Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Home , Big Bend gambusia, Blacktail redhorse, Bluehead shiner, Carolina pygmy sunfish, Chihuahua shiner, Comanche Springs pupfish

Final Report for: Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Authors: Adam E. Cohen1, Gary P. Garrett1, Melissa J. Casarez1, Dean A. Hendrickson1, Benjamin J. Labay1, Tomislav Urban2, John Gentle2, Dennis Wylie3, and David Walling2

Affiliations: 1) University of Texas at Austin, Department of Integrative Biology, Biodiversity Center, Texas Natural History Collections (TNHC), Ichthyology; 2) University of Texas at Austin, Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC); 3) University of Texas at Austin, Department of Integrative Biology, Center for Computational Biology & Bioinformatics (CCBB)

Final Report for:

Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Authors Adam E. Cohen, Gary P. Garrett, Melissa J. Casarez, Dean A. Hendrickson, Benjamin J. Labay, Tomislav Urban, John Gentle, Dennis Wylie, and David Walling

Principal Investigator: Dean A. Hendrickson, Curator of Ichthyology, University of Texas Austin, Department of Integrative Biology, Biodiversity Collections (Texas Natural History Collections - TNHC), 10100 Burnet Rd., PRC176EAST/R4000, Austin, Texas 78758-4445; phone: 512-471-9774; email: [email protected]

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Project Leader: Sarah Robertson, River Studies, P.O. Box 1685 or 951 Aquarena Springs Dr., The Rivers Center, San Marcos, TX 78666. Phone 512-754-6844

Funded by: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program, grant TX T-106-1 (CFDA# 15.634)

Contract/Project Number: Contract No. 459125 UTA14-001402

Reporting Period: September 1, 2014 through December 31, 2017

Submitted: 3-23-2018

Suggested citation: Cohen, Adam E., Gary P. Garrett, Melissa J. Casarez, Dean A. Hendrickson, Benjamin J. Labay, Tomislav Urban, John Gentle, Dennis Wiley, and David Walling. 2018. “Final Report: ‘Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need’ (Contract No. 459125 UTA14-001402),” Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service State Wildlife Grant Program, grant TX T-106-1 (CFDA# 15.634), January, 362 pages. https://doi.org/10.15781/T26M33M7Z Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Executive Summary The primary aim of this grant was to work with Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPWD), Texas Advanced Computing Center (University of Texas at Austin), and other collaborators to (1) utilize Fishes of Texas Project (FoTX) data to aid in conservation of Texas fishes, (2) conduct field surveys in under-sampled areas of conservation interest, and (3) further develop the FoTX database and website as a research and management tool. While much of our work focused on Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN), almost everything we did was applied to all species, or affected data for all species. This report documents how FoTX’s specimen-based data were used to produce species distribution models that, in turn, fed into prioritization analyses that led to official creation of Native Fish Conservation Areas (NFCAs) that are now becoming the foundation of aquatic resource conservation prioritization and management in Texas. Our data were also used by TPWD staff to update the Texas Natural Diversity Database, previously depauperate for fish data, and to develop state and global conservation rankings for fishes using NatureServe’s standard methodology. Using FoTX data, we also developed recommendations for updating TPWD’s SGCN list, which will inform conservation in Texas for many years. We also expanded the scope of FoTX beyond Texas, throughout entire drainages, thus reducing biases and analytical complications related to our previous political boundary that lacked a biogeographical basis. We also added many new records from new types of data sources, especially agency databases that complement the museum specimen data to provide a more thorough, updated and unbiased dataset for analyzing temporal and spatial trends in fish faunas. The FoTX website’s checklists were improved in many ways to increase their utility to resource managers, and the site also now accesses occurrence data held in formerly inaccessible, but now digitized and easily accessed documents. We used diverse resources and our occurrence data to determine native ranges for all Texas fishes, and now visualize them in our website's maps, so when viewed alongside occurrence data, users can more easily recognize and explore spatial and temporal trends. We focused another effort at understanding range changes through time, and produced dynamic graphs, that when fully implemented will update automatically as underlying data evolve, depicting and statistically describing locational and general range size changes through time.

In addition to database and website work, we were also in the field alongside, and in close coordination with, TPWD staff, focusing on collecting areas previously lacking data, or where there were other conservation-related reasons for sampling. The resultant thousands of new specimens and tissue samples deposited and permanently housed in the University of Texas Biodiversity Collections now provide new, modern data points for ongoing conservation actions.

In summary, this project allowed FoTX to continue to grow and diversify, moving away from focusing solely on archiving and improving the data, to applying those data in diverse ways that maximize their value for conservation. The project also greatly increased collaborations between FoTX and TPWD staff, and inspired a Herps of Texas Project templated on the FoTX database schema and website, thus providing an efficient pathway for getting that project to a similar state, with the added advantage of a high level of inter-compatibility of most improvements across both sites. Our hope is that other projects, focusing on other taxa, continue to follow in our footsteps, allowing mutual benefit, and eventually query interfaces that provide users access to high quality data for entire ecological communities.

Page | 1 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Contents Executive Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 7 Activity 1. Coordinate and Facilitate Science and Conservation Actions for Conserving Texas Biodiversity 7 UT, TPWD and Other Collaborations ...... 8 New Products ...... 11 Conservation and Monitoring Documents ...... 11 List of Imperiled Species ...... 11 Native Ranges ...... 11 Contribution to Natural Diversity Database ...... 13 Distributional Analyses, Trends and Other Statistics using NHD Plus Dataset ...... 13 Website Features ...... 27 Improved Mapping...... 27 Species Accounts (Taxa Pages) ...... 29 Checklists ...... 29 Dark Documents (Beta) ...... 30 Statistics Tab ...... 32 General Website Performance and User Experience ...... 32 Data Growth and Improvement ...... 32 TNHC Specimen Contribution ...... 35 Other Internally Derived or Solicited Data Sources ...... 35 Specimen Examinations and Data Improvement ...... 36 Database and Website Technical Details ...... 38 Database ...... 38 Server-Side ...... 38 GIS ...... 39 Client-Side (website) ...... 39 Activity 2. Identify Priority Geographic Management Units for Conserving Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need ...... 40 Proposed Native Fish Conservation Areas ...... 40 Species Distribution Modeling ...... 41 SGCN Species Habitat Prioritization ...... 42

Page | 2 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Designation of NFCAs ...... 43 Activity 3. Develop Monitoring and Conservation Plans for Native Fish Conservation Areas ...... 46 Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCAs ...... 48 Kansan NFCAs ...... 48 Chihuahuan NFCAs ...... 49 Activity 4. Conduct Field-Based Surveys, Detailed Biodiversity Assessments (i.e. Bioblitzing), and Citizen- Based Monitoring ...... 51 Field-Surveys ...... 51 Citizen-Based Monitoring ...... 65 Literature Cited ...... 71 Appendices ...... 75 Appendix 1 – Memo of Understanding – TPWD & UT Austin re FoTX ...... 75 Appendix 2 – List of Collaborators ...... 78 Appendix 3 – SGCN Listing History and Suggested updates ...... 84 Appendix 4 – Species Trend Analysis Plots Documentation ...... 100 Appendix 5 – Data Growth and Improvement ...... 102 Appendix 6 – Supplemental Modeling Data ...... 114 Appendix 7 – Activities & Guidelines: Southern Plains NFCAs ...... 120 Fishes of the Upper Brazos River NFCA ...... 123 Fishes of the Upper Red River NFCA ...... 130 Fishes of the Upper Canadian River NFCA ...... 139 Literature Cited ...... 143 Appendix 8 – Activities & Guidelines: Balconian NFCAs ...... 148 Fishes of the Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA ...... 151 Fishes of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA ...... 162 Fishes of the Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA ...... 171 Literature Cited ...... 179 Appendix 9 – Activities & Guidelines: Chihuahuan-Navahonian NFCAs ...... 186 Fishes of the Big Bend NFCAs (Upper & Lower) ...... 192 Fishes of the Guadalupe Mountains Streams, Davis Mountains Streams, and Pecos River NFCAs . 207 Fishes of the Devils River NFCA ...... 226 Literature Cited ...... 238

Page | 3 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 10 – Activities & Guidelines: Tamaulipan, Texan, Austroriparian NFCAs ...... 249 Fishes of the Lower Rio Grande NFCA ...... 253 Fishes of the Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA ...... 263 Fishes of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA ...... 272 Fishes of the Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA ...... 281 Fishes of the Lower Colorado River NFCA ...... 290 Fishes of the Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River, San Gabriel River NFCAs ...... 298 Fishes of the Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA ...... 310 Fishes of the Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA ...... 324 Literature Cited ...... 342 Appendix 11 – NFCA Advisory Councils ...... 353

List of Figures Figure 1. Example of a nativity range (Notropis potteri) now available on the FoTX mapping tab. Light grey areas are HUC8s determined to be “possibly native” and dark grey areas are “native”. Colored dots represent FoTX occurrence data (green = examined specimens, blue = not examined, yellow = suspect and not yet examined, red = suspect (examined). Dot size is proportional to number of overlapping records (on website zooming in reveals separate occurrences)...... 13 Figure 2. Adapted from Buckwalter et al. (2018) – their Figure 5 “Illustrations of functional forms of spread exhibited by fishes of upper and middle New River tributaries, with lines of fit for the six models being compared (Equations 2–7). The null model (Equation 2) fit best for the 39 stable species exemplified in (a). Of the 31 spreaders, the linear model (Equation 3) fit best for five species exemplified in (b), the two- parameter exponential model (Equation 4) for 23 species (c) and the three-parameter exponential model (Equation 5) for three species (d). The logistic model (Equations 6 and 7) never fit best (Table 2). The scales of the y-axes in (a)–(d) vary due to differing ranges of detections per HUC sampled (DPHS defined in Equation 1) observed among species.”...... 17 Figure 3. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Fundulus chrysotus ...... 18 Figure 4. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Lepomis auritus ...... 18 Figure 5. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Etheostoma histrio ...... 19 Figure 6. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinella venusta ...... 20 Figure 7. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis amabilis ...... 20 Figure 8. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Phenacobius mirabilis ...... 21 Figure 9. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Noturus nocturnus ...... 21

Page | 4 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 10. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinodon variegatus ...... 22 Figure 11. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Lythrurus fumeus ...... 22 Figure 12. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Etheostoma artesiae ...... 23 Figure 13. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinodon pecosensis ...... 23 Figure 14. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis oxyrhynchus ...... 24 Figure 15. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Erimyzon sucetta ...... 24 Figure 16. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis jemezanus ...... 25 Figure 17. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Atractosteus spatula ...... 25 Figure 18. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Pelagic Spawners Guild ...... 26 Figure 19. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Planktivore Guild ...... 26 Figure 20. View of current FoTX website mapping tool showing spatial layer dropdown list of options. Left panel shows how multiple stacked records are summarized on mouse-over in the upper left grey box. The individual records linking to specimen pages can be seen below the summary. Clicking on a dot brings up its details (not visible here) in lower right...... 28 Figure 21. FoTX website mapping tool showing new features including variable dot size as a function of number of stacked occurrences, color shading of major river basins, NHD waterbodies layer, selected record’s information bubble contents (right green square), and, on the left, the list of stacked occurrences (at this zoom level) from the selected location. Example species – Manantial Roundnose Minnow (Dionda argentosa)...... 28 Figure 22. Partial view of current FoTX website’s species checklist for the Guadalupe River basin. Rose- colored rows are species recorded but considered suspect (may be removed following specimen examination). Note “Non-native” labels for those species. To the right is a summary of the basis for inclusion of each species...... 30 Figure 23. Summary of data types and sources added to FoTX database. TPWD’s Coastal Fisheries database (TPWD_Coastal) is by far the largest single provider, contributing ~60% of the new records...... 34 Figure 24. Schematic of the prioritization analysis sequence with indication of three primary outcomes for this report: i. new SDMs for Texas SGCN taxa, ii. a spatial prioritization, and iii. identification of NFCAs. 41 Figure 25. Primary prioritization with core-area function zonation analysis, species-specific rankings, connectivity constraints, ecological grouping and stream connectivity condition factor (CAZ + S +C) for the 70 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas used in the prioritization analysis...... 43 Figure 26. Broad-scale Native Fish Conservation Areas (NFCAs) identified according to distance and compositional similarity among highly ranked regions of the CAZ + S + C analysis (Figure 25). NFCA units are depicted as groupings of 12-digit Hydrologic Units (HUCs)...... 44 Figure 27. Native Fish Conservation Areas in Texas...... 47

Page | 5 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 28. Summary map of all collection sites occurring within the project scope (2014-2017), plus an additional bioassessment conducted by TPWD River Studies Program in 2012 in the North Fork Guadalupe River. (Map produced by: Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 53 Figure 29. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Upper Frio River Basin study. Site A represents the bio-assessment site at Garner State Park. Sites B-D indicate where supplemental fish collections occurred. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 56 Figure 30. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Big Cypress Basin study. (Map produced by: Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 57 Figure 31. Locations of Village Creek Watershed data collection sites in Hardin, Polk, and Tyler counties, TX. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 58 Figure 32. Locations of Canadian River Basin data collection sites in Oldham, Potter, Hutchinson, Roberts, and Hemphill counties, TX. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 60 Figure 33. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Middle and Lower Neches River study. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 61 Figure 34. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Upper and Middle Red River Basin study. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies)...... 63 Figure 35. Middle Colorado River survey map. Red dots represent supplemental fish collection sites and the bioblitz location at Colorado Bend SP...... 64 Figure 36. iNaturalist Village Creek bioassessment event page...... 66 Figure 37. Example of interactions regarding identifications among FoTX staff (here Dr. F. Douglas Martin) and site users...... 67 Figure 38. Bioblitzing with iNaturalist flyer Page 1...... 68 Figure 39. Bioblitzing with iNaturalist flyer Page 2...... 69 Figure 40. Flyer describing best practices for proper photographic observations that facilitate accurate specimen identification...... 70 Figure 41. Example of a target fish species list for the East Central Texas Plains Ecoregion, as viewed on the TPWD Texas Nature Trackers project page...... 71

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of TNHC accessions acquired during project period. Note that some accessions have not been fully processed into our database, but are formally signed over to the collection and will eventually be processed. Because they have not been processed details about their contents are not provided here...... 9

Page | 6 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Introduction The University of Texas’ Biodiversity Collections (Texas Natural History Collections, TNHC), the institutional home of the Fishes of Texas Project (FoTX; www.fishesoftexas.org (Hendrickson and Cohen 2015)), and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), have long had similar goals toward conservation. Recognizing that high quality data relating to Texas species held in the TNHC and museums around the world should be a core component of sound research and conservation decision-making, in 1998 and again in 2011, they signed memoranda of understanding (MOU - Appendix 1) stating these common goals and a desire to work together to further develop the Fishes of Texas Project and to expand the project beyond fishes.

The aim of FoTX is to provide high quality specimen-based, and thus verifiable, data and tools to researchers and the public via an online interface. FoTX was first funded in 2006 with the aim of georeferencing what now seems like a small set of museum records acquired from 34 museums. That first funding came from TPWD, but later funding from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the University of Texas, U.S. Department of the Interior Landscape Conservation Cooperative Program, and TPWD kept the project moving forward almost continually since then. Funding from these sources allowed us to grow the database considerably and make many critical corrections to data. We traveled to, or received on loan, specimens from nearly half of our data contributors’ collections, and have examined thousands of specimens. Before this grant, we had developed products such as a website with query interface and mapping abilities, species distribution models and checklists. This grant allowed us to continue that development beyond the data themselves, and to apply the data to conservation purposes. It also supported new sampling and continued data acquisition and provision.

This report is organized into the four Activities defined in our contract. Each section begins with a list of deliverables from the contract, followed by a narrative describing the work accomplished for that Activity. Hyperlinks in footnotes relate to the specific deliverables described in the text preceding them.

Activity 1. Coordinate and Facilitate Science and Conservation Actions for Conserving Texas Biodiversity Contracted Deliverables:

1a. Expand and strengthen UT-TPWD coordination 1b. Establish the collaborative relationship between UT and TPWD

Page | 7 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

1c. Provide data-supported recommendations to TPWD for fishes in the anticipated updates to the Texas Conservation Action Plan (supports activities 2, 3 and 4) 1d. Integrate specimens, datasets and feedback from resource managers and other FoTX stakeholders to increase overall size of FoTX database, especially with newer records, and facilitate improved data flow between FoTX and TPWD 1e. Continue cleaning and normalizing FoTX Project online database records 1f. Develop a conservation activities and monitoring guidelines document for Native Fish Conservation Areas 1g. Collaborate with TPWD biologists to improve utility of FoTX website to access information on exotic species and Species of Greatest Conservation Need 1h. Continue FoTX efforts to seek out and analyze "suspect" records, correct identification, identify new species, refine locality and collection dates data, integrate field notes and images, and continue to further normalize the FoTX database 1i. Implement in the FoTX website new statistical summaries of query results that improve the ability of website users to detect possible faunal changes over varied intervals of time and space 1j. Assimilate and coordinate feedback from TPWD and other partners to continue improvement of Fishes of Texas (FoTX) data and website functionality and usability 1k. Facilitate continued integration of new data into FoTX online database 1l. Improve and update species accounts in FoTX website

UT, TPWD and Other Collaborations The TNHC and TPWD recognize that high quality data relating to Texas species held in the TNHC fish collection and museums around the world should inform sound research and conservation decision- making. With the work described here, we made significant progress towards the goals outlined in the MOUs. Both TPWD and TNHC staff have been involved in many aspects of this project from fieldwork to data acquisition and development and have a strong working relationship that should allow continued work on the goals outlined in the MOUs.

