upper Middle Haw Creek near
Relay
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Flagler/Volusia Counties
Daytona Beach 1:100,000
Northeast/Central Districts
75D09 Bulow Creek blw. st.monument
Upper East Coast Basin
Volusia County
Daytona Beach 1:100,000
Central District
75D10 Cow Creek ab. Deep Creek
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Volusia County
Orlando 1:100,000
Central District
75D11 Tootoosahatchee Creek at road
2 mi s. of Hwy 50.
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Orange County
Titusville/KisaimmeelilOO.OOO
Central District
75D12 Jim Creek at rd e. of Hwy 520
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Orange County
Cape Canaveral/Kissimmee
l:100,000's
Central District
75D13 Wolf Creek, rd e. of Hwy 419
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Osceola County
Cape Canaveral 1:100,000
Central District
9 mi3
40+mi* at
Hwy 1
45-1- mi9
OFW waterbody.
Some cattle. Swampy. Naturally
low ph, DO.
12+mi2
Questionable, though appears less
disturbed than Spruce Creek !
south of Daytona. *
Not an encouraging name.
14 mi1
Low DO, high color.
Metals?
25 mi2
Low DO, high color.
High inorganic toxics?
Agricultural area. Canalization.
75
-------
75D14 Bull Creek at Hwy 441
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Osceola County
Kissimmee/Bartow/Vero Beach/
Cape Canaveral l:100,000's
Central District
Downstream access?
75D15 Blue Cypress Creek above Cow
Log Creek
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Osceola County
Vero Beach 1:100,000
Central District
75D16 Padget Branch at Hwy 60
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Indian River County
Vero Beach 1:100,000
Central District
23 mi1
At rd east of Hwy 441. Is this
one of the better agricultural
streams in this area? A typical
impacted stream?
Little Gumbead Marsh?
[Are there any small streams, sloughs, canals in the Kissimmee Basin that should be
considered as reference sites? If so, are there systems that would be comparable to them?}
75D17 South Fork St. Lucie River
Southeast Florida Basin
Martin County
Fort Pierce 1:100,000
Southeast District
7«mis NWfc Fnrk Loxahatchee River
Southeast Florida Basin
Martin County
Fort Pierce/West Palm Beach
l:100,000's
Southeast District
75D19 Northwest Fork Loxahatchee R,
Southeast Florida Basin
Martin/Palm Beach Counties
West Palm Beach 1:100,000
Southeast District
7SD20 Econlockhatchee R at Hwy 420
Upper St. Johns River Basin
Orange County
Orlando/Kissimmee l:100,000's
Central District
Impacted, but perhaps slightly
less than North Fork. Estuarine
influence?
Too small?
Jonathan Dickinson State Park
Where does Orange Co. Easterly
WWTP effluent enter? Move
upstream?
76
-------
7SE Okefenokee S wam
75E01 Rocky Creek
Upper Suwannee Basin
Hamilton County
Okefenokee Swamp 1:100,000
Northeast District
75E02 Deep Creek
Upper Suwannee Basin
Columbia County
Lake City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75E03 Robinson Creek/Branch
Upper Suwannee Basin
Columbia County
Lake City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75E04 Little Suwannee Creek
Upper Suwannee Basin
Columbia County
Okefenokee Swamp 1:100,000
Northeast District
75E05 Moccasin Creek
St. Marys Basin
Baker County
Okefenokee Swamp 1:100,000
Northeast District
75E06 Calkins Creek at Rd 127
St. Marys Basin
Baker County
Lake City 1:100,000
Northeast District
Approx. Size
20+mi*
Cypress Or. WMA{?)
35+mi1
22+mi*
Some cropland/pasture,
>40 mi*
15 mia
Perhaps better for
Georgians to sample
near Hwy. 441/CD.
Or for larger basin
sample North Prong St.
Marys at Hwy. 2/94.
Too small?
77
-------
75F Sea Island Flatwoods
75F01 Pigeon Creek at Hwy 1/23
St, Marys River Basin
Nassau County
Fernandina Beach 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F02 Cabbage Creek at Rd. 121A
St Marys River Basin
Nassau County
Fernandina Beach 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F03 Little Dunn Creek at Rd.121
St. Marys River Basin
Nassau County
Okefenokee Swamp/Fernandina
Beach l:100,000's
Northeast District
75F04 Deep Creek at Hwy 108
St. Marys River Basin
Nassau County
Fernandina Beach/Okefenokee
Swamp l:100,000's
Northwest District
75F05 Lofton Creek at Hwy A1A/200
Nassau River Basin
Nassau County
Fernandina Beach 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F06 Alligator Creek ab. New R.