During this project, Fishes of Texas (FoTX) staff worked with at least 65 TPWD staff (Appendix 2) in numerous ways. The field collections efforts (Activity 4) put us in regular contact with TPWD’s River Studies staff, in an informal setting that facilitated numerous discussions regarding how we might further work together to refine and better align mutual goals and generally improve our working relationship. During these field trips we emphasized that the TNHC is willing to accept their specimens and tissues for permanent archiving so that they will be available to them and others to facilitate valuable and diverse future interdisciplinary (e.g., evolution, morphology, natural history, ecology/conservation, and archeology) research endeavors. We believe there is now a greater level of confidence among TPWD staff that FoTX staff will dependably make their specimen data available on-line and help assure that they are used to improve species distribution models and other data products accessible via the FoTX portal. As a result, we now routinely receive specimens from Inland Fisheries staff and over the course of this project, 12 TNHC accessions have been received from TPWD employees (Table 1).

Page | 8 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Table 1. Summary of TNHC accessions acquired during project period. Note that some accessions have not been fully processed into our database, but are formally signed over to the collection and will eventually be processed. Because they have not been processed details about their contents are not provided here.

Accession Agent(s) Agency Number 2014-22 Bonner, Tim Texas State University 2014-32 Neely, David Tennessee Aquarium 2014-33 Braun, Christopher USGS 2014-35 Labay, Ben Texas State University 2014-37 Guillen, George University of Houston – Clear Lake 2014-38 Wicksten, Mary Texas A&M University 2014-40 LaDuc, Travis UT Biodiversity Collection – Herpetology 2014-41 Devitt, Tom City of Austin 2014-42 Garrett, Gary UT – Biodiversity Center 2014-43 Hubbell, Bryce Angelo State University 2014-44 Maisano, Jessica UT – Jackson School of Geosciences 2015-01 Bader, Kenneth UT – Vertebrate Paleontology Lab 2015-02 Devitt, Tom City of Austin 2015-03 Dugan, Laura TPWD 2015-04 Sneegas, Garold Private 2015-08 Sjostrom, Dana UT – Marine Science Institute 2015-09 Wilde, Gene Texas Tech University 2015-11 Bader, Kenneth UT – Vertebrate Paleontology Lab 2015-13 Schofield, Pam USGS 2015-14 Acre, Matthew Texas Tech University 2015-15 Martin, F.D. UT – Biodiversity Center 2015-16 Grabowski, Tim Texas Tech University 2015-18 Farr, William Private 2015-19 Braun, Christopher USGS 2015-22 Fleming, Paul TPWD 2015-26 Martin, F.D. UT – Biodiversity Center 2015-28 Krejca, Jean Zara Environmental 2015-29 Snyder, Lex; Propst, David University of New Mexico 2015-30 Pulliam, Lauren TCEQ 2015-31 Humphries, Julian UT – Jackson School of Geosciences 2015-32 Owen, Jacob City of Austin 2016-01 Mayes, Kevin TPWD 2016-02 LaDuc, Travis UT Biodiversity Collection – Herpetology 2016-05 Tidwell, Travis TPWD 2016-08 Turner, T University of New Mexico 2016-10 Gluesenkamp, Andrew; Sprouse, Peter San Antonio Zoo; Zara Environmental 2016-11 Espinoza, Zaavian; Dunton, Kenneth UT – Marine Science Institute 2016-13 Sullivan, John Cornell University 2016-16 LaDuc, Travis UT Biodiversity Collection – Herpetology

Page | 9 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

2016-17 Radke, Bill USFWS 2016-18 Moczygemba, John TPWD 2016-21 Garrett, Gary UT – Biodiversity Center 2016-23 Best, A. TPWD 2016-26 Davis, Drew University of South Dakota 2016-27 Edwards, Robert UT Rio Grande Valley 2016-29 Braun, Christopher USGS 2016-30 Acre, Matthew Texas Tech University 2016-31 Mayes, Kevin TPWD 2017-01 Gluesenkamp, Andrew San Antonio Zoo 2017-02 Coleman, Stephanie; Minckley, Charles USDA Forest Service 2017-03 Edwards, Bob UT Rio Grande Valley 2017-05 Tidwell, Travis TPWD 2017-06 Robertson, Sarah TPWD 2017-09 Bennett, Dan TPWD 2017-10 Gluesenkamp, Andrew San Antonio Zoo 2017-14 Poulin, Stephane Arizona – Sonoran Desert Museum 2017-15 Vajnar, Jason Kansas Dept. of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism 2017-17 Gluesenkamp, Andrew San Antonio Zoo 2017-19 Longley, Glenn Texas State University 2017-20 Oldfield, Ron Case Western University 2017-21 Taylor, Christopher; Hogan, James UT – Rio Grande Valley 2017-24 Braun, Christopher USGS 2017-26 Bader, Kenneth UT – Vertebrate Paleontology Lab 2017-27 James, Eric UT – Jackson School of Geosciences 2017-29 Mayes, Kevin TPWD 2017-31 Best, A. TPWD 2017-33 Patrick, Christopher Texas A&M – Corpus Christi

During this project FoTX staff held at least a dozen formal and impromptu meetings with TPWD staff (from Wildlife, Coastal and Inland Fisheries divisions) to coordinate data sharing, website improvements, development of new tools, and to explore ideas that could help further improve the utility of FoTX data and other products for TPWD. Those meetings culminated in many of the developments outlined in this report.

The relationship with TPWD is ongoing and, irrespective of funding from TPWD, our mission will continue to include development and open provision of data and analysis tools and products relevant to natural resource conservation. We see TPWD staff as primary collaborators and will continue working with them to make our shared objectives reality.

In addition to our relationship with TPWD, this project has allowed us to develop new relationships with a vast set of researchers statewide. We report stakeholder participation in Appendix 2 and Appendix 11 which list all stakeholders and their contributions during the three-year course of this project. They

Page | 10 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

document participation in the project by 203 individuals (or groups) via assistance with fieldwork, participation in meetings, and those who didn’t participate directly but facilitated access to resources or provided other assistance. Through this cumulative effort we were able to improve our understanding of nearly all SGCN species in Texas via our own collection efforts (Activity 4), by acquiring data relating to pre-existing occurrences (Activity 1), and by developing conservation tools and recommendations (Activity 3).

(addresses grant deliverables 1a, 1b, 1d, 1j, 4n)

New Products

Conservation and Monitoring Documents Details for conservation activities and monitoring guideline documents for Native Fish Conservation Areas can be found in Activity 3.

(addresses grant deliverables 1f)

List of Imperiled Species In year two we used FoTX data to develop a list of Texas’ imperiled species that could be used to inform revision of TPWD’s official Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN). Using the existing list as a starting point, our recommendations were based on analysis of occurrences in the FoTX database to assess distributional changes over time for all of the state’s native fishes. Feedback on these initial recommendations was then solicited from research biologists with familiarity with Texas fishes (including Robert Edwards (UT-RGV), Tim Bonner (TSU), Kevin Conway (TAMU), Kirk Winemiller (TAMU), Tim Grabowski (TTU), Gene Wilde (TTU), and Ryan Smith (TNC)). We then collaborated with biologists at TPWD (Megan Bean, Preston Bean, Sarah Robertson, Kevin Mayes, Gordon Linam, and Monica McGarrity) to finalize the list.

The resulting list (Appendix 3) reflects new species to be added and our recommendation to remove Texas Shiner (Notropis amabilis) from the existing list. Our data show a broad, stable distribution for Texas Shiner and there was no evidence of population losses across the range (however, see Distributional Analyses, Trends and Other Statistics using NHD Plus Dataset, developed in year three). We recommend an additional 22 taxa be added to the list. Some of these are newly-recognized species, but many are there due to range reductions, declines in population size, habitat fragmentation and habitat loss. We also recommend that Devils River Pupfish (Cyprinodon eximius ssp.) not be recognized as a unique subspecies until a more thorough review of its genetic status can be accomplished. For now, it should be listed as a disjunct population of Conchos Pupfish (Cyprinodon eximius).

(addresses grant deliverables 1a, 1c, 1j)

Native Ranges We learned from discussions with our users (primarily TPWD staff) that there was great interest in FoTX providing information about native versus non-native status for all fishes in Texas and integrating that

Page | 11 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

information into checklists and elsewhere in the FoTX website. There are numerous resources already providing native or “natural ranges”, which we considered using for this purpose (Hocutt and Wiley 1986; Hubbs et al. 2008; Maxwell 2012; Hassan-Williams and Bonner 2018), but all were lacking taxa or basins or were incompatible in some way. But our primary reason for not using any of these was because they were not based on the most recent revised data now available in FoTX. We did, however, digitize the data from those sources and they are ready to be integrated into the FoTX website’s database. To allow users to compare independent depictions of ranges by others directly to our own native range determinations, we will integrate the ranges created by Page and Burr (2011) into our mapping tab since that source is relatively recent, authoritative, and widely cited by others.

To produce a reliable set of nativity determinations for all TX fishes based on the FoTX database our team, including volunteers, collaborated with Ryan Smith of Texas Nature Conservancy. We relied on the criteria for determining nativity as described by Hoagstrom et al (2009). Determinations were made via consensus with always three or more people present, including the following participants: Gary Garrett (9 of 9 meetings), Ryan Smith (9 of 9), Adam Cohen (8 of 9), Doug Martin (6 of 9), Roy Kleinsasser (1 of 9), Dean Hendrickson (1 of 9), and Melissa Casarez (2 of 9). Native distributions were defined as the full natural extent of each species within Texas prior to anthropogenic influence over the last 500 years (i.e., prior to European immigration to North America). We defined nativity status at the resolution of USGS HUC-8 scale based primarily on an evaluation of the raw occurrence data and published accounts. During a series of 9 initial meetings (plus one meeting later to review a set of species that remained problematic) we assigned, for each species, a set of native and possibly native HUCs (complete methods are documented and will be added to our FoTX documentation). The results are now integrated into the FoTX website, where they can be evaluated and used in statistical analyses, data summaries, and mapped (Figure 1) dynamically so they will update automatically whenever we update the nativity layers, which we can now easily do. By defining native ranges, we can now attribute any occurrence automatically as native or non- native depending on whether its location falls within its native range, and so provide on-the-fly data summaries of native/non-native status for website queries. Our checklists, for example, now indicate which species are non-native. Future plans include updating of species accounts by addition of these maps displaying both occurrences and native ranges.

Page | 12 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 1. Example of a nativity range (Notropis potteri) now available on the FoTX mapping tab. Light grey areas are HUC8s determined to be “possibly native” and dark grey areas are “native”. Colored dots represent FoTX occurrence data (green = examined specimens, blue = not examined, yellow = suspect and not yet examined, red = suspect (examined). Dot size is proportional to number of overlapping records (on website zooming in reveals separate occurrences).

(addresses grant deliverables, 1g, 1j, 1l)

Contribution to Natural Diversity Database We worked with TPWD’s Natural Diversity Database (TXNDD) staff (Laura Dugan and Bob Gottfried) to integrate FoTX data for all of the state’s SGCN and species distribution models into the Texas Natural Diversity Database, which severely lacked fish occurrence data. We continue working with them to develop, for Texas species, S rankings (state status) that are currently out of date and in need of updating. Updating those rankings will cause changes in G rankings (global status) as well. Both S and G rankings will be propagated to NatureServe’s database and thus impact conservation analyses and decision-making processes that utilize these rankings. These new rankings will be included in the FoTX website.

(addresses grant deliverables 1a)

Distributional Analyses, Trends and Other Statistics using NHD Plus Dataset During the course of this project we explored various forms of spatial and temporal trend analyses of the FoTX data with mixed results. We were looking not only for methods that would provide some level of statistical rigor across space and time, but also sought something that could ultimately be implemented online in the Fishes of Texas website in a way that would allow for flexible and on-the-fly, database-wide

Page | 13 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

exploration and visualization of trends by our website users. Those goals combined with the large size of the database, its presence-only nature, limitations of the data (variable effort, methods, and inconsistent temporal and spatial distribution of sampling) all combined to prevent us from obtaining satisfactory results. However, a new publication (Buckwalter et al. 2018) appeared online (16 November), that provided a new quantitative method for detection of trends of expansion or contraction of range-size for freshwater species based on collections data much like that of FoTX. We quickly agreed with their claims that:

1) “Our approach facilitated quantitative analyses of distributional trends for stream fishes based on collections data.” 2) “Partitioning the dataset into multiple time periods allowed us to distinguish long-term trends from population fluctuations and to examine nonlinear forms of spread.” 3) ”Our framework sets the stage for further study of drivers of stream-fish invasions and declines in the UMNR and is widely transferable to other freshwater taxa and geographic regions.”

Furthermore, their workflow used accessible open-source tools, and appeared to be readily adaptable for implementation in the FoTX website. We quickly explored application of their methods to the FoTX data, and here report the promising, although still preliminary, results of our first run across all species.

We developed Python code (available on request) that automates Buckwalter et al. (2018)-like analyses of the entire online FoTX database, accessing the online copy of the data directly, thus assuring both incorporation of the most recent data edits and that our code would require minimal editing for future integration into the website.

One of the first issues we encountered has to do with geographic and temporal scale of the dataset explored by Buckwalter et al. (2018) compared to the much larger FoTX dataset. For their single, 10,000 km2 drainage sub-basin, they quantified and statistically assessed temporal and spatial dynamics of ranges for 35 native and 39 established introduced species using 77 years of diverse sampling efforts. Our project is much larger. At nearly 700,000 km2, Texas is 70 times larger than the area studied by Buckwalter et al. (2018), and includes 18 major river basins, compared to their single sub-basin. The time span of FoTX data is more than double that of Buckwalter et al.’s (77 years), and the Texas fish checklist, at 649 species, is more than 8 times as long as theirs. Finally, the current (Tracks 1+2) FoTX data set, with >80,000 georeferenced occurrence records, is more than four times as large as the data analyzed by Buckwalter et al (2018). Note that the Track 3 dataset was not included in this initial assessment of the Buckwalter methods but will likely be included once we fully implement this analysis on our website. Those data should greatly influence the outputs, making trends more apparent. Those differences in scale and complexity clearly required various adjustments to the basic Buckwalter et al. methods.

Buckwalter et al. (2018) apply their trend analysis methods in a biogeographically sensible context – a hydrographically delimited area (sub-basin) throughout which the organisms studied theoretically have (or historically had) unimpeded access and gene flow, and across which sampling effort was relatively evenly distributed. It was thus reasonable for them to use a single temporal binning system for all of their trend analyses across all species – they all shared the same accessible area. But, the much larger and more

Page | 14 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

diverse hydrological and climatic landscape of Texas, with FoTX’s known variations in the temporal and spatial distribution of sampling, and the fact that it extends across many discrete drainage basins that block fish movements among them, clearly invalidates use of a single across-basin binning system in our application. However, we had many reasons to start exploring application of this new method across the complete faunal, temporal and hydrographic extent of FoTX. We therefore altered their methods to produce a species-specific temporal binning system that is done on the fly with easily adjusted basic parameters. That will allow us to easily explore and adapt the methodology for our study area, while still controlling, at least to some degree, for variations in background sampling by constraining all sampling for the binning process to the total known (past and present) range of each species. Each species then ends up with its own unique temporal binning system. Once we refine our methods, we will constrain final analyses to appropriate, biologically relevant, interconnected areas (e.g. entire major river basins or isolated sub-basins).

Additionally, we recognized that the NHDPlusV2 data they used for spatial aggregation of their data has issues that likely could confound application of the methods in our geography. Many coastal HUC 12 units in Texas are "non-classic" types of drainage areas, each requiring special criteria for delineation and subdivision (U.S. Geological Survey et al. 2013). These HUC 12s are not natural, in that the area they drain does not converge to a single outlet, but instead many small streams with discrete outlets were combined into a single “composite” or “frontal” unit, resulting in these being far larger (many 700 to over 9,000 km2) than are the “natural” and “classic” units (averaging around 100 km2) just inland. These anomalously large coastal HUC12s combine with FoTX’s relatively dense sampling along the coast and the distribution of many coastal species extending well upstream into “normal” size HUC12s to produce spurious results. All species in our analysis with > 25 temporal bins are coastal and their DPHS (Detections Per HUC Sampled) plots (Appendix 4) are clearly not statistically valid. We expect this issue will be resolved by repeating the analysis at HUC 10 or HUC 8 spatial resolution, all of which are more “natural” hydrographic units with much smaller variation in area, and with a single-point outlet.

We are confident, however, that the basic methodology is biologically and statistically valid and applicable in our context, and the issues we have seen in our results so far can all clearly be dealt with by paying attention to hydrologic connectedness and the scale for data aggregation. Ultimately, we will end up doing multiple single-river basin analyses for every species distributed across multiple river basins, and maybe even separate sub-basin-specific analyses as appropriate.

To summarize, almost surely, all plots provided in this report are variously affected by the following “caveats”, all which we are confident we can address in future versions. However, so that readers are fully aware of these issues before drawing their own interpretations of the many plots below and in Appendix 4, these issues have to do with:

1) HUC binning scale -This first run used HUC12 for geographic binning. It is now obvious that is not the best scale for many species and areas. Future runs will be iterated at varied HUC scales (at least 12, 10 and 8) and statistically evaluated. 2) Temporal binning process – As explained above, unlike Buckwalter et al. (2018), we did temporal binning in a species-specific way that, after determining the list of HUCs in which the species has

Page | 15 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

occurred, starts the binning process with the earliest record of the species, and adds records from that area to the first bin until whatever binning criteria imposed at the beginning of the run are met. It then initiates the next bin and repeats the process for it. Unfortunately, a side-effect is that the last bin then includes only whatever data remain after completing the prior bins. Those remaining data often are inadequate to satisfy the binning criteria that were satisfied for construction of all other bins, so DPHS values in the last bin of each run are then not always statistically comparable to those of earlier bins. The bin tab of the Appendix 4 file can be checked to see exactly how much the last bin deviates from the requirement of roughly equal background sampling across all bins, but in general, DPHS values and latitudes/longitudes plotted for the last bin should be ignored. An easy work-around might be to merge the penultimate and last bins, but then background sampling in the resultant last bin would be consistently greater than that for all other bins. We are exploring other methods of addressing this issue, and most likely, once we refine our methods, final runs will be done for many discrete units for which the exact Buckwalter et al. time binning method will be appropriate – e.g. separate temporal binning systems for each major river basin applied to all species occurrences from that basin. 3) Many plots have far more temporal bins than recommended (10) by Buckwalter et al. (2018). This will be addressed in part by changes in scale (using larger HUCs) for aggregation, but for many plots with extremely large numbers of bins, this result appears to be due to the anomaly in the coastal HUC12 data set explained above. 4) Also contributing to inflation of the number of bins in these preliminary plots is our relaxation of the criteria for plots that each bin contain background samples from a pre-specified percentage of all HUCs of the complete historic and present range of the species. The plots presented here were based on X=25%, while Buckwalter et al. (2018) recommend 50%. That percentage is one of the primary variables easily set at the start of each run, and we plan to iterate all runs at different values of X. 5) For convenience in these early runs, the slopes of DPHS values over time in Appendix 4 are linear slopes, and are sometimes misleading, especially when the last bin issue (see point 2 above) results in large deviations from binning criteria in that bin. Buckwalter et al demonstrated (Figure 2) best fit was often to non-linear mathematical trend models, and we will be adding their complete trend fitting process to future versions of our code. 6) Similarly, trend lines in the preliminary plots here fitted using a LOESS method (in R) that is also sometimes misleading. In the future, slopes and trend lines in such plots will be based on the trend- fitting process of Buckwalter et al. 7) Detecting range shifts via means, minima and maxima of latitude and longitude is not optimal. Future efforts will use better metrics for distribution changes over time.

At the scale of the FoTX database, batch runs across all species with varied parameter settings will produce massive volumes of results that will require human interpretation and refinement. The statistics associated with the goodness of fit methods of Buckwalter et al. will be a huge help, allowing us to prioritize our manual inspection of outputs, but the task is still anything but trivial. Figure 2, adapted from Buckwalter et al (2018), illustrates the various forms of trends they detected in their data. We plan to implement this same, or a very similar, process with our own analyses.

Page | 16 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 2. Adapted from Buckwalter et al. (2018) – their Figure 5 “Illustrations of functional forms of spread exhibited by fishes of upper and middle New River tributaries, with lines of fit for the six models being compared (Equations 2–7). The null model (Equation 2) fit best for the 39 stable species exemplified in (a). Of the 31 spreaders, the linear model (Equation 3) fit best for five species exemplified in (b), the two-parameter exponential model (Equation 4) for 23 species (c) and the three-parameter exponential model (Equation 5) for three species (d). The logistic model (Equations 6 and 7) never fit best (Table 2). The scales of the y-axes in (a)–(d) vary due to differing ranges of detections per HUC sampled (DPHS defined in Equation 1) observed among species.”

Finally, we provide example outputs from a preliminary batch run of our variation of the Buckwalter et al.-like process, together with brief discussions of each (see Appendix 4 for more detail regarding the process that produced these plots and for plots for all other species processed).

Page | 17 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fundulus chrysotus

Figure 3 appears to strongly indicate steadily increasing DPHS over an extended time frame together with general (perhaps mostly southward and western) expansion. No last-bin artifact. Spans multiple basins, with large proportion of total records in Trinity to Red. All records west and south of those are from recent decades, agreeing with conclusions of the more rudimentary, manual, and labor intensive analysis of (Martin et al. 2012). We note here too that a more recent record of this species (not included in this analysis) collected by our team from the lower Nueces River pushes the range even further southwest.

Figure 3. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Fundulus chrysotus

Lepomis auritus

Figure 4 appears to strongly indicate steadily increasing DPHS over a long time frame but without significant range expansion. First bin is nearly a century long (anomaly related to not constraining geography to accessible range - i.e. range invaded relatively recently should not have been included in background samples for pre-invasion time period). Very slightly smaller than required N in last bin. Clearly not appropriate to do this analysis at this spatial scale. Separate basin-by-basin analyses will tell a different story than what these graphs convey.

Figure 4. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Lepomis auritus

Page | 18 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Etheostoma histrio

Figure 5 indicates increasing DPHS for many decades leading up to a dramatic crash in the last 2 bins (2001-2008 and 2009-2010). At least last bin deviated from required criteria a bit, but next to last met all criteria and its DPHS was actually lower than the last bin's. This species in Texas is restricted to 3 basins, and analyses should be run separately on each basin. The effect of intensive sampling by Tulane University (Royal Suttkus) in the Neches and Sabine, especially in their lower reaches, exemplifies the inappropriateness of mean and max/min of latitude and longitude as indicators of range extent - in this case the effect of Suttkus' sampling in the southern parts of the distribution obviously pulls mean latitude during those years, and results in very narrow temporal bins in those years.

Figure 5. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Etheostoma histrio

Cyprinella venusta

This species is very widely distributed (statewide and far beyond) and often very common/abundant. The very large number of records for it in FoTX here (Figure 6) produces relatively even-size temporal bins, and large numbers of records in each bin (146-174), but the last bin remainder issue resulted in only 120 records, so the anomalously low DPHS in this plot that pulls the LOESS-fitted trend line down in recent years is likely attributable to sampling error and should be ignored. Introduced in the Río Grande, outlier latitudinal minima in a couple of relatively recent bins are simply the result of its expansion to the lower Río Grande. Obviously, the Río Grande was not accessible to the species until humans moved it there, and that basin should have been excluded from this analysis. But this plot prompted closer examination of the species' history in the Rio Grande, revealing (for the first time) that it was in the Eagle Pass area by the 1970's and then expanded further downstream in the ‘80s and early ‘90s, but then apparently disappeared from that long reach above Falcon Reservoir. Re-running the analysis of this data-rich species basin by basin should provide more interesting insights, regarding both its expansion and disappearance. The apparent extirpation sparks hypotheses about what may have led to that, and clearly, one would anticipate that this was not the only species that may have shown a response. It will be interesting to see if the basin-by-basin plots for sympatric species in that reach correlate in some way with the history of this species.

Page | 19 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 6. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinella venusta

Notropis amabilis

This species (Figure 7) is known from the Rio Grande through Colorado basins, but a couple of occurrences in the western Brazos in the 1960s caused that basin to be included in this analysis as well. Misidentifications of similar species as this one are frequent, and we had flagged one of the Brazos records as suspect, and have now flagged the others that got into this analysis for re-examination as well. The last bin remainder issue produces a huge departure from the criteria satisfied for all other bins, and so its very high DPHS should be ignored as likely spurious. Ignoring that last bin in this analysis then indicates a surprisingly sharp decrease in DPHS over the last couple of decades. The re-running of this species basin by basin is particularly important and likely to provide further insights.

Figure 7. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis amabilis

Phenacobius mirabilis

The extremely low DPHS in the last bin in Figure 8 is not spurious. The criteria were, by chance, very nearly met by the remaining data. Thus, it seems likely that statistical analysis will conclude this species has been declining over at least the last few temporal bins of this analysis. Colorado basin records are all from the 1950s and 1960s, so apparent extirpation is consistent with these results. The apparent shift of distribution northward and westward would reflect upstream movement. We think this species is shifting

Page | 20 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

easterly for most basins in the state, but persistence in the Upper Red River (a westerly population) does not allow this to become apparent in this figure.

Figure 8. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Phenacobius mirabilis

Noturus nocturnus

Though the last bin in Figure 9 clearly came nowhere close to meeting criteria, and thus should be ignored, these results appear to clearly indicate a long, steady decline in detectability range-wide (all east TX basins ) with no clear indication of any spatial shift over time.

Figure 9. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Noturus nocturnus

Cyprinodon variegatus

The results graphed in Figure 10 are in strong agreement with what all previous studies have concluded - steady post-introduction increases in range size (DPHS) together with expansion upstream (for these basins, northward and westward). Last bin, by chance, does not deviate from criteria substantially. However, this species will require some special attention in future analyses, with its trans-Texas coastal native range having very dense sampling that spans all major basins, and more recent anthropogenic- related invasion of upstream reaches where there has been far less dense sampling. Native and introduced ranges should be separately analyzed.

Page | 21 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 10. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinodon variegatus

Lythrurus fumeus

This distinctive species with rare identification issues has dense occurrence coverage throughout all of its native range, which spans Texas from the Colorado-Lavaca basins eastward. In Figure 11, in which the last bin met the required criteria (valid), it is clear that the species has consistently increased in detectability throughout the entire time span of its record in FoTX database, but, there is no clear evidence of spatial shifts.

Figure 11. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Lythrurus fumeus

Etheostoma artesiae

This is not a very common species and it's somewhat surprising that there were enough data to end up telling what appears to be a relatively clear story (Figure 12). The last bin did not nearly meet binning criteria, so should be ignored, but the results here hint at a strong trend of decreasing detectability and strongly indicate a steadily contracting distribution. Several major basins are involved, so the basin by basin re-analyses might provide further insights into what's happening where. We also discovered that some potentially informative data were eliminated due to relatively broad date ranges, but now that this led us to discover them, we also see that many could be relatively easily researched and possibly corrected.

Page | 22 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 12. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Etheostoma artesiae

Cyprinodon pecosensis

The results (Figure 13) of this analysis match many previous studies of the effects of invasion of C. variegatus on this recently declining native, with pure populations remaining only in far upstream (north and west) edges of its former distribution.

Figure 13. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Cyprinodon pecosensis

Notropis oxyrhynchus

The remainder in last bin of Figure 14 comes close to fulfilling requirements for all other bins, so result is likely statistically meaningful. Extensive independent evidence exists for decline of many pelagic-spawning minnows following habitat fragmentation by dams. This now well studied endangered species from the Brazos, Wichita and Colorado has long been thought to be another example of this, so these results are not surprising.

Page | 23 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 14. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis oxyrhynchus

Erimyzon sucetta

This analysis spans many basins (native range is from the Guadalupe and eastward) and the last bin remainder issue is not a concern as the criteria were met, so interpretation of Figure 15 as indicating detectability steadily decreasing and distribution shifting northward seems likely valid, however, this analysis obviously averages across many isolated basins. It will be interesting to see the re-runs for each basin separately.

Figure 15. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Erimyzon sucetta

Notropis jemezanus

This analysis (Figure 16) for this single basin (Rio Grande) endemic minnow, and the fact that by chance the binning criteria for the last bin were satisfied, appears to provide strong support for the previously less rigorously conceived consensus that this species is declining, and here it is clear its distribution is shifting and narrowing toward the north and west.

Page | 24 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 16. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Notropis jemezanus

Atractosteus spatula

We have long realized that the museum specimen record is biased against large-bodied species such as this. Previous cursory examinations of the temporal and spatial distribution of the relatively depauperate data for this species in FoTX did not seem to reveal a very clear picture of the species' conservation status. The much more extensive data of fisheries managers, however, sounded an alarm, and the species is now the target of considerable research and management efforts to hopefully reduce its declining trend. Since this species utilizes estuaries, our aggregation here (Figure 17) of all of the museum records across Texas' basins may be biologically valid, and by chance, the last bin remainder issue in this run turned out to not be an issue. The story this analysis tells is what fisheries managers already knew - strong decline in detectability over many years and narrowing distribution. Expanding the analysis to include the Track 3 data, which includes angler data, may affect these results.

Figure 17. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Atractosteus spatula

Pelagic Spawners Guild

Though this (Figure 18) aggregates across multiple basins and multiple species, most species of this guild are well known to be strongly affected by fragmentation of river basins by mainstem dams. They require long, free-flowing reaches for drifting eggs to hatch and unimpeded upstream movements for spawning.

Page | 25 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Such fragmentation has happened on all Texas rivers with especially intensive dam building since the 1950s or so. Obviously, this needs to be explored species by species and basin by basin, and we will be doing that soon.

Figure 18. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Pelagic Spawners Guild

Planktivore Guild

What is depicted in Figure 19 is something we hadn't specifically thought much about before, let alone tried to systematically analyze, but as reservoir construction on Texas rivers intensified through the 1950s, it makes sense that the replacement of lotic, riverine habitats with the large areas of lentic habitat of reservoirs that favors development of plankton, species specializing on that food resource would flourish.

Figure 19. Temporal trends of DPHS, latitude and longitude for Planktivore Guild

In summary, the outputs from this preliminary run of this new methodology across all of Texas and all species in FoTX, clearly demonstrate the practicality of doing such broad-scale analyses and visualizations of trends for virtually all species in our entire, now large, database. At the same time, exploration of the results provided intriguing and sometimes novel insights into the histories and conservation status of these species. We are excited to further explore the method at diverse scales and otherwise adapt it for our applications, and eventually incorporate trend analyses into the FoTX website.

Page | 26 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

This exercise was not the only one to result in new models or tools relevant to our use of the NHDPlus2 (“U.S. Geological Survey - National Hydrography Dataset” 2018) dataset. We also used The NHDPlus2 dataset in the development of our nativity layers (see “Native Ranges” above) since nativities are defined at the HUC 8 level and the NHDPlus2 stream layers were used in assessing watershed connectivity for that exercise. Our users now have the ability to view the NHDPlus2 stream layers and HUC shapes at levels 12- 6 on our mapping tab alongside FoTX occurrence data and the nativities. And although not visible on the website, we’ve translated basin-based descriptions of native ranges from several sources (Hocutt and Wiley 1986; Hubbs et al. 2008; Maxwell 2012; Hassan-Williams and Bonner 2018) into HUC 8s so that they too can now easily be added to our website and mapped.

(addresses grant deliverables 1g, 1i, 1l, 2f)

Website Features

Improved Mapping Geospatial tools were high on the list of improvements sought by our users, which we accommodated by large changes to our website code and database. Our previous database (MySQL) and schema were not optimal for processing the large amounts of spatial data that could make this possible, so we fundamentally changed the way data are stored in our database and transferred them to a more appropriate format (PostgreSQL). Our new mapping tab running on Leaflet (“Leaflet — an open-source JavaScript library for interactive maps” n.d.) software is a dramatic improvement in terms of performance, spatial layers and data display. We can now add new geospatial layers easily and provide much more occurrence data without performance issues.

We have many more map layers to choose from, and we intend to add more based on user feedback. Currently the drop-down menu offers, USGS’s National Hydrographic Dataset (streamlines waterbodies and HUC shapes; USGS 2018), Google Maps, and major basins (defined by us by combining HUC 8 shapes) and more (Figure 20).

Page | 27 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 20. View of current FoTX website mapping tool showing spatial layer dropdown list of options. Left panel shows how multiple stacked records are summarized on mouse-over in the upper left grey box. The individual records linking to specimen pages can be seen below the summary. Clicking on a dot brings up its details (not visible here) in lower right.

Functionally, the mapping tool now coalesces records when they are stacked to improve web performance with our now larger database. Stacked points are visible as larger dots (dot size increases as a function of number of underlying occurrences). Data from stacked points are summarized on the left panel and links to individual records are provided below the summarized data. Information bubbles have been redesigned to include relevant data and images (when available) and links to specimen pages. Dots are color coded to indicate their status in terms of specimen examination and whether flagged by our team as likely erroneous (Figure 21).

Figure 21. FoTX website mapping tool showing new features including variable dot size as a function of number of stacked occurrences, color shading of major river basins, NHD waterbodies layer, selected record’s information bubble contents (right green square), and, on the left, the list of stacked occurrences (at this zoom level) from the selected location. Example species – Manantial Roundnose Minnow (Dionda argentosa).

With this new version of the mapping tool, and website in general, we expanded FoTX’s geographic scope to include neighbor states (including Mexico) and Colorado, so as to include the complete

Page | 28 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

biogeographically and ecologically relevant extents (upstream and downstream) of all of Texas’ drainages. That expanded extent is now visible in the mapping tab, although some spatial layers do not extend across all political boundaries. The NHD, for example, covers only the U.S.A., so except for those that intersect the border, HUCs (and other NHD coverages) do not extend into Mexico.

Currently the mapping tool allows queries at species level only, and queries on many of the fields currently available in our query tab are not available in the map tab. We plan to create a relationship from our data tab to the map function so that users can view any queried data in the map view.

(addresses grant deliverables 1k, 1j, 1g)

Species Accounts (Taxa Pages) We continue to work on improving species accounts, and obtained cost-free permission from the University of Texas Press to use 211 accounts extracted from the 2-volume Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico books (McEachran and Fechhelm 1998, 2010). The text of these has been extracted from the digital originals using custom, format-based text mining algorithms developed for us by Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC), and indexed using a complete taxonomic dictionary and USGS Place Names to improve searchability. We are also processing additional accounts for Texas species from the un- copyrighted three-volume U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations’ Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic (Carpenter 2002). Since those are not copyrighted we can use all of the accounts available in those volumes and thus provide accounts for all of Texas’ marine and estuarine species. With the addition of these species accounts, FoTX will have at least very basic accounts for almost all freshwater and marine fish species known to occur in the state.

We will soon be adding these vast data sources to the species accounts. In the meantime, we rearranged the layout of content on these pages to accommodate our next planned design for these pages. All images and video are now at the top of each page. We will also provide native ranges from various data sources (Hocutt and Wiley 1986; Hubbs et al. 2008; Maxwell 2012; Hassan-Williams and Bonner 2018).

(addresses grant deliverables 1i, 1g, 1l)

Checklists One of the highest priority features requested by TPWD staff and other users was improved and more user-friendly species checklists. We therefore redesigned the checklists at the state, county, major basin, and HUC8 levels. Before this recent revision, checklists included all species, even when their occurrences in the area of interest were based on what we suspected might be erroneous records. That was done because we felt strongly about providing users all of the available data, even when we might be dubious about some of the records. Our new design continues to provide all of the data, so our checklists can still be considered the most complete list based on total specimen evidence, but we now indicate (via rose- colored highlight) which species we believe to be possibly erroneous, thus allowing users to easily exclude them from their workflows as appropriate. The new checklists also include statistics (N occurrence records that we examined and that we deem to be likely erroneous) to better communicate the full justification

Page | 29 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

(or relative lack thereof) for inclusion of each species on the list. Users can use these data to make their own decisions about what species should be included in the checklist.