Santa Fe River Basin
Bradford County
Lake City 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F07 RFkBlack Or ab. Boggy Br.
Lower St, Johns River Basin
Clay County
Jacksonville/St. Augustine/
Lake City l:100,000's
Northeast District
Approx. Size
6 mi'
12 mi2
11 mi'
17mia
25mi!
Comments
WQI=22 (1988 305b).
Hampton Lake on lower reach
may make it atypical. Powerline
and railroad cross watershed.
Might be more swamp than
creek.
The most northerly of the three
Deep Creeks flowing into the St.
Marys in Nassau County.
May be too impacted. Where is
landfill? Silviculture NFS. Would
Plummer Creek be better?
Probably too impacted.
Is New River ab. Alligator Cr.
still cattle-trampled?
At road up from Hwy 218.
Development impacts. Mine
tailings effects from Trail Ridge?
Flow from Kingsley Lake?
Questionable site.
78
-------
75F08 Big Branch ab.N.FkBlack Cr
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Clay County
Jacksonville 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F09 Ates Creek ab.S.FkBlaek Cr
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Clay County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F10 Greens Cr. ab.S.FkBlack Cr
Lower St. Johns River Basin
Clay County
Saint Augustine 1:100,000
Northeast District
75F11 Fivemile Creek ah. New R.
Santa Fe River Basin
Union County
Gainesville 1:100,000
Northeast District
11 mi8
Road access may be marginal
34 mi1
35 mi"
16 mia
-------
APPENDIX B
Florida Stream Reference Site Status - October 1992
sampled in '92
added candidate site
NORTHWEST DISTRICT (PENSACOIA)
*65F01
65F02
65F03
65F04
*65F05
65F06
65F07
*65F08
65F09
*65F10
+*65F11
+*65F12
*65G01
65G02
65G03
65G04
65G05
65G06
*65G07
65G08
65G09
65G10
*65G11
65G12
+65G14
McDavid Creek at Hwy 99
E, Fk. Big Coldwater Cr.
Big Juniper Creek
Sweetwater Creek
Panther Creek
Big Creek
Turkey Gobbler Creek
(Substitute) Alagua Cr. ab Davis-
Rocky Cr. ab. Little Rocky Cr.
Mitchell Creek
Big Horse Creek at Hwy 2
Pine Log Creek at Hwy 2
Sandy Cr. ab. W. Sandy Cr.
Parrot Creek
West Pittman Creek
Reedy Creek
Limestone Creek
Hard Labor Creek
Econfina Creek
Wrights Creek e, of Noma
Spring Branch
Pelt Creek
Tenmile Creek at Hwy 73
Ocheesee Creek
p-r-M^ Creek at Hwy 71
Farley Creek
*65H01
*65H02
Crooked Creek
Sweetwater Creek
Mule Creek at Hwy 12
Rocky Comfort Creek
Black Creek
Welaunee Creek
4*65H07 Lloyd Creek
4*65H08 Flat Creek
*65H03
65H04
65H05
65H06
*75A01
75A02
*75A03
75A04
75A05
*75A06
75A07
+*75A14
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted. Poor habitat.
OK site. Won't be sampled in
OK site. Won't be sampled in
Sampled summer '92.
OK site. Won't be sampled in
OK site. Won't be sampled in
Sampled summer '92.
OK site. Won't be sampled in
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Deleted. Too small.
Deleted. Clear cuts.
Black Creek
Big Crooked Creek
Sandy Creek
Kennedy Creek
New River
Sopchoppy River blw. Monkey Cr.
Juniper Creek ab. New R.
Little Crooked Creek at Hwy 79
'92,
'92.
92,
'92,
'92
Sampled summer
Deleted. Agric.
Deleted. Dammed
Deleted.
Sampled summer
OK site. Won't
Sampled summer
OK site. Won't
'92.
& cows,
up.
'92.
be sampled in '92,
'92.
be sampled in '92,
Sampled summer
Sampled summer
Sampled summer
OK site. Won't
Deleted.
Sampled summer
Sampled summer
Sampled summer
'92.
'92.
'92.
be sampled
'92.
'92.
'92.
in '92
'92.
cuts.
Sampled summer
Deleted. Clear
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted. Swamp/no flow.