Checklists for hydrological units now include labels indicating which species are non-native. These determinations are algorithmically derived “on the fly” based on whether or not an occurrence falls within the nativity layers that we created for each species. Future updates to our nativity layers will thus automatically be accounted for in these checklists (Figure 22). See the “Native ranges” section above for a more detailed description of how nativity layers were derived.

Figure 22. Partial view of current FoTX website’s species checklist for the Guadalupe River basin. Rose-colored rows are species recorded but considered suspect (may be removed following specimen examination). Note “Non-native” labels for those species. To the right is a summary of the basis for inclusion of each species.

We will continue working on checklists and will soon add a new type of checklist based strictly on our nativity layers. Since our existing checklists are based strictly on occurrences they may lack species for which we lack, or have only spotty data. For example, we are well aware of our relatively sparse data for American Eel (Anguilla rostrata), which we are confident is due to an artifact of sampling biases or rareness. But we also know, based on life history and other data, that this species occurs in many places from which we lack specimens. Producing checklists based on our nativity layers should skirt such problems and provide consistently more taxonomically complete checklists.

(addresses grant deliverables 1g, 1i, 1j)

Dark Documents (Beta) Species occurrence data available for research come from two primary sources: 1) data supplied as data tables which can be relatively easily digested into a database system (these are the type of data supplied by FoTX) and 2) data in human-readable text such as scientific articles and reports (occurrences lie in text

Page | 30 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

that a human needs to interpret). While many of these text-based documents are available via the internet or libraries, especially if they’ve been peer reviewed and formally published, there is a vast data resource in the documents that are often not peer reviewed or formally published (i.e., dark documents). The problem is that these are often very hard to find, and once in hand they must be read by a human to extract their data. A query tool that could search the text in these documents and point researchers to just those specific documents (or better sentences) most likely to contain the information they need, would be a valuable asset. So, in conjunction with TACC, we built a prototype online tool that does this. Our tool uses natural language processing algorithms, including entity recognition models, to analyze the scanned and OCRed text in each document for relevant locations, person names, and taxa.

This new tool (available in beta form at http://www.fishesoftexas.org/dark_data/) facilitates data discovery by assigning each document a probability reflecting the likelihood that it contains the information the user is looking for via their query and ranks the full set of documents on the basis of probable relevance to the query. The tool currently accesses the test set of documents we developed collaboratively with assistance of TPWD staff, especially Kevin Mayes and Megan Bean, who provided an index believed to be of all of TPWD’s (1,824) Dingell Johnson Federal Aid Project Reports (DJ Reports) and PDF’s of 429 of those that they could find and scan. We also converted the full index to a database and made it, and the 429 text-based (OCRed) pdfs, accessible at https://fusiontables.google.com/DataSource?docid=1oQ- hBSIkwJ6kifVD8YxxdO9hWn_lELKKNMJn01HW#rows:id=1 as part of our Fishes of Texas “Sandbox” so that interested individuals can explore what can be achieved with such a system.

Testing this tool for our own research needs quickly revealed tremendous potential. Even with this relatively small set of documents, and the tool’s current beta testing level of development, it pointed us to important information about several SGCN species well known to be under-documented historically: 8 reports likely to have information about American eels, 54 reports relating to alligator gar and 16 reports relating to blue suckers. Testing for locality recognition, it turned up 8 records relevant to San Marcos and 24 relevant to the Sabine River. Combining location and taxonomic search criteria it turned up 5 reports likely to contain bowfin in the Sabine drainage. In each of the cases just mentioned, the FoTX database lacked knowledge of such historical occurrences, and they likely would never have been discovered other than through this prototype of what obviously could become a much more powerful tool via inclusion of additional documents.

We plan to fully develop this tool by building into its algorithm taxonomy vocabularies including historical synonyms and common names, place names (including historical synonyms), and person names. The addition of historical names will drastically increase the tool’s utility since many of these documents are very old and use historical synonyms that would not be found by queries using modern names. Since the locality gazetteers we had been using also provide locality coordinates and parent higher geographies, as well as higher taxonomy, we can easily make available more powerful ways of querying the documents. We could map the locations mentioned in all documents and allow for spatial queries. For example, users could query a county or HUC along with any level of taxonomy (species up to family) to retrieve a list of all documents of potential interest organized by probability of having content relevant to the query. We’ll also add the ability to search on any text string (as well as dates) and improve access to OCRed documents

Page | 31 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

since currently non-OCRed docs are retrieved so that users are not able to go directly to the occurrences of their query parameters within the documents.

Our plans for full development of this tool include compilation of a large, and potentially diverse, archive of documents likely to have species occurrence data of interest. We know of sources for other types of TPWD reports and feel confident we could acquire almost all of those, but other sources exist, including conference proceedings (abstracts), field notes, museum ledgers and card catalogs, consultant reports, etc. We recently met with TPWD (Christopher Maldonado) about including the annual scientific collecting permit reports in this archive. These reports are produced by researchers holding scientific permits who are required to submit the collections data for all individuals they collect, so they clearly contain potentially valuable historical occurrence data currently not available to researchers.

(addresses grant deliverables 1g, 1j, 1k)

Statistics Tab We recently developed new summary statistics that allow users to understand our data so that they can use them appropriately. We strongly encourage our users to visit this tab before using FoTX data in analyses. Here they will find summaries that describe biases, and other important patterns and known limitations in the data. Other statistical products, including graphs showing the temporal changes in distributions of species, are coming as well (see “Distributional Analyses Trends and Other Statistics”).

(addresses grant deliverables 1g, 1i, 1l)

General Website Performance and User Experience Our website code was changed in many “behind-the-scenes” ways that do not directly affect user experience but facilitate future changes that will have a less direct, but important, impact on user experience. Other improvements provided more immediate impact on user experience. Beyond the items we explicitly wrote about elsewhere in this report, our website now has responsive web design with dynamic layout optimized for users’ screen size, making the site far more accessible from portable devices. We also edited the layout of many of the pages so users can find what they need faster. Site administrative capabilities have been, and continue to be, added that make it much easier for FoTX staff (or others authorized by FoTX staff) to administer the site, interact more directly with users, and be more responsive to users suggestions for data content updates and corrections.

Data Growth and Improvement We developed and imported our “Track 3” dataset that greatly diversifies our data beyond the museum specimen-based data that was our initial focus and adds an additional 1,592,008 new records - a 13-fold increase in the size of the FoTX database. These records come from 30 datasets, some of which aggregate across from other sources, and so these new data originate from 115 unique sources (Figure 23; Appendix 5). The new data include specimen holdings of museums much like what are already in FoTX, but also records from citizen science, angler catches, audio records, literature-mined data, molecular data, and federal and state agency databases. One of the large advantages of providing data from diverse sources,

Page | 32 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

albeit in some cases non-verifiable due to lack of specimen vouchers, is that it results in an overall more comprehensive database with fewer biases, since the bias from one data type can be overcome by the strength of another. For example, museum data are typically weak for game fishes but strong on minnows (Cyprinidae), while angler and citizen-based data are strong on game fishes and weak on minnows.

The data remain partially processed and we have yet to flag any Track 3 records as “suspect” or “wish to examine”, as we did with Tracks 1 and 2. Georeferences, collector names, taxa names and dates in Track 3 are taken from the donor data mostly unchanged, and more work is needed to better normalize and quality-control these data. In some cases, users may be perplexed as to why some records don’t display when queried - that is usually because misspellings or name changes result in taxonomic names not matching our current standardized taxonomy. Likewise, some queries display many more records than expected, usually because of the same taxonomy issues. For example, species that were split after the data donors recorded them under their original names will be returned in a query for the older name “Dionda episcopa”, though many could actually represent other, more recently described, Dionda species. Full processing of those data will rectify these initial problems.

Our initial hesitancy about including partially processed data was reduced since most of the data came from highly normalized databases and were already georeferenced. Furthermore, since many of the records in this dataset were not vouchered and documentation that could allow verification of the data was not available, there was little that could be done beyond flagging those suspect records. We decided the value of these data to researchers and interested public was great enough to merit immediate release. Within our own project the additional data greatly increased the power of the statistical analyses we are now implementing (see above “Distributional analyses, trends and other statistics“). The additional data will eventually lead to improved species distribution models, watershed-based spatial prioritization assessments, native fish conservation planning frameworks, etc., that will contribute to implementation of the Texas Conservation Action Plan as well as conservation of freshwater fishes in general. Since these data are made public, all researchers can use them, and doing so will improve the products of their work.

Beyond expanding the data source types to unvouchered records, we are officially expanding our geographic scope to include portions of Texas’ watersheds that extend into neighboring states, including Mexico. Although we focus our analytical and mapping visualization efforts primarily within Texas’ political boundaries, it is inappropriate from a biogeographical point of view to exclude critical areas hydrologically connected to Texas populations. Now our users are able to explore occurrences in all of Texas’ shared drainages. Updates compiled in our Track 3 dataset from previous donors contain records from those neighbor states, but it should be noted that there are more data remaining to be acquired for neighboring states held by many of our previous donors for which we did not receive updates.

Our updated documentation points out that all of the Track 3 data are “preliminary and unprocessed” and we will continue to work on them. We caution users of Track 3 to consider that the data have not been fully quality controlled. While the unverifiable nature of the non-vouchered records limits the possibility of fully validating them as we can do with specimen-vouchered records, but we recognize and value the potential complementarity of such data sources when interpreted in light of the verified specimen- vouchered records. Some of these new data sources, lacking specimen vouchers, do provide specimen

Page | 33 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

images on their own servers, and when possible we provide links back to their images in situ for verification purposes. We encourage users to verify those identifications as possible via images, and to note issues in our comment forms, or if possible, adjust the data at the source, as is possible with at least iNaturalist (“iNaturalist.org” n.d.).

Figure 23. Summary of data types and sources added to FoTX database. TPWD’s Coastal Fisheries database (TPWD_Coastal) is by far the largest single provider, contributing ~60% of the new records.

Among the new records, most were received via the data aggregator Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF.org 2017); 1,114,795), and the largest single source of records from GBIF was TPWD’s Coastal Fisheries database which contains 942,167 records (roughly 85% of what we got from GBIF and 60% of the entire new dataset). GBIF provided data from another 82 sources, most of which were specimen- holding institutions. Outside of GBIF, we received data from another 33 sources, most of which we either requested data for directly or downloaded from their online institutional databases.

Government databases make up 1,182,876 records in the Track 3 dataset. Subtracting the Coastal Fisheries data set, there are 240,709 records from other government agency sources. Among these, TPWD provided 79,446 records from Inland Fisheries Division and other TPWD sources. TCEQ provided 34,739 records and the federal government provides most of the remainder – Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 47,424, and US Geological Survey (USGS) 12,082 records. We were able to get data from neighboring state agencies via MARIS (Multistate Aquatic Resources Information System), including TPWD (in addition to what they gave us directly), Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Louisiana Department of

Page | 34 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Wildlife and Fisheries, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

(addresses grant deliverable 1d, 1k)

TNHC Specimen Contribution The 357,195 new specimen-based records in Track 3 are from 94 institutions. Nearly 19%, 18,953 records, came from TNHC and 1,868 of those were collected via the fieldwork component of this project. The remaining 17,085 records cataloged in the TNHC were collected as part of other projects by our team and/or solicited by us from numerous specimen donors, some of which are indicated in Table 1. During the three year reporting period of this project, 51 donors contributed 6,339 records (in 67 separate accessions) from 1,202 unique localities. New procedures implemented in our cataloging process greatly streamlined the work flow for getting new specimens databased and fully integrated into our collection. Part of this improvement in productivity is due to our use of a recently developed bulk import function in our database software and the fact that donors are more often providing their specimen data to us in the form of spreadsheets, thus reducing the need to manually enter data.

The newly cataloged specimens represent many species, including specimens of Mexican Blindcat (Prietella phreatophila), an endangered blind cave catfish that we recently discovered in Texas. Previously known only from northern Mexico, this discovery received considerable press (CBS News 2016; University of Texas at Austin 2016), adding a new fully protected, federally listed endangered species to the Texas fauna. We also collected the first ever specimen of Bigeye Shiner (Notropis boops) from Texas, and many other important occurrences were cataloged into our collections as a result of the fieldwork described in this report (see Activity 4 for details). Considerable effort went toward stabilizing, sorting, identifying and cataloging collections donated by Dr. Timothy Bonner (Texas State University), and by Dr. Bob Edwards (University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley). Both remain to be fully processed and imported into our database, but as this report was written, that work was almost done, and together they will add thousands of new records.

addresses grant deliverable 4b, 4c)

Other Internally Derived or Solicited Data Sources While most of the data came from GBIF, and we had no direct role in its creation, many other datasets were developed by us or in coordination with others. We collaborated with Kevin Mayes (TPWD) and Gordon Linam (TPWD) to quality control a partial database of occurrences that they and TPWD staff manually extracted from scanned TPWD reports. These are also now in FoTX as part of our Track 3 dataset. Our intent is to make much more of these kinds of data mined from reports, and other hard-to-find documents available in the future (see section above “Dark documents (beta)”).

One of our top priorities has been to get TPWD’s vast holdings of occurrence data included in FoTX. Shortly after the initiation of this contract we had a meeting with TPWD staff who held and managed those databases. The meeting resulted in agreement that most of the data sources held by TPWD could be exposed in FoTX following some data clean up. We then worked primarily with Sarah Haas (TPWD, Inland

Page | 35 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fisheries Division), who cleaned up the Kills and Spills database and helped us interpret data in other TPWD datasets. We are hoping to continue collaborating with her and other TPWD data managers on publications relating to these datasets. These TPWD data are also now included in the Track 3 dataset.

We worked with Cullen Hanks (TPWD, Wildlife Division, Nature Tracker program, who left TPWD in 2017) to promote iNaturalist, and our sub-project there (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/fishes-of-texas) as a tool for citizen scientists to record photographic observations that could then be used for research. We initially set up the project, and remain managers, but he began to co-manage with us in 2015. He has also been involved with the citizen science component of the bioassessment efforts discussed in this report (Activity 4). We worked with him outside of this project in three other Austin-area bioblitzes (Waller Creek in Austin, Berry Creek in Georgetown, and Slaughter Creek in south Austin) in which iNaturalist was used and promoted by us. Those data are all included in Track 3.

We continued compiling records held in the literature and from personal anecdotes, especially when they filled data gaps in the FoTX data. Those datasets, previously available from our sandbox site (https://sites.cns.utexas.edu/hendricksonlab/FoTX_Sandbox) are now all included in Track 3.

In an effort to greatly increase the number, and type diversity, of data records in FoTX, we contacted administrators of four fishing phone apps (FishBrain, FishingScout, iAngler and iFish) in hopes of collaborating to make available their data for scientific research. They are mostly for-profit businesses designed to allow anglers to share their catches and collectively learn from other anglers. Over the last few years, they have gained many users and now serve large numbers of occurrence records along with photos, allowing for verification, and their focus is largely on species relatively poorly represented in the museum archives. Since they are for-profit ventures, and their success hinges on their ability to sell their data, they are reluctant to share, however, FishBrain and iAngler both agreed to share data with us. Unfortunately, at this time, FishBrain agreed to provide localities only at the resolution of county centroids, but via a link from the FoTX website, users who have bought their service can get access to complete record details. This partnership generated a fair amount of publicity on local media (Beres 2016; Price 2018, FishBrain 2016).

(addresses grant deliverables 1k, 4p)

Specimen Examinations and Data Improvement We are continually accepting comments from our users about any aspect of the data held in FoTX (especially errors) via the comment fields associated with each specimen page. We accumulated 170 comments, many related to improving data content, that we will soon address. But, we independently continue to seek out and analyze “suspect” records, correct specimen identifications, refine locality and collection dates, integrate field notes and images, and further normalize the FoTX database.

During the course of this project, in addition to the team members authoring this report, we have developed an experienced, and impressively qualified volunteer work force. Roy Kleinsasser, a biologist recently retired from TPWD River Studies, has been focusing most of his 10-15 weekly hours on providing specimen IDs, thus greatly speeding and improving TNHC specimen processing. Additionally, F. Douglas

Page | 36 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Martin and Bob Edwards, both professional ichthyologists and retired university faculty, each contribute 10-20 hours/week on diverse functions, and a revolving team of typically five or six enthusiastic and motivated student workers/volunteers, each contributing 10-20 hours/week, round out our crew.

Specimen ID verification will always remain an important part of what we do. Most casual users of our data do not appreciate the need for this, but experienced ichthyologists know how error-prone identifications can be, and are well aware how common they are, especially in some taxonomic groups. Specimen vouchering and the subsequent verification of suspicious specimens are critically important steps toward achieving our goals, and underscore the value of scientific specimen vouchering. We therefore diligently and methodically seek out and research all data outliers. We visited Texas A&M University’s fish collection to examine and photograph 16 suspect lots (~jars of specimens). Later, we twice visited Tulane University to examine approximately 80 specimen lots we had flagged as spatial outliers. We also examined 412 lots housed in our own collection (TNHC). Many of those were of the genus Mugil (Mullets), among which we found a surprisingly high identification error rate (20%). As part of this effort, we identified a new species for the state, Black Redhorse (Moxostoma duquesnei), collected in 1993 from a tributary of the Red River (cataloged in our collection – TNHC 32541). This same effort led us to now believe that Weed Shiner (Notropis texanus), despite the long history of being recorded by previous researchers as native to the Brazos River should instead be considered non-native there.