Deleted.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted.
Sampled summer '92.
80
-------
+*75A15 S. Fk. Bear Creek
+*75A16 Dean Creek
+ *75A McBride Slough
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
NORTHEAST DISTRICT (JACKSONVILLE)
*75A08 Econfina River
75A09 Spring Warrior at Rd.361
75A10 Eightmile Creek
75A11 Rocky Creek ab. Gulf
*75A12 Waccasassa River at Hwy 98
75A13 Wekiva River at Rd.326
75C01 Cabbage Creek ab. L.Orange Cr.
75C02 Deep Creek ab. Gum Cr. Hwy 315
75C03 Acosta Creek at Hwy 309
*75D01 Rocky Creek e. of La Crosse
75D02 Hatchet Creek at Hwy 26
75D05 Simms Creek ab. Etonia Creek
75D06 Moses Creek w. of Crescent Bch.
*??D07 Pellicer Creek
*75D08 Upper Middle Haw Cr. near Relay
75E01 Rocky Creek
*75E02 Deep Creek
*75E03 Robinson Creek/Branch
75E04 Little Suwannee Creek
*75E05 Substitute North Prong at Hwy 2
75E06 Calkins Creek at Rd. 127
*75F01 Pigeon Creek at Hwy 1/23
75F02 Cabbage Creek at Rd. 121A
75F03 Little Dunn Cr. at Rd. 121
75F04 Deep Creek at Hwy. 108
75F05 Lofton Creek at Hwy A1A/200
75F06 Alligator Creek ab. New R.
75F07 N.Fk. Black Cr. ab. Boggy Br.
75F08 Big Branch ab.N.Fk.Black Cr.
75F09 Ates Creek ab. S. Fk. Black Cr.
*75F10 Greens Cr. ab. S. Fk. Black Cr.
*75F11 Fivemile Creek ab. New River
PLUS BIOLOGICAL SITES
4 sites on Suwannee River
2 sites on Santa Fe River
1 site on Aucilla River
Sampled summer '92,
Deleted. No water.
Deleted. Clear cut.
.Deleted. Tidal.
Sampled summer '92.
OK site. Won't be sampled in '92.
Deleted. Mining impact.
Deleted. Mining.
Deleted. Access problem.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted.
Deleted. Mining.
Deleted. Tidal.
Deleted. Tidal.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted. Need boat.
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted. Locked gate.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted.
Sampled summer '92.
Deleted.
Deleted.
Deleted. Access problem.
Deleted. Tidal at rd. above A1A.
Deleted. Impacted.
Deleted. Atypical.
Not sampled. Access problem.
Deleted.
Sampled summer '92.
Sampled summer '92. Future mining?
81
-------
D
J
J
CENTRAL DISTRICT (ORLANDO)
*75C04 Juniper Creek (Ocala N.F.)
75C05 Alexander Sp. Cr. (Ocala N.F.)
*75C06 Black Water Creek at Hwy 44A
*75C07 Tiger Cr. ab. Lake Weohyakapka
*75C08 Livingston Cr. ab Lake-Arbuckle
Sampled summer '
Deleted. Access,
Sampled summer '
Sampled summer '
Sampled summer '
92.
Redundant.
92.
92.
92.
*75D03
75D04
75D09
75D10
75D11
*75D12
75D13
75D14
75D15
75D16
*75D20
*75D21
*75D22
75Dxx
Silver River
Daisy Creek
Bulow Creek
Cow Creek above Deep Creek
Tootoosahatchee Cr.
Jim Creek at rd. e. of Hwy 520
Wolf Creek, rd e. of Hwy 419
Bull Creek at Hwy 441
Blue Cypress Cr. ab Cow Log Cr,
Padget Branch at Hwy 60
Econlockhatchee River, Hwy 420
Tomoka River at llth St.
Orange Creek ab. Little Orange
Wekiva River at Wekiva Landing
- Sampled summer '92.
- Deleted. Impacted.
- Deleted. Replace with Tomoka R.
- OK site. Won't be sampled in '92
- OK site. Won't be sampled in '92
- Sampled summer '92.
- Deleted. Agriculture impacts.
- OK site. Won't be sampled in '92
- Deleted.
- Deleted. Agriculture impacts.
- Sampled summer '92.
- To be sampled summer '92.
- Sampled summer '92.
- Won't be sampled summer '92.