Dr. Gary Garrett, our TPWD liaison and one of the state’s most prolific fish collectors, performed a meticulous verification process comparing his field notes to the data held in FoTX, made corrections (via FoTX specimen page comments) to 26 records, and uploaded complete field notes for 197 of his own collecting events. Similarly, Dr. Bob Edwards recently joined the FoTX team, donating all of his life-time specimen collections and field notes, which he will be uploading to FoTX as he concurrently does specimen-based verifications.

During this project we added field notes for 342 collecting events to the FoTX database, and our current backlog for scanning and processing includes paper field notes for an estimated 100 additional collecting events. We also photographed over 3,765 specimen lots, primarily from our own collections. Most of these have already, or will soon, be added to the FoTX project website. Hundreds more also included in the FoTX image archive were photographed by visiting researchers as part of their own research.

We also continued improving the data held in our TNHC database. We implemented new procedures for specimen digitization and measuring to our standard protocol, which now includes photography and measuring (smallest and largest specimens) for every new lot before being permanently shelved. We also improved the TNHC database by incorporating georeferences from our recent georeferencing projects, and additional in-house georeferencing efforts, so that 93% of TNHC specimen records are now georeferenced. These improvements are reflected in the Track 3 dataset.

(addresses grant deliverables 1h, 1e, 1j)

Page | 37 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Database and Website Technical Details We completed a broad-scale cleanup of the structure of FoTX database and website allowing the website to take full advantage of the new, geospatial capabilities of PostgreSQL, a now widely used and actively developed open source database program. Our programmers (the last 3 co-authors) at UT’s Texas Advanced Computing Center, have now massively cleaned up very old and sometimes inconsistent and poorly documented code modules, documenting all code in the process. They have also integrated all project content (formerly scattered across several servers) into the Django database, thus allowing the site to evolve and expand much more easily, and increasing online responsiveness to users.

Database Schema – The project began by performing a comprehensive audit of the existing database schema, which was essentially a copy of the Specify database schema from which the data were originally ported. The Specify schema was significantly over-complex for the needs of the FoTX website, with many unused tables and fields. Reviewing the exiting Django code, we determined the tables and fields that were used and those that were not, allowing us to prune 110 tables and thousands of fields. Once we narrowed down the active portion of the schema, a new streamlined schema was developed which made significant changes to normalization and the human-readability of table and field names.

Migration – Having documented the source and target schemas, we developed an automated script to migrate each record in the source database to the appropriate location in the target database, performing any relevant transformations along the way. This included a move from the source’s MySQL database server to the target’s PostgreSQL server. The shift in RDBMS was driven by the desire to incorporate robust GIS capabilities into the platform via PostgreSQL’s PostGIS extension.

New Data – While most of the data moved in the above transformation originated in the legacy source, new data were also introduced – specifically ecoregion areas obtained from the EPA and newly updated HUC geometries from NHDPlus2. New occurrence data were then added as the Track 3 dataset.

Server-Side Framework – The existing Django framework was retained, but was updated by several major releases (1.5 to 1.8), requiring significant refactoring.

Refactoring – Separately from the framework upgrades, the website code was refactored into a more “Djangonic” idiom. The existing site had retained the original code that put all parts of the site into a single Django “app”, and that content has now been refactored into eleven discrete sections, as is now required by Django.

Code cleanup – The legacy site had a great deal of duplicated code. This was problematic not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also from a consistency and maintenance standpoint. The most significant change focused on the search code. Each avenue into search (records list, map, data exports) executed similar but different code. These were consolidated into a single centralized codebase that is re-used no matter where the request comes from. This results in both a significant reduction in the amount of code and improvement in maintainability.

Page | 38 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Static Assets – These resources such as images, style sheets, and JavaScript files were not handled in the standard Django manner, resulting in a somewhat chaotic implementation. We completed phase one of the process of making these resources Django-compliant, but these efforts will be ongoing.

Performance – An initial pass at performance improvements has been implemented.

GIS GeoServer – We are now serving data (HUCs, ecoregions, and jurisdictions) from GeoServer. This allowed us to retire the extremely bulky, manually generated tiles that supported county maps.

Client-Side (website) JavaScript – Version conflicts with third party JavaScript libraries impacting some UI components, most notably between JQuery and the Nivo-slider (formerly used in the home page of the old website), were resolved.

Flatpages – We extracted all flat page templates from the FoTX database and implemented a standards- compliant and maintainable Django templating system.

View routing – Refactoring of all view routing to accommodate the new templating system is complete.

Responsiveness (mobile-friendly) – Started implementation of bootstrap responsive web design in all client-side view templates to make the site much more useful on portable devices like phones and tablets, and improve functionality on larger-format screens as well.

(addresses grant deliverables 1j, 1k)

Page | 39 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Activity 2. Identify Priority Geographic Management Units for Conserving Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need Contracted Deliverables:

2a. Identify and propose Native Fish Conservation Areas for the portions of Texas where spatial prioritization analysis has not yet been conducted. 2b. New Species Distribution Models for SGCN taxa 2c. Prioritization assessment for SGCN fishes in Texas 2d. Native Fish Conservation Areas 2e. Through workgroup feedback and refinement, delineate a tiered framework for conservation actions for NFCAs in the remainder of the state 2f. Produce new NHDplus2-based models for SGCN fishes 2g. Using bioassessment data (Activity 4), FoTX data, and conservation workshop results, validate and further refine Texas Native Fish Conservation Areas (NFCAs).

Proposed Native Fish Conservation Areas We created spatial planning (GIS) and mainstreamed products including:

i. New species distribution models for SGCN taxa ii. A spatial prioritization assessment that identifies focal areas for conservation based on representation iii. A spatial framework for landscape-scale resource management via identification of high-priority management units (Native Fish Conservation Areas, NFCAs) based on distance and compositional similarity of prioritized areas.

The process we followed to determine NFCAs is illustrated graphically in Figure 24, with indication of the three outcomes listed above. Much more detailed descriptions of the concepts and methods used for creation of these results and products are presented by Labay et al. (2013). Thus, methods will be only briefly discussed here.

Page | 40 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 24. Schematic of the prioritization analysis sequence with indication of three primary outcomes for this report: i. new SDMs for Texas SGCN taxa, ii. a spatial prioritization, and iii. identification of NFCAs.

(addresses grant deliverables 2a)

Species Distribution Modeling We used species distribution models (SDMs) to convert point occurrence data into range-wide continuous probability coverages (Guisan et al. 2013). Fish species were chosen for modeling and inclusion into the prioritization analyses on the basis of their potential inclusion in a revised list of SGCN for the state (Appendix 6, Table 1), which is actively being developed as part of this grant deliverable. Museum specimen-vouchered occurrence data sources included the Fishes of Texas database as well as two studies (Hendrickson et al. 2010; Cohen et al. 2013) that compiled, reviewed and partially normalized existing aquatic resource occurrence data from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility and other data sources (FishNet2.org 2017; GBIF.org 2017). Selection criteria for inclusion of records into the analysis included

Page | 41 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

restricting to those records with less than a five kilometer estimate on georeferenced locality. Environmental variables used in SDM construction (Appendix 6, Table 2) were selected in part based on expert evaluation of models created from subsets of variables for a set of species with well-known distributions (Labay et al. 2011). Additional hydrologic-based variables (see Appendix 6, Table 2) were added from the newly released National Hydrography Dataset Plus Version 2 (Wieferich et al. 2015). Climatic, hydrologic, and topographic variables were used to account for broad-scale physiological constraints as determinants of distribution (Graham and Hijmans 2006), and a hydrology-based geographic variable controlled for historical zoogeography by categorically constraining predictions of species occurrence to watersheds from which they are documented. Hydrologic variables derived from the NHDplus2 were converted to 30 arc-second grids using the NHDplus2 catchment unit. Species distribution models were constructed using the maximum entropy algorithm encoded in the MaxEnt software package (Version 3.3.4, (Phillips et al. 2006)), with model construction and validation methods described in (Hendrickson and Labay 2014). The extent used for SDM construction included NHDplusV2 data regions 11 (Ark-Red-White), 12 (Texas), and 13 (Rio Grande). Additionally, we employed a method to account for the survey sampling bias in our study area. We constructed a bias file that approximates biases in survey data and procedures. This grid was created by using all available fish occurrence data for our study region and represents relative survey effort across the landscape. This bias file is used by the modeling software to create a similarly biased set of background, or pseudo-absence, occurrence points for model training, and avoids comparing presence data with habitat greatly outside of a species’ known conditions (Phillips et al. 2009; Elith et al. 2010).

Information from SDMs were restricted to the political boundary of Texas for assessment analyses and all 2 spatial data analyses were conducted at a 30-arc-second (1 km at the equator) grid resolution. Individual species models in GIS-ready formats can be download via the Fishes of Texas model download portal (http://www.fishesoftexas.org/models/). Additionally, details regarding model production methodology are also available there.

(addresses grant deliverables 2b)

SGCN Species Habitat Prioritization For spatial prioritization of core habitat for SGCN fishes in Texas we use the planning software Zonation (Moilanen et al. 2005). The primary function of the software is to produce a landscape ranking based on conservation value defined by spatially explicit levels of species, habitat, or ecosystem occurrence. It does this in our case by initially considering the entire landscape being analyzed and iteratively removing spatial grid cells that result in the smallest loss of conservation value, as defined by SDM estimation of relative probability of occurrence. Zonation allows alternative implementation of the cell removal process and what type of conservation value it emphasizes. The removal rule used in this study is one that emphasizes species rarity (Core-Area Zonation, CAZ; (Moilanen et al. 2005)), which aims to identify ‘core’ priority landscapes for each species regardless of overall species richness. In other words, the CAZ approach can potentially consider two streams equally important even if one contains substantially more priority species. The intent with the CAZ approach is to identify the set of core areas most relevant for conservation of all priority species.

Page | 42 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Utilizing various Zonation features to ‘direct’ the cell removal process we produced a series of analyses to provide differing conservation area perspectives. After species distribution models were produced, a primary prioritization referred to as CAZ + S + C, utilized the core area removal process and incorporated species-specific weighting, connectivity constraints, ecological groupings, and a stream connectivity condition factor to produce the landscape rankings depicted in Figure 25. See (Hendrickson and Labay 2014) for methods regarding each step in the analysis sequence.

(addresses grant deliverables 2c)

Figure 25. Primary prioritization with core-area function zonation analysis, species-specific rankings, connectivity constraints, ecological grouping and stream connectivity condition factor (CAZ + S +C) for the 70 Species of Greatest Conservation Need in Texas used in the prioritization analysis.

Designation of NFCAs Zonation allows for the identification of distinct species-based geographic units (here called NFCAs) based on the distance and compositional similarity between priority areas. This is done using four user-specified parameters: i.) percentage of the landscape to consider for inclusion in the management units, ii.) minimum inclusion top fraction for each unit (what top fraction must be present in each separate unit),

Page | 43 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

iii.) a maximum distance between units, and iv.) a maximum difference in compositional similarity between units. To identify NFCAs for Texas streams we used the “CAZ + S + C” primary prioritization (Figure 25) as the starting point and chose i.) to consider the top 10% of the landscape ranking, ii.) a minimum inclusion of the top 2% (meaning each unit had to contain a portion of the top 2% of the ranking), iii.) 25 grid cells (approximately 20 kilometers) for the maximum distance allowed between spatially discrete patches that are included in the same management unit, and iv.) a maximum difference in species composition so that two units were determined different if 2 species out of ten (20%) had a 1-log difference in their probability density (SDM value) between the two areas (Figure 26). This initial result of NFCAs for Texas is to be considered preliminary in that it now requires expert opinion to group and adjust the area designations in ways that are more logical in either an administrative, geographic, or hydrologic sense. For example, the San Gabriel River, a tributary of the Brazos watershed is grouped into the NFCA along with the Lower Guadalupe and Colorado Rivers. There might be sufficient reason to group the San Gabriel along with the neighboring NFCA of the Lower Brazos River.

Figure 26. Broad-scale Native Fish Conservation Areas (NFCAs) identified according to distance and compositional similarity among highly ranked regions of the CAZ + S + C analysis (Figure 25). NFCA units are depicted as groupings of 12-digit Hydrologic Units (HUCs).

Page | 44 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Through collaboration between TPWD and TNHC, we combined known and modeled species distributions and spatial prioritization analysis to identify high priority watersheds (NHD+ local and network catchments) and associated stream segments throughout Texas that attempt to meet the four critical elements of a NFCA (Williams et al. 2011): (1) natural physical processes remain intact (or have the potential to be restored) within the watershed that support the maintenance of freshwater habitat complexity, diversity and connectivity; (2) habitats are contained within the watershed that support all life history stages of the fish species being preserved; (3) the watershed or fragmented river segment (between reservoirs) is large enough to provide for long-term persistence of native fish populations (e.g., effective population size); and (4) management plans and other agreements can be developed that will allow the watershed or river segment to be managed in a manner that sustains aquatic and riparian habitat integrity over time and across management jurisdictions and land ownerships. The prioritization analysis to identify NFCAs used existing fish SDMs (Labay et al. 2011) for priority species as input to the program Zonation (Moilanen et al. 2011). Zonation links SDMs to a quantitative reserve planning system that allows hierarchical identification of conservation priority areas (e.g., NFCAs) for retaining surrogate features in the landscape, whether those are specific habitat characteristics or species of conservation interest. Concrete objectives include provision and creation of spatial planning (GIS) and mainstreamed products including i.) improved species distribution models when additional or improved occurrence data become available, ii.) a spatial prioritization assessment that identifies focal areas for conservation based on representation, iii.) a spatial framework for landscape-scale resource management developed with Zonation software via identification of high-priority management units based on distance and compositional similarity of prioritized areas. Based on the definitions of successful applications of NFCAs as explained by Williams et al. (2011), stakeholders can now critically evaluate and augment prioritization results with regards to priority species and natural physical processes, habitat quality and quantity, and management plausibility.

(addresses grant deliverables 2d)

Page | 45 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Activity 3. Develop Monitoring and Conservation Plans for Native Fish Conservation Areas Contracted Deliverables:

3a. Develop monitoring and conservation plans for the Native Fish Conservation Areas that were identified in the Great Plains, Edwards Plateau, and Chihuahuan Desert ecoregions. 3b. Develop monitoring and conservation plans for Native Fish Conservation Areas in the remainder of Texas 3c. Convene workgroups to provide feedback and validation of monitoring and conservation actions developed for NFCAs. Discussions with TPWD staff led to the decision to change the geographic classification for Native Fish Conservation Areas from ecoregions to biotic provinces. As a result, conservation and monitoring plans for NFCAs in all of the biotic provinces of Texas (Austroriparian, Balconian, Chihuahuan, Kansan, Navahonian, Tamaulipan and Texan) were refined and are comprised of the following aquatic systems: Upper Canadian River, Upper Red River, Northeast Texas Rivers, Southeast Texas Rivers, Upper Brazos River, Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River, San Gabriel River, Lower Colorado River, Central Edwards Plateau Rivers, Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers, Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers, Central Coast Rivers and Streams, Upper Big Bend, Lower Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains Streams, Davis Mountains Streams, Pecos River, Devils River, Lower Rio Grande (Figure 27). These plans were constructed to help identify threats and limiting factors as well as provide guidance for conservation to directly benefit focal species and the water quality, water quantity and habitats they depend upon. The desired outcomes include healthy populations, functional watersheds and sustainable management. Focal species are defined as those that are indicators of habitat quality and/or in need of conservation actions. Each plan contains 1) a brief description of the biotic province, 2) a checklist of fish species found in each NFCA, 3) a brief species account for each of the focal species, 4) the current and desired biological status of the focal species with an assessment of threat factors, and 5) a summary of conservation and monitoring objectives. The plans are designed to aid in establishing conservation, restoration and monitoring protocols as well as developing constituent groups and examples of conservation management practices. Each plan is intended to evolve as more information is obtained, approaches are refined, and objectives are achieved. Details for each plan are found in appendices 7 (Southern Plains), 8 (Balconian), 9 (Chihuahuan- Navahonian), and 10 (Tamaulipan, Texan and Austroriparian).

Page | 46 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 27. Native Fish Conservation Areas in Texas.

Watershed-based conservation planning workshops have been conducted for the Native Fish Conservation Areas in the aquatic systems of the Upper Canadian River, Upper Red River, Upper Brazos River, Lower Colorado River, Central Edwards Plateau Rivers, Upper Big Bend, Lower Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains Streams, Davis Mountains Streams, Pecos River, and Devils River.

Participants in these workshops (Appendix 11) were asked to function as catalysts for cooperation and collaboration as well as facilitators of local implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan and State Wildlife Action Plan. In addition to the benefits of networking and sharing ideas, the most valuable items produced at the workshops were the identification of priority research, monitoring, and restoration actions for preservation of native fishes, their habitats and other aquatic resources.

Page | 47 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCAs Workshops for the NFCAs of the Central Edwards Plateau Rivers were held with an interdisciplinary team of 32 fish and wildlife conservation professionals representing conservation non-profits, universities, state and federal agencies. Discussions yielded priority science needs primarily centered on the need for development of reach-specific river data and decision support tools that can be used to inform the conservation of environmental flows (through mechanisms such as inclusion of prescribed releases in water rights permits and dam operations plans or leases of existing water rights for instream uses). Another area of interest focused on the need for data and decision support tools to guide and prioritize restoration and preservation of riparian and floodplain habitats (through mechanisms such as conservation easements or other landowner incentives). In total, 59 potential projects were identified. The three highest-priority projects are listed below and are all now underway, supported directly by TPWD.