PLUS BIOLOGICAL SITES
St, Johns River at Astor
St. Johns River at Lake Washington
Ocklawaha River at Eureka
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT (TAMPA)
*75B01
*75B02
75B04
*75B05
75B06
*75B07
*75B08
*75B09
*75B10
*75B11
75B12
*75B17
Little Withlacoochee River - Sampled
Withlacoochee River - Sampled
r-LLJiiachascotee River - Sampled
Anclote River - Deleted.
Little Manatee R. ab. S. Fk. - Sampled
South Fork Little Manatee River - Deleted,
Charlie Cr. blw Oak Cr. Hwy 634 - Sampled
Oak Creek nr Sweetwater,Hwy 634 - Sampled
Manatee River at Hwy 64 - Sampled
Myakka River ab Myakka City - Sampled
Horse Creek at Hwy 72 - Sampled
Joshua Creek at Hwy 31 - Deleted,
Hillsborough River - Sampled
summer
summer
summer
92
92
92
{two sites)
summer '92.
summer '92.
summer '92.
summer '92.
summer '92.
summer '92. (Ford Walton)
Agriculture impacts.
summer '92 (two sites).
82
-------
SOUTH DISTRICT (PUNTA QQRDA)
75B13 Prairie Cr. at Hwy 31 or below - Won't be sampled summer '92.
75B14 Shell Creek above Prairie Cr. - Won't be sampled summer '92.
*75B15 Orange River above Buckingham - Sampled summer '92.
*75B16 Telegraph Creek - Sampled summer '92.
•75D23 Fisheating Creek - Sampled summer '92.
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT (POET ST. LUCIH)
*75D17 South Fork St. Lucie River - Sampled summer '92.
*75D18 North Fork Loxahatchee River - Sampled summer '92.
*75D19 Northwest Fork Loxahatchee R. - Sampled summer '92.
75Dxx Blakesly Creek - Deleted.
83
-------
DRAFT ECOREGIONS/SUBREGIONS OF FLORIDA
Glenn E. Griffith1, Jomes M. Omernik1, ond Suzonne M. Piersort1
'UonTecli Environmental technology, Inc.
Corvollij. Qnqon
'U.S. EtmronmEntol Proletlion
Corvotli;, Oregon 97JJ3
SOUTHEASTERN PLAINS ECORE6ION (E5)
mm Southtrn Flue PHins and Hills [690
l~l Oooghtrtjf/Morionns Ploini (55gJ
=] Tifton Uplaid/Tillriuiii Hllla (Hb)
SOUTHERN COASTAL PLAIN ECORESION (75)
Cin Gulf Coast Flotioods (75o)
E23 SauthvegUra Florida Flotioods (75b)
i~~l C«ntral Florida Ridgsi and Uploads (75cJ
l~~1 Eoitern Florida Flotwood* (75d)
BB Ok*f«noki« Siomps and Plains (75g)
C=3 S«u Island Flattocds (75f)
SOUTHERN FLORIDA COASTAL PLAIN ECOREGION (76)
Efsrglodei (76o)
8!g Cypress (76b)
yiam! Rldgt/Atlantlc Caaital Strip (76c)
Southern Cooit and lilandt (76d)
— Ecoriglan h on injury
— Sttbr«sion boundary
Oiflplr urii i? |»«nl iiiihnly n
ll U« lyn. f««l't(. flfll qainhty «f
this IMP dlprch rivilitlt ll Qcorrjiois, tri^«iilj- t-Mifilli It I
rriittiil) mgir tMll [0«pol Itf
runiliti. EPA/HIS/J-!l/llfC. U.S.
. .. Etnlroinintil PrVitl
linnet Llhrilorj. Cinclllt, 01 I3tp.
Cillflth, C.E.. J.U. Oncnik. C.M, llhv. u< 5.1. Pierioi. tt«
[01110. FtiFldi ittdMllllltiD irojicl. U.S. Cniiiinneilfll
il
.
Putnlltn »1IM SI. 111.
il Jmericit
Ohinlk. J.y. (it pruiln EctrtlilAt: A Iromiirk for tiTlnnnti
n»
I. Dill I <«Ji,) l««it PlolilMn, EHIni. ».
Scoli I J.SOO.OOD
«ol «rt« praji
US EPA ERL-C,
or,. I.I r.JiKii... B. H.I,..
-------
.
D
:
D
!
D
D
D
:
,
-------
]
]
i
1
•
,
;
-------
1
D
1
1
D
]
i
1
1
------- |