• Examine flow-ecology relationships to inform instream flow prescriptions in the Lower Colorado River Water Management Plan to conserve Guadalupe Bass (Micropterus treculii, state fish of Texas) and state-listed Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus) • Application of the Texas Ecological Indices Project to prioritize riparian buffers for protection through landowner incentives and conservation easements supported by the Texas Farm and Ranch Lands Conservation Program and TPWD Landowner Incentive Program • Examine opportunities for water leases, water rights acquisition, and voluntary incentive-based programs to achieve flow restoration targets for conservation of Guadalupe Bass (Micropterus treculii) in Hill Country tributaries of the Colorado River

Kansan NFCAs Workshops for NFCAs in the Upper Brazos, Upper Red, and Upper Canadian rivers were part of the Southern Great Plains Native Fish Conservation Area planning process. An interdisciplinary team of 45 fish and wildlife conservation professionals representing conservation non-profits, universities, state and federal agencies identified 35 priority actions for each of these watersheds (15 in the Canadian, seven in the upper Red and 13 in the upper Brazos) that were designed to mitigate ecosystem stressors that are common to these watersheds (groundwater extraction, habitat fragmentation, dewatering, flow regime alteration, water pollution, and invasive, non-native species). The highest priority projects in each watershed are:

Upper Canadian River • Document migration of pelagic broadcast spawning fishes • Examine flow-ecology relationships of pelagic broadcast spawning fishes • Develop propagation and grow-out methods for broadcast spawning minnows

Upper Red River • Conduct an intensive fish community assessment of the Red River and tributaries • Captive propagation and refugia for prairie minnows • Conduct research to describe the basic life-history requirements of Prairie Chub (Macrhybopsis australis)

Page | 48 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Document migration of Prairie Chub (Macrhybopsis australis), Red River Shiner (Notropis bairdi) and Red River Pupfish (Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis) and identify important spawning and nursery areas • Determine the physical and chemical tolerances of larval and juvenile pelagic-spawning fishes • Acquire LiDAR imagery for the Red River Basin

Upper Brazos River • Develop protocols and implement long-term monitoring sites across Great Plains basins • Research to support salt cedar management • Assess effects of invasive Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) and Gulf Killifish (Fundulus grandis) in the Brazos and Red River basins

Chihuahuan NFCAs An interdisciplinary team of 55 professionals was developed for the six NFCAs of the Chihuahuan biotic province (Upper Big Bend, Lower Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains Streams, Davis Mountains Streams, Pecos River, and Devils River). Members were tasked with 1) Identifying priority research, monitoring, and restoration actions for preservation of native fishes, their habitats and other aquatic resources in the Chihuahuan Desert of Texas; 2) Catalyzing cooperation, collaboration, and leveraging of technical and financial resources among local, state and federal natural resources management agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, and other local partners that contribute to the conservation of native fishes and other aquatic resources in the watersheds of the Chihuahuan Desert; 3) Facilitating local implementation of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan in the Chihuahuan Desert watersheds.

Through the workshops process, many of the members helped to identify and prioritize research, monitoring and restoration projects or actions that need to be initiated within the six NFCAs. These discussions resulted in the identification of proposed conservation actions (approximately 80), funding needs and a list of top priority projects. Funding and other means of support for the priority projects are now being developed by TPWD and the team. The highest priority projects are:

• Develop ciénega research and management recommendations. o Increase understanding of flow alteration, marsh encroachment, and other changes to the system. o Establish benchmarks based on historical conditions. o Develop strategies to inform effective management. • Support science to increase understanding of groundwater-surface water interactions, establish environmental flows targets, and develop strategies to effectively manage groundwater to achieve specific targets for spring discharge and instream flows. o Connect desired future conditions to environmental flows for the Rio Grande and tributaries. o Independence Creek and the lower Pecos are recommended priorities for this study. • Complete studies of temperature tolerances, distribution, and fish-host for Mexican Fawnsfoot Truncilla cognata and Salina Mucket Potamilus metnecktayi. • Refine Devils River habitat models, including additional monitoring wells and data collection. • Conduct a GIS-based regional assessment of water tables in ephemeral streams to determine restoration potential.

Page | 49 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Explore establishment of an incentives-based program for Davis Mountain fuel reduction/thinning and riparian livestock fencing. • Work with Sul Ross State University to explore programmatic partnership to increase involvement in biological monitoring and riparian restoration in the region. • Build capacity for riparian restoration in Big Bend tributaries. o Provide support to increase supply of horticultural materials by establishing a nursery or supporting a contract with an existing greenhouse. o Explore partnerships with non-profits to administer a large-scale riparian restoration program including riparian restoration workshops, volunteer coordination, and planning/delivery of service projects. • Conduct a data and information mining/sharing project on relevant research, monitoring, and restoration actions that have occurred within the Chihuahuan Desert over the past 10 years and assemble an historical summary of regional conservation efforts. o Work with the Devils River Conservancy to conduct a pilot project on data mining for the Devils River watershed. • The assembled proof of concept and lessons learned will guide a work plan for the entire Chihuahuan Desert.

The priority actions developed by the interdisciplinary teams in the NFCAs listed above can now provide the groundwork for conservation action plans that will guide partner investments over the next 5-10 years in cooperative, watershed-scale conservation of native fishes and other aquatic resources in each of the NFCAs. Additional information on development of Native Fish Conservation Areas, workshop products and project details can be found at http://nativefishconservation.org/

(addresses grant deliverables 2e, 2g, 3a, 3b, 3c, 1f)

Page | 50 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Activity 4. Conduct Field-Based Surveys, Detailed Biodiversity Assessments (i.e. Bioblitzing), and Citizen-Based Monitoring Contracted Deliverables:

4a. Conduct fish sampling in under-sampled areas as indicated by analyses of the FoTX database. 4b. Report on specimens collected and catalogued into TNHC database. 4c. In addition to the specimens produced by TNHC’s own activity as part of this project, this report will include all specimens solicited from, and contributed by, diverse collectors statewide, including the normally large numbers of specimens that voucher TPWD’s own fish-sampling efforts. 4d. Plan and conduct a bioblitz within the Nueces River headwaters. 4e. Plan and conduct a bioblitz within the Big Cypress Creek basin. 4f. Plan and conduct a bioblitz within the Village Creek basin; provide a report documenting findings and management and conservation recommendations. 4g. Plan and conduct a bioblitz within the Canadian River basin in the vicinity of the Great Plains NFCA; provide a report documenting findings and management and conservation recommendations. 4h. Plan and conduct a bioblitz within the Neches River basin in the vicinity of the Big Thicket; provide a report documenting findings and management and conservation recommendations. 4i. Plan and conduct a bioblitz in two areas to be determined and provide reports documenting findings together with management and conservation recommendations. List of SGCN species found in these areas will be provided in Year 2. 4j. Develop guidelines and best practices for citizen-based monitoring to ensure that data are provided in a format that supports species identification, scientists trained to use iNaturalist, and in fish ID. 4k. Promote citizen-based monitoring in bioblitz locations via iNaturalist forums, expert workshops, Master Naturalists, etc. 4l. Develop a fact sheet with guidance on processing photographic observations into iNaturalist. 4m. Provide identification verification and other recommendations on data provided through online collaboration with iNaturalist users. 4n. Provide a report summarizing stakeholder participation and received biological data relevant to SGCN taxa and FoTX data gaps. 4o. Develop a data gap fact sheet to enable the citizen-science community to more effectively target collecting efforts. 4p. Provide iNaturalist data on FoTX website.

Field-Surveys We worked closely with TPWD to conduct regional ecological surveys focusing within NFCA’s derived by us in Activity 2 using modeled data from FoTX. Survey methods and NFCA selections were largely determined by TPWD based on conservation needs and other priorities. One of the purposes of the surveys was to detect SGCNs on the current SGCN list. Note that we made recommendations to adjust that list (see Activity 1), but in this report did not indicate if those newly recommended species were present or not in each survey. TNHC and TPWD staff both participated in almost all aspects of the surveys including field collections, specimen preservation/preparation, data development, and report writing. TNHC was most heavily involved with site selection of supplemental sites (defined below), fish collections at those sites, specimen preservation, tissue collection, specimen identification and curation, and data

Page | 51 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

basing of specimens. Reports documenting the details and recommendations for each survey were written by Sarah Robertson (TPWD lead), other TPWD staff, and Melissa Casarez (TNHC). Because these reports describe in detail methods, collections data, findings, and management recommendations we refrain from reiterating much of those details and instead reference those reports and give summary data here. At the time of this writing, four of the seven reports have been generated and are available on TPWD’s River Studies website (https://tpwd.texas.gov/landwater/water/conservation/fwresources/reports.phtml). Three reports are currently in process and will be provided on the website once complete (Middle and Lower Neches River, Upper Red River, and Middle Colorado River). Readers of this report interested in accessing the raw fish occurrence data can go to the FoTX website to download the data via its query interface. Almost all data are provided there with the exception of several events for which the specimens are currently being held by TPWD but will be included in the next upload to FoTX.

Sites A total of seven watershed-based survey areas (Figure 28) were chosen from within identified NFCAs (see Activity 2) to conduct aquatic studies with a concentration on fishes. NFCAs were chosen in conjunction with TPWD staff according to their state-wide project needs and priorities. Within each survey area at least one site was chosen for a more comprehensive bioassessment, often involving citizen-based data collection. We chose TPWD State Parks (SPs) or Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) for the bioassessment sites since they often are focal areas for conservation management and engagement of the public.

Numerous additional sites were selected as ‘supplemental sites’ with the intention that collections at these sites fill in spatial and temporal data gaps in historical fish records held in the FoTX database. Sites representing a diversity of habitats and also lacking data (or not being sampled recently) were prioritized for sampling. Final site selection occurred in the field and included types of habitats and locations that we thought may have been overlooked in previous fish collection efforts within the study areas including small roadside ditches, vegetated ponds, oxbows, areas above and below dams where migratory fish might accumulate, marshes, backwaters under bridges, creeks, and main-stem rivers. In some surveys where little aquatic habitat was available sites were selected based largely on availability of water.

Page | 52 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Methods The bioassessments typically involved several teams composed of staff at TPWD, TNHC, and other universities and organizations focusing on different aspects of the data collection. We employed the following standard protocols to collect data consistently across all bioassessment sites:

• A visual riparian and instream habitat assessment (SVAP) was performed using the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's (NRCS) Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (Bjorkland, et al. 2001) as modified by TPWD personnel for Texas Streams (Tom Heger, personal communication).

Page | 53 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

In addition to fulfilling basic rapid bioassessment criteria, the SVAP protocol was chosen to provide opportunities to inform/influence NRCS land conservation priorities through communication of SVAP scores and identification of specific conservation needs of priority stream segments. • Water quality assessment performed by the collection of temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH using a YSI multi-parameter water quality sonde, following TCEQ QA/QC procedures (TCEQ 2012). • Fish surveys following TCEQ protocol (TCEQ 2012) for backpack electrofishing, seining, and boat electrofishing. Large fish were released after total lengths were recorded and a voucher photograph taken. All other fish captured were preserved in 10% formalin and taken to TPWD or TNHC for enumeration, species identification, and curation. Once all fish were identified, a regional index of biotic integrity was calculated (Linam et al. 2002) • Manual mussel surveys were performed using timed snorkeling in multiple mesohabitat types following American Fisheries Society guidelines (Strayer and Smith 2003; Strayer and Dudgeon 2010).

Supplemental sites were sampled with a smaller crew of usually three individuals led by TNHC staff and typically lacking a citizen science component with the primary aim of documenting fish diversity in the watershed via specimen preservation, tissue sampling, and photo documentation. We used a wide variety of gear types (Table 2) but relied most heavily on seines, gill nets, backpack electroshocker, and small meshed frame nets (net mesh sizes varied in size with the aim of targeting a diversity of fish sizes). All fish collected at supplemental sites were preserved in 10% formalin in the field and brought back to the TNHC for identification, enumeration, measuring and cataloging into the TNHC collections database. Tissues were taken in the field by TNHC staff on a subset of specimens and those are now also housed at the TNHC in the Genetic Resources collection where they, like the specimens they come from, are available for loan to researchers. The specimen data generated from these surveys are recorded in the TNHC database and are also now available on the FoTX website as part of our Track 3 dataset. Users interested in the data can go to the website to query the data directly. The citizen science data are also available online via the iNaturalist website and records that have been given iNaturalist’s “research grade” designation are also on FoTX.

Page | 54 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Table 2. Summary of data highlights for the seven surveys that took place over the 3-year project. The scope of work was intended for completion of two studies a year. An initial ‘mini-blitz’ in the Upper Frio River was a kick-off event that took place in the spring right before the start of the actual project. Totals (N) for fish and mussel species include that for the entire study (bioassessment + supplemental sites). Note that SGCNs here refer to those in the currently approved SGCN list and not those recommended for inclusion by us in Activity 1 of this report. sites and bioassessment and bioassessment sites Bioassessment location Bioassessment (includes supplemental (includes (known in watershed) in (known collection gears used N supplemental sites supplemental N cataloged records N N N fish fish N (N totalsite mussel species mussel NFCA unit NFCA fish fish

at TNHC at found SGCN sites) species

seining, backpack Southern Edwards Frio River at Garner SP electroshocking, frame 3 (4) 17 0 34 4 (4) Plateau Rivers netting, and boat shocking

Big Cypress Bayou (2), seining, backpack Black Cypress Bayou (1), electroshocking, boat Northeast Texas Rivers 10 (14) 56 19 242 3 (7) and Little Cypress Bayou shocking, frame netting, (1) gill nets

seines, backpack electroshockers, gill nets, Southeast Texas Rivers Village Creek State Park 26 (27) 57 18 438 2 (6) dip nets, frame nets, trot lines, and a boat shocker

Gene Howe Wildlife seines, gill nets, frame Upper Canadian River 7 (8) 23 0 46 2 (3) Management Area nets, and dip nets

seines, boat shockers, gill Neches River at Alabama nets, frame nets, hoop Southeast Texas Rivers Creek Wildlife 31 (32) 66 22 408 5 (9) nets, and collapsible Management Area minnow traps

seines, gill nets, trammel Middle Pease River at nets, backpack Upper Red River Matador Wildlife 34 (40) 45 0 283 3 (9) electroshocker, frame net, Management Area and dip nets

seines, backpack shockers, Central Edwards gill nets, dip nets, boat Colorado Bend State Park 32 (33) 45 10 417 2 (6) Plateau Rivers shockers, hoop nets, and collapsible minnow traps

Page | 55 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Upper Frio River Basin

Figure 29. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Upper Frio River Basin study. Site A represents the bio-assessment site at Garner State Park. Sites B-D indicate where supplemental fish collections occurred. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

On May 16, 2014 the first survey led by TPWD’s Inland Fisheries Division and TNHC staff took place at four locations in the upper Frio River Basin. Two sites were on the main Frio River and two on the Dry Frio (Figure 29). A total of 1,386 fish specimens, representing 17 species were documented and collected. The bioassessment event took place at Garner State Park (Site A) and participants included staff from TPWD’s Inland Fisheries Division, TNHC, The Nature Conservancy, Garner State Park, and private citizens. Both water and habitat quality scored high here, pointing to a healthy, functioning ecosystem with high aquatic life use. The SVAP resulted in a stream health grade of fair, with lowered scores occurring as a result of impacted bank condition and riparian area quality, and barriers to aquatic species movement due to a low-water dam at the downstream side of the study. No mussels were found within the reach, nor was there evidence indicating the area historically supported a mussel population. Of the six fish species currently classified by TPWD as SGCN for the Nueces River headwaters, four were observed: Plateau Shiner (Cyprinella lepida), Nueces Roundnose Minnow (Dionda serena), Headwater Catfish (Ictalurus lupus), and Texas Shiner (Notropis amabilis). Published report is available via TPWD on their River Studies Reports page (Robertson 2015).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4d)

Page | 56 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Big Cypress Bayou Basin

Figure 30. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Big Cypress Basin study. (Map produced by: Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

Survey work for the Big Cypress Basin was split between two trips in September and October, 2014. Fourteen sites were sampled (four bioassessment sites and 10 supplemental fish collection sites, Figure 30), yielding 3,101 fish specimens representing 56 species. An emphasis was placed on Big Cypress Bayou between Caddo Lake and Lake O’ the Pines, with 8 supplemental fish collection sites and all four bioassessment events there. Two of the supplemental collection sites (Harrison Bayou and Paw Paw Bayou) are not part of the Big Cypress watershed proper, but filled data gaps in fish collections for the greater river basin. Additional bioassessment sites were added for this study to assist the Caddo Lake Institute with their Cypress Basin Flows project (“FLOWS PROJECT | Caddo Lake Institute” n.d.). These sites were chosen to provide more comprehensive data for examination of the effects of a recently deployed 5-year flow agreement aimed at reinstating the native fish assemblage. In addition to TNHC and TPWD Inland Fisheries teams, Drs. Lance Williams and Neil Ford (UT Tyler), the Nature Conservancy, local TPWD biologists, UT Tyler students, private citizens, and Joe Trungale, a private consultant working with the Cypress Basin Flows Project, participated in the events. The study found all four bioassessment sites to have healthy fish and mussel communities, good water quality, and moderate to good SVAP health

Page | 57 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need scores. A total of 19 mussel species were found, one being the state threatened Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi). Of the seven fish SGCN species for the area, one was observed at two of the bioassessment sites, Blackside Darter (Percina maculata), and two were observed at supplemental collection sites; Blackspot Shiner (Notropis atrocaudalis) and Western Creek Chubsucker (Erimyzon claviformis). The final report was published by TPWD (Robertson et al. 2016a).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4e)

Village Creek Basin

Figure 31. Locations of Village Creek Watershed data collection sites in Hardin, Polk, and Tyler counties, TX. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

The Village Creek watershed was surveyed over 3 trips in May, July, and August of 2015. A total of 27 sites were sampled (Figure 31) yielding 4,895 individuals representing 57 fish species. An additional 7 sites were sampled outside the Village Creek watershed that either filled holes in data gaps for the greater Neches basin or were targeted collections in search of Least Killifish (Heterandria formosa), a species apparently

Page | 58 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

expanding its range in Texas. This diminutive species was collected during this survey from an unnamed roadside ditch at Sour Lake (Hardin County), adding a new county record and extending the known range approximately 30 km to the north in the Neches Basin. These 7 sites were added as part of the 2016 Middle and Lower Neches study and can be viewed below (Figure 33). Our efforts to find the species in the Trinity basin proved unfruitful. The bioassessment for the Village Creek system was conducted at Village Creek State Park between two events in May and August. A public event, in collaboration with TPWD’s River Studies and Wildlife Diversity biologists, University of Houston – Clear Lake, local area Master Naturalists, Village Creek State Park staff, Big Thicket National Preserve, East Texas Herpetological Society, and the Native Plant Society of Texas, occurred from May 1-3, 2015. Focused on documenting all taxa in the area, this was our most successful public outreach effort. Fish collection during the public event was minimal however, due to limited access related to flooding. A second bioassessment event was conducted later, on August 4th, at the park after floods receded. Participants for this second round included TPWD Inland Fisheries, TNHC, Village Creek SP, Big Thicket National Park, and University of Houston – Clear Lake. Overall, the study found the reach of Village Creek within the state park as having an exceptional aquatic life use rating with high fish, mussel, and riparian plant species richness throughout. The SVAP score categorized stream health as good, with availability to a diversity of habitats and a lack of barriers to aquatic species movement being contributing factors to lowered element grades. Three state threatened mussels were collected (Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), Sandbank Pocketbook (Lampsilis satura), and Southern Hickorynut (Obovaria jacksoniana)) and a total of 19 species found. Only one SGCN-listed fish, Sabine Shiner (Notropis sabinae) was collected during this effort, but another, Blackspot Shiner (Notropis atrocaudalis) was collected at a supplemental collection site. The final report was published by TPWD (Robertson et al. 2016b).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4f)

Page | 59 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Canadian River

Figure 32. Locations of Canadian River Basin data collection sites in Oldham, Potter, Hutchinson, Roberts, and Hemphill counties, TX. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

Survey work for the Great Plains NFCA took place October 2-6, 2015 throughout portions of the Canadian River (Figure 32). Over the 5-day period, 10 sites were sampled, with a total of 1,484 fish specimens of 23 species collected. Electroshocking was not an option due to its ineffectiveness in highly saline waters in many of the localities, and due to restrictions on its use for sampling in habitat of the federally protected Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi). The bioassessment event for the Canadian took place on October 5, 2015 and was carried out on the stretch of river that runs along the southern boundary of Gene Howe WMA in Hemphill County. This was the first study where we explored a new approach in stakeholder participation by reaching out to local WMAs. We also invited local researchers and management, such as Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and Texas Tech University, who all participated in the field work. The Regionalized Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) score for this segment of the Canadian indicates an exceptional aquatic life use in reference to the fish species collected. Overall health stream rated as good on the SVAP with low marks for the hydrologic alteration and riparian area quality categories. No mussels were found during the study which is typical for the Canadian Basin in Texas. No SGCN fish species were detected at the bioassessment site, however, two, Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema) and

Page | 60 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi), were found upstream of Lake Meredith at supplemental collection sites. Flathead Chub (Platygobio gracilis), last collected in the state at the US 385 crossing of the Canadian River in 1999 and recommended by us (see Activity 1) to be added to the SGCN list, was not observed. Published report available via TPWD (Robertson et al. 2017).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4g)

Middle and Lower Neches River

Figure 33. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Middle and Lower Neches River study. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

This was the second bioassessment in the Neches River basin, the first happening the previous spring (2015) in the Village Creek watershed. Effort was focused on the Middle Neches in two WMAs, Alabama

Page | 61 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Creek WMA, which borders the Neches at Davy Crockett National Forest, and Alazon Bayou WMA, which borders the Angelina River above Sam Rayburn Reservoir. Sites 18-23 were sampled to fill data gaps in the FoTX database during the previous year’s Village Creek study and added to the scope of this survey as supplemental fish collection sites. Due to a season of uncooperative weather in the area, the majority of the work for this survey was repeatedly postponed, but eventually completed in three trips that took place June 14-16, August 4-6, and September 15 of 2016. Altogether, 32 sites were sampled, comprised of 23 supplemental fish collection sites, 8 supplemental fish/mussel/crayfish sites, and one bioassessment site (Figure 33). The 8 multi-taxon supplemental collection sites all occurred within the two WMAs. A total of 5,872 fish specimens were collected throughout the basin representing 66 species. In addition, 22 mussel species (3 state threatened - Texas Pigtoe (Fusconaia askewi), Louisiana Pigtoe (Pleurobema riddellii), and Texas Heelsplitter (Potamilus amphichaenus)) and 8 crayfish species were found throughout the study area. The bioassessment for the Middle Neches took place on September 15, 2016 and was carried out primarily by TPWD River Studies staff. This is the only bioassessment event that TNHC personnel did not take part in, due to scheduling conflicts. Sampling was conducted on the Neches River near the boat ramp at the northern boundary of Alabama Creek WMA. Overall stream health for this reach of the Neches was rated as excellent on the SVAP and received a high aquatic life use score from the high diversity of fishes found and lack of non-natives. Two SGCN fish species were observed during the bioassessment, Sabine Shiner (Notropis sabinae) and Blue Sucker (Cycleptus elongatus), with an additional three collected at supplemental sites including Alligator Gar (Atractosteus spatula), Western Creek Chubsucker (Erimyzon claviformis), and Blackspot Shiner (Notropis atrocaudalis). The Blue Sucker was the first known occurrence for the entire Neches basin in nearly 50 years (the prior one being from 1971 below Steinhagen Reservoir).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4h)

Page | 62 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Upper Red River

Figure 34. Survey map of all sites sampled as part of the Upper and Middle Red River Basin study. (Map produced by Sarah Robertson, TPWD River Studies).

Thirty-four supplemental fish collection sites and six sites within the bioassessment study area were sampled throughout the Upper Red River during two trips in the falls of 2015 and 2016 (Figure 34). The two surveys yielded 9,725 fish specimens representing 45 species. For this study we continued working with local WMAs for our bioassessment selection sites and were assisted by staff from Matador WMA at all locations on the Middle Pease River within the WMA boundaries. The bioassessment for the Upper Red took place on October 20, 2016 along the Middle Fork Pease River in Matador WMA, an over 28,000 acre management area in Cottle County, Texas. This bioassessment was unique in that the scope of work carried out was limited by the length of the WMA’s stretch of river at the time, best described as a series of disconnected pools. Those in attendance included biologists from TPWD’s River Studies program, TNHC biologists, and management and staff from Matador WMA. Due to the non-existence of flow for the Middle Pease here, no water quality data or SVAP information was recorded. In addition, no live mussels were found within Matador WMA, or throughout the entirety of the study area. No fish SGCNs were found during the bioassessment, however three were detected at supplemental fish sampling sites outside the bioassessment study area – Red River Pupfish (Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis), Red River Shiner (Notropis

Page | 63 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

bairdi), and Silverband Shiner (Notropis shumardi). Some other noteworthy finds for this study include range extensions of the non-native Gulf Killifish (Fundulus grandis), collection of a previously thought-to- be-extirpated SGCN species, Silverband Shiner (Notropis shumardi), and discovery of a new species for the state, Bigeye Shiner (Notropis boops).

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4i)

Middle Colorado River

Figure 35. Middle Colorado River survey map. Red dots represent supplemental fish collection sites and the bioblitz location at Colorado Bend SP.

Survey work for the Middle Colorado took place on the main stem river and its tributaries between Buchanan Lake and O.H. Ivie during four trips in May, June, and July of 2017. In addition to the bioassessment at Colorado Bend State Park, 33 supplemental sites (Figure 35) were sampled for fishes, with mussel surveys also taking place at 5 of them. A total of 11,561 fish specimens were collected representing 45 species. This final bioassessment for the three-year project took place on July 27, 2017 at Colorado Bend SP. Participants included volunteers and staff of Colorado Bend SP, biologists from various TPWD programs (River Studies, Kills & Spills, Water Resources, and Inland Fisheries Management), TNHC,

Page | 64 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

and Tarleton University. The stretch of the Colorado within the state park scored on the SVAP in the ‘good’ category for overall stream health with lowered scores from impacted banks and limited habitat diversity. Due to instrument complications, water quality data was not recorded for this study. A total of 10 mussel species were found throughout the system, two being the state listed Smooth pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis) and Texas pimpleback (Quadrula petrina). The only SGCN-listed fish detected during the bioassessment event was Guadalupe Bass (Micropterus treculii), but another, Texas Shiner (Notropis amabilis), was found at two supplemental collection sites.

(addresses grant deliverable 4a, 4i)

Citizen-Based Monitoring One of our goals regarding data collection during the bioassessments was to involve local management and citizens with a vested interest in the study area, such as staff at SPs and WMAs, citizen-science groups (Master Naturalists) and others, as much as possible. We asked them to participate by taking photos of organisms and posting them to iNaturalist, a popular citizen–science website and phone application that, after a community consensus specimen identification is achieved, shares occurrence data with online data aggregators such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, where they are made available for scientific research. One of our hopes was that continual data collection by interested and motivated individuals might continue into the future, even after the project.

Our group teamed with TPWD’s Wildlife Diversity Program staff to promote citizen-science monitoring via iNaturalist. This program has established a well-rooted working relationship with the public through their various outreach programs. More specifically, we worked closely with Cullen Hanks, a (now former) TPWD Wildlife Diversity Biologist in the Texas Nature Trackers Program, who worked extensively with the community promoting use of iNaturalist as a tool to document organism occurrences. His program manages a diverse set of taxa-based iNaturalist projects (Herps of Texas, Mammals of Texas, etc.), and we agreed to let Cullen co-manage our pre-existing project (https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/fishes-of- texas) in hopes that together we could maximize participation. Our first official collaborative event with Wildlife Diversity was the public Village Creek bioassessment event, May 1-3, 2015. Various local naturalist groups, such as Master Naturalist chapters, were in attendance and joined us as co-sponsors for the event (Figure 36). All of this project’s bioassessments were similarly widely publicized by TPWD and others, all linking to their event pages in iNaturalist.

Throughout the duration of this project we reviewed the photo-vouchered records and added comments and identifications when we could do so confidently to keep the public engaged and facilitate continued participation (Figure 37). Promotion and education about how to use iNaturalist has become a routine part of any FoTX team fieldwork where other organizations or groups are involved. During this project we promoted iNaturalist at TPWD meetings, collections with University of Texas Vertebrate Natural History classes, Austin Youth River Watch field events, working with Master Naturalist groups, and while assisting in student collections. By consistently posting our own observations (user “fishesoftexas”, currently 1,971 observations) during all of our collecting efforts, we hope to encourage others to do the same.

Page | 65 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

We created and distributed a flyer to serve as a guide for sharing observations via iNaturalist and inform readers how to create and manage bioassessment events (Figure 38, Figure 39). Early on we realized that participants were submitting images of specimens that could not be identified to the species level and we attempted to rectify that problem by developing a set of guidelines and proper handling tips for photographing fish and uploading observations. We broadly disseminated them via a flyer during Year 2 of the project (Figure 40). In the same year, we were asked to develop a data gap fact sheet to enable the citizen-science community to more effectively target their collecting efforts to maximize benefit to the research and management communities. Working with Cullen Hanks (TPWD), we determined that it would be more effective to provide those data gaps online in association with their TNT (Texas Nature Trackers) program’s ‘Target Species’ lists. This is a much more effective way to get word to the public regarding targeted fish species, as it focuses on species lists by region and is broadcast to a large audience of naturalists through the programs widely used on the Wildlife Diversity website (Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 2017) (Figure 41).

Figure 36. iNaturalist Village Creek bioassessment event page.

Page | 66 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 37. Example of interactions regarding identifications among FoTX staff (here Dr. F. Douglas Martin) and site users.

Page | 67 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 38. Bioblitzing with iNaturalist flyer Page 1.

Page | 68 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 39. Bioblitzing with iNaturalist flyer Page 2.

Page | 69 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 40. Flyer describing best practices for proper photographic observations that facilitate accurate specimen identification.

Page | 70 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Figure 41. Example of a target fish species list for the East Central Texas Plains Ecoregion, as viewed on the TPWD Texas Nature Trackers project page.

(addresses grant deliverable 4j, 4k, 4l, 4m, 4o)

Literature Cited

Beres, D. 2016, February 5. “FishBrain,” An App For Catching Fish, May Save Endangered Species. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/fishbrain-endangered- species_us_56a91856e4b0947efb6653b4 Bjorkland, R., C. Pringle, and B. Newton. 2001. A Stream Visual Assessment Protocol (SVAP) for Riparian Landowners. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 68. Buckwalter, J. D., E. A. Frimpong, P. L. Angermeier, and J. N. Barney. 2018. Seventy years of stream-fish collections reveal invasions and native range contractions in an Appalachian (USA) watershed. Diversity and Distributions 24(2):219–232.

Page | 71 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Carpenter, K. E., editor. 2002. The living marine resources of the Western Central Atlantic. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. CBS News. 2016. Rare translucent blind catfish discovered in Texas. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rare-translucent-blind-catfish-discovered-in-texas/. Cohen, A. E., B. J. Labay, D. A. Hendrickson, M. Casarez, and S. Sarkar. 2013. Final Report: Data provision and projected impact of climate change on fish biodiversity within the Desert LCC. Submitted to United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative; Agreement Number: R11AP81527. Pages 1–109. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. Elith, J., S. J. Phillips, T. Hastie, M. Dudík, Y. E. Chee, and C. J. Yates. 2010. A statistical explanation of MaxEnt for ecologists. Diversity and Distributions: 17(1):43-57. Fishbrain. 2016, April 18. Announcing a new biodiversity and conservation partnership. http://fishbrain.com/blog/announcing-a-new-biodiversity-and-conservation-partnership. FishNet2.org. 2017. FishNet2. http://www.fishnet2.net/. FLOWS PROJECT | Caddo Lake Institute. (n.d.). GBIF.org. 2017. GBIF. https://www.gbif.org/. Graham, C. H., and R. J. Hijmans. 2006. A comparison of methods for mapping species ranges and species richness. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15(6):578–587. Guisan, A., R. Tingley, J. B. Baumgartner, I. Naujokaitis-Lewis, P. R. Sutcliffe, A. I. T. Tulloch, T. J. Regan, L. Brotons, E. McDonald-Madden, C. Mantyka-Pringle, T. G. Martin, J. R. Rhodes, R. Maggini, S. A. Setterfield, J. Elith, M. W. Schwartz, B. A. Wintle, O. BROENNIMANN, M. Austin, S. Ferrier, M. R. Kearney, H. P. Possingham, and Y. M. Buckley. 2013. Predicting species distributions for conservation decisions. Ecology Letters: 16(12):1424-1435. Hassan-Williams, C., and T. H. Bonner. 2018. Texas Freshwater Fishes (UT Austin mirror of http://www.bio.txstate.edu/~tbonner/txfishes/). http://txstate.fishesoftexas.org/. Hendrickson, D. A., and A. E. Cohen. 2015. Fishes of Texas Project Database (Version 2.0). Hendrickson, D. A., and B. J. Labay. 2014. Final Report: Conservation assessment and mapping products for GPLCC priority fish taxa. Hendrickson, D. A., S. Sarkar, and A. Molineux. 2010. Final Report: Provision and Inventory of Diverse Aquatic Ecosystem-related Resources for the Great Plains Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GPLCC). Page 111. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Texas at Austin, Grant Agreement 20181AG915. Hoagstrom, C. W., C.-A. Hayer, and C. R. Berry. 2009. Criteria for determining native distributions of biota: the case of the northern plains killifish in the Cheyenne River drainage, North America. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19(1):88–95. Hocutt, C. H., and E. O. Wiley, editors. 1986. The zoogeography of North American freshwater fishes. John Wiley & Sons, New York. Hubbs, C., R. J. Edwards, and G. P. Garrett. 2008. An Annotated Checklist of the Freshwater Fishes of Texas, with Keys to Identification of Species. Second Edition. Texas Journal of Science Supplement:2–87. iNaturalist.org. (n.d.). https://www.inaturalist.org/home. Labay, B., A. E. Cohen, B. Sissel, D. A. Hendrickson, F. D. Martin, and S. Sarkar. 2011. Assessing Historical Fish Community Composition Using Surveys, Historical Collection Data, and Species Distribution Models. PLoS ONE 6(9):e25145. Labay, B. J., A. E. Cohen, D. A. Hendrickson, B. Sissel, S. Sarkar, and M. Casarez. 2013. Final Report: Data compilation, distribution models, conservation planning, and status survey for selected fishes of concern in Texas and region. Pages 1–70. University of Texas at Austin, Texas Parks and Wildlife Section 6 grant TX E-136-R, TPWD #416853, Austin, Texas. Leaflet — an open-source JavaScript library for interactive maps. (n.d.). http://leafletjs.com/.

Page | 72 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Linam, G. W., L. J. Kleinsasser, and K. B. Mayes. 2002. Regionalization of the Index of Biotic Integrity for Texas Streams. Resource Protection division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, River Studies Report 17. Martin, F. D., A. E. Cohen, and D. A. Hendrickson. 2012. Using the Fishes of Texas Project databases and recent collections to detect range expansions by four fish species on the lower coastal plain of Texas. Gulf and Caribbean Research 24:63–72. Maxwell, R. J. 2012, November 15. Patterns of endemism and species richness of fishes of the Western Gulf Slope. M.S. thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos. McEachran, J. D., and J. D. Fechhelm. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, Vol. 1 Myxiniformes to Gasterosteiformes. University of Texas Press, Austin. McEachran, J. D., and J. D. Fechhelm. 2010. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico, volume 2: Scorpaeniformes to Tetraodontiformes. University of Texas Press. Moilanen, A., A. M. A. Franco, R. I. Early, R. Fox, B. Wintle, and C. D. Thomas. 2005. Prioritizing multiple- use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 272(1575):1885–1891. Moilanen, A., J. R. Leathwick, and J. M. Quinn. 2011. Spatial prioritization of conservation management. Conservation Letters 4(5):383–393. Page, L. M., and B. M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes, Second Edition2 edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston. Phillips, S. J., R. P. Anderson, and R. E. Schapire. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecological Modelling 190(3–4):231–259. Phillips, S. J., M. Dudík, J. Elith, C. H. Graham, A. Lehmann, J. Leathwick, and S. Ferrier. 2009. Sample selection bias and presence-only distribution models: implications for background and pseudo- absence data. Ecological Applications 19(1):181–197. Price, A. 2018, January 19. UT fish collection casts net wide, catches big data. http://www.mystatesman.com/news/fish-collection-casts-net-wide-catches-big- data/p1sVid2IO3ozzj224tTkAL/. Robertson, S. 2015. Upper Frio River Basin Bioassessment. Page 30. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 22, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Robertson, S., K. B. Mayes, G. W. Linam, M. Parker, C. Robertson, A. Grubh, S. Magnelia, and M. J. Casarez. 2016a. Cypress Basin Bioassessment, Marion and Harrison Counties, Texas. Page 50. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 24, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Robertson, S., M. Parker, G. W. Linam, C. Robertson, A. Grubh, and M. J. Casarez. 2016b. Village Creek Watershed Bioassessment. Page 35. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 25, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Robertson, S., M. Parker, G. W. Linam, C. Robertson, A. Grubh, and M. J. Casarez. 2017. Canadian River Bioassessment. Page 36. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 26, Austin, Texas, U.S.A. Strayer, D. L., and D. Dudgeon. 2010, February 8. Freshwater biodiversity conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Research article. http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1899/08-171.1. Strayer, D. L., and D. R. Smith. 2003. A Guide to Sampling Freshwater Mussel Populations. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. TCEQ. 2012. Surface Water Quality Monitoring Procedures, Volume 1: Physical and Chemical Monitoring Methods. https://www.tceq.texas.gov/publications/rg/rg-415/index.html. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2017, January 30. TPWD: Texas Nature Trackers: Target Species. https://tpwd.texas.gov/huntwild/wild/wildlife_diversity/texas_nature_trackers/target_species/. University of Texas at Austin. 2016, June 17. Rare, Blind Catfish Never Before Found in U.S. Discovered in National Park Cave in Texas. https://news.utexas.edu/2016/06/17/rare-blind-catfish-discovered- in-texas.

Page | 73 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

U.S. Geological Survey - National Hydrography Dataset. 2018, January 19. https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2013. Federal Standards and Procedures for the National Watershed Boundary Dataset (WBD) (4 ed.): Techniques and Methods 11–A3. Page 63. Wieferich, D. J., W. M. Daniel, and D. M. Infante. 2015. Enhancing the Utility of the NHDPlus River Coverage: Characterizing Ecological River Reaches for Improved Management and Summary of Information. Fisheries 40(11):562–564. Williams, J. E., R. N. Williams, R. F. Thurow, L. Elwell, D. P. Philipp, F. A. Harris, J. L. Kershner, P. J. Martinez, D. Miller, G. H. Reeves, C. A. Frissell, and J. R. Sedell. 2011. Native Fish Conservation Areas: A Vision for Large-Scale Conservation of Native Fish Communities. Fisheries 36(6):267–277.

Page | 74 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Memo of Understanding – TPWD & UT Austin re FoTX

Page | 75 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 76

Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 77

Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 2 – List of Collaborators

Need

data

Name Affiliation Field work NFCA advisors Univ/Gov/Other Web coding/database/IT Volunteer/student worker Natural Diversity Database Species of Greatest Conserv. Contributed specimens or Nativity determinations for all TX fishes Texas Texas Acre, Matthew Texas Tech University U X X Alabama Creek WMA TPWD G X Alazon Bayou WMA TPWD G X Arey, Steve US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Arsuffi, Tom Texas Tech University U X Aziz, Karim TPWD G X Bader, Kenneth University of Texas Austin U X Baker, Jamie TPWD G X Barron Bradsby, Colette TPWD G X Barth, Alex University of Texas Austin U X X Bean, Megan TPWD G X X Bean, Preston TPWD G X X X Bendik, Beth TPWD G X Bennett, Dan TPWD G X Bennett, Jeff National Park Service G X Best, Alice TPWD G X Birdsong, Tim TPWD G X Bister, Tim TPWD G X Bixler, Patrick University of Texas Austin U X Bocanegra, Omar US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Boles, Steve TPWD G X Bolton, Barry Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation G X Bonner, Tim Texas State University U X X Bonthius, Christine TPWD G X Botros, John TPWD G X Braun, Christopher US Geological Survey G X Brewer, Shannon Oklahoma State University U X Briggs, Mark World Wildlife Fund O X Bristow, Brent US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Broad, Tyson Llano River Watershed Alliance O X

Page | 78 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Bronson Warren, TPWD G X Jennifer Bullard, Dani O X Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Burroughs, Jim G X Conservation Casarez, Melissa University of Texas Austin U X X X X X Cathey, Sara University of Texas Austin U X X Chapa, Chris US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Chilton, Earl TPWD G X Ciara, Brianna University of Texas Tyler U X Cohen, Adam University of Texas Austin U X X X X X Coleman, Macayla TPWD G X Coleman, Stephanie USDA Forest Service G X Colorado Bend SP TPWD G X Conway, Kevin Texas A&M University U X X Cook-Hildreth, Luci TPWD G X Crisp, Margaret private O X Cummings, Greg TPWD G X X Curtis, Stephen TPWD G X Davis, Drew University of South Dakota U X De Jesus, Marcos TPWD G X X Dean, David Utah State University U X Decker, Thomas TPWD G X Desliu, Ryan National Park Service G X Devitt, Tom City of Austin G X Diaz, Pete US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Doege, Robyn Ft. Worth Zoo O X Dugan, Laura TPWD G X X Dunton, Kenneth University of Texas Austin U Edwards, Robert University of Texas Rio Grande Valley U X X X X Eischen, Tim X Espinoza, Sebastian University of Texas Austin U X X Farooqi, Mukhtar TPWD G X Farr, William private O X Fenner, Daniel US Fish & Wildlife Service G X X Flack, Rebecca Texas Nature Conservancy O X Fleming, Paul TPWD G X Ford, Neil University of Texas Tyler U X Garner State Park TPWD G X Garrett, Gary University of Texas Austin U X X X Geeslin, Dakus TPWD G X X

Page | 79 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Gene Howe WMA TPWD G X Gentle, John University of Texas Austin U X German, Duane TPWD G X Gluesenkamp, Andrew San Antonio Zoo O X X X Gottfried, Robert TPWD G X Grabowski, Tim Texas Tech University U X X X Green, Jacob TPWD G X Grubh, Archis TPWD G X Guillen, George University of Houston G X Haas, Sarah TPWD G X Hamlett, Pamela TPWD G X Hanks, Cullen TPWD G X Harper, Chris US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Harveson, Louis Sul Ross State University U X Harveson, Patricia Sul Ross State University U X Havlik, Nicolas TPWD G X Heger, Tom TPWD G X Hendrickson, Dean University of Texas Austin U X X X X X X Hoagstrom, Christopher Weber State University U X Hobson, Cindy TPWD G X Hogan, James University of Texas Rio Grande Valley U X Homer, Michael TPWD G X Hornung, Kelsey University of Texas Austin U X Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Howery, Mark G X Conservation Hubbell, Bryce Angelo State University U X Humphries, Julian University of Texas Austin U X Hutchins, Ben TPWD G X X Hyde, Kenneth National Park Service G X Janise, Cody O X Johnson, Dan private O X Jones, Chelsea University of Texas Austin U X X Jordan, Christopher University of Texas Austin U X Kalmbach, Arlene TPWD G X Karges, John Texas Nature Conservancy O X Kelkin, Kimberly Texas Nature Conservancy O X X Killian, Steve TPWD G X Kleinsasser, Roy University of Texas Austin U X X X Kolodziejcyk, Kevin TPWD G X Krejca, Jean Zara Environmental O X Labay, Ben Siglo Group O X X X X

Page | 80 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

LaDuc, Travis University of Texas Austin U X Larson, David National Park Service G X Lewey, Julie Devils River Conservancy O X Lewis, Jacob US Fish & Wildlife Service G X X Linam, Gordon TPWD G X X X Lockwood, Mark TPWD U X Long, Chris University of Texas Austin O X Longley, Glenn Texas State University U X Lucia, Duane US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Ludeke, Kim TPWD G X MacQuarrie, Tom O X Magnelia, Stephan TPWD G X X X Maisano, Jessica University of Texas Austin G X Maldonado, TPWD G X Christopher Marsh-Matthews, Edie University of Oklahoma U X X Martin, F. Doug University of Texas Austin U X X X X Martin, Russell TPWD G X Matador WMA TPWD G X Matthews, Bill University of Oklahoma U X X Mayes, Kevin TPWD G X X X X McDaniel, Rachel TPWD G X McGarrity, Monica TPWD G X X X McGillicuddy, Ryan TPWD G X Minckley, Charles US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Miyazono, Seiji Texas Tech University U X X Moczygemba, John TPWD G X Montagne, Mike US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Munger, Charlie TPWD G X Neely, David University of Texas Brownsville U X Nowlin, Weston Texas State University U X Oldfield, Ron Case Western University U X Orsak, Erik US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Owen, Jacob City of Austin G X Parker, Melissa TPWD G X Patrick, Christopher Texas A&M University U X Pease, Allison Texas Tech University U X Phillips, Douglas US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Polk, Jonna US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Potts, Robert Dixon Water Foundation O X Poulin, Stephane Arizona Sonora Desert Museum O X Prestridge, Heather Texas A&M University U X

Page | 81 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Propst, David University of New Mexico U X Texas Commission on Environmental Pulliam, Lauren G X X Quality Radke, Bill US Fish & Wildlife Service G X X Randklev, Charles Texas A&M University U X Ranft, Rachael Texas Nature Conservancy O X Rashall, Jerry TPWD G X Roberson, Aimee American Bird Conservancy O X Robertson, Clint TPWD G X X X X Robertson, Sarah TPWD G X X X X Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Rodger, Anthony G X Conservation Romans, Katherine Hill Country Alliance O X Sanders, Bob private O X Schlechte, Warren TPWD G X Schmidt, Jack Utah State University U X Schofield, Pam US Geological Survey G X Schwartz, Benjamin Texas State University U X Scott, Mandy TPWD G X Shelburne, Chase University of Texas Austin U X X Singhurst, Jason TPWD G X X Sjostrom, Dana University of Texas Austin U X X Small, Brian US Fish & Wildlife Service G X X Smith, Kathy TPWD G X Smith, Ryan Texas Nature Conservancy O X X X X Smithee, Derek Oklahoma Water Resources Board G X Sneegas, Garold private O X Snyder, Lex University of New Mexico U X Sprouse, Peter Zara Environmental O X Stevens, Alana TPWD G X Sullivan, John Cornell University U X Oklahoma Dept. of Wildlife Tackett, Curtis G X Conservation Taylor, Christopher University of Texas Rio Grande Valley U X X Tidwell, Travis TPWD G X X X Treuer-Kuehn, Amie TPWD G X Trungale, Joe private O X Tuck, Marci private O X Turner, Tom University of New Mexico U X Urban, Tomislav University of Texas Austin U X Urbanczyk, Aaron Texas Tech University U X X

Page | 82 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Urbanczyk, Kevin Sul Ross State University U X Vail-Muse, Stephanie US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Kansas Dept. of Wildlife, Parks, and Vajnar, Jason G X Tourism Village Creek State Park TPWD G X Walling, David University of Texas Austin U X X Warnock, Bonnie Sul Ross State University U X Wicker, Luther private O X Wicksten, Mary Texas A&M University U X Wilde, Gene Texas Tech University U X X Williams, Lance University of Texas Tyler U X Winemiller, Kirk Texas A&M University U X X Witt, Brendan US Fish & Wildlife Service G X Wright, Lynn TPWD G x Wylie, Dennis University of Texas Austin U X Young, Herbert National Park Service G X

Page | 83 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 3 – SGCN Listing History and Suggested updates KEY TO CODES included in both current and past SGCN versions name changes, suggested additions (check mark), recommended deletions (X)  included in SGCN list X removal from SGCN list recommended red font extirpated/extinct LISTING STATUS E Endangered (USFWS) Extinct Presumed globally extinct Extirpated Presumed extirpated from Texas sT State Threatened T Threatened (USFWS) CONSERVATION NEEDS 1 Establish, improve and maintain riparian zones 2 Improve or maintain water quality 3 Improve or maintain watershed connectivity 4 Improve or maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions for the support of biota in aquatic systems 5 Establish, improve or maintain appropriate sediment flows 6 Maintain and restore physical habitat in freshwater systems 7 Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by nonindigenous invasive or problem species 8 Conserve, restore, and create coastal estuarine and marine habitats ECOREGION CHIH CHIHUAHUAN DESERT CGPL CENTRAL GREAT PLAINS CRTB CROSS TIMBERS ECPL EAST CENTRAL TEXAS PLAINS EDPT EDWARDS PLATEAU GCPM GULF COAST PRAIRIES AND MARSHES HIPL HIGH PLAINS STPL SOUTH TEXAS PLAINS SWTB SOUTHWEST TABLELANDS TBPR TEXAS BLACKLAND PRAIRIES WGCP WESTERN GULF COASTAL PLAINS

Page | 84 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Scaphirhynchus flow alterations; platorynchus - Red River (Rio    sT habitat ECPL, WGCP Shovelnose Sturgeon / x x x x x Grande?) fragmentation esturión Trinity, abundance and Neches, TBPR, ECPL, Polyodon spathula - range    sT Sabine, WGCP, CRTB, Paddlefish substantially x x x x x Cypress, GCPM-UP reduced Sulphur, Red coastal streams from CHIH, TBPR, Atractosteus spatula - habitat loss;   the Rio ECPL, WGCP, Alligator Gar / catán over-exploitation x x x Grande to Red GCPM, STPL River loss of natural flow regime; Hiodon alosoides - ECPL, WGCP,    habitat Red River Goldeye x x x CRTB fragmentation; loss of habitat catadromous, CHIH, TBPR, Anguilla rostrata - dams impede Rio Grande to ECPL, WGCP, American Eel / anguila    migration, x x x x Red River CRTB, CGPL, americana habitat loss, etc. EDPT loss of natural flow regime; Campostoma ornatum - reduced stream Mexican Stoneroller /    sT flow; x x x x x Rio Grande CHIH rodapiedras mexicano competition with introduced Plains Killifish

Page | 85 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 eastern Oklahoma, western Campostoma rare, restricted Arkansas and spadiceum - Highland  range in US & x x x x x NE Texas Stoneroller Texas (Aiken Creek, Sulphur River tributary) reduced spring Cyprinella lepida - flows; habitat    Frio, Sabinal EDPT, STPL Plateau Shiner fragmentation; x x x x habitat loss reduced spring Cyprinella sp. - Nueces flows; habitat    Nueces River EDPT, STPL River Shiner fragmentation; x x x x habitat loss lower Pecos & Cyprinella proserpina - Devils rivers, loss of natural Proserpine Shiner /    sT Las Moras, CHIH, EDPT flow regime x x x x carpita del Norte Pinto, & San Felipe creeks limited lower Pecos & Dionda argentosa - distribution; Devils rivers, Manantial Roundnose reduced spring    San Felipe & CHIH, EDPT Minnow / carpa de flows; habitat x x x x Sycamore manantial fragmentation; creeks habitat loss limited Devils River, distribution; Dionda diaboli - Devils San Felipe, reduced spring River Minnow / carpa    T Pinto & CHIH, EDPT flows; habitat x x x x diabla Sycamore fragmentation; creeks habitat loss

Page | 86 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 limited distribution; Dionda episcopa - reduced spring Roundnose Minnow /    Pecos River CHIH flows; habitat x x x x carpa obispa fragmentation; habitat loss limited distribution; Guadalupe Dionda flavipinnis - reduced spring and southern (Guadalupe)  EDPT flows; habitat x x x x Colorado Roundnose Minnow fragmentation; drainages habitat loss limited distribution; Dionda nigrotaeniata - reduced spring (Medina) Roundnose    Medina River EDPT flows; habitat x x x x Minnow fragmentation; habitat loss limited distribution; Dionda serena - (Frio) reduced spring    Frio River EDPT Roundnose Minnow flows; habitat x x x x fragmentation; habitat loss limited distribution; Dionda sp. 1 - Rio Grande reduced spring (Conchos) Roundnose  tribs in Big CHIH flows; habitat x x x x Minnow Bend region fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 87 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 limited distribution; Dionda sp. 3 - northern reduced spring (Colorado) Roundnose  Colorado EDPT flows; habitat x x x x Minnow River fragmentation; habitat loss limited distribution; Dionda texensis - reduced spring (Nueces) Roundnose  Nueces River EDPT flows; habitat x x x x Minnow fragmentation; habitat loss limited distribution; Gila pandora - Rio Little Aguja    sT reduced spring CHIH Grande Chub x x x x Creek flows; habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream Hybognathus amarus - flow; habitat Rio Grande Silvery CHIH, GCPM-    E fragmentation; Rio Grande Minnow / carpa x x x x x LWR, STPL habitat loss; Chamizal interactions with non-native species Brazos River Hybognathus nuchalis - flood-pulse, eastward and CRTB, TBPR, Mississippi Silvery  broadcast x x x x northward to ECPL, WGCP Minnow spawner the Red River Colorado and flood-pulse, EDPT, CRTB, Hybognathus placitus - Brazos basins  broadcast TBPR, ECTP, Plains Minnow x x x x northward to spawner WGCP, GCPM the Red River

Page | 88 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 reductions in Guadalupe EDPT, CRTB, Hybopsis amnis - Pallid  abundance and River to Red TBPR, ECTP, Shiner x x x x x distribution River WGCP, GCPM flood-pulse, broadcast Macrhybopsis aestivalis spawner; loss of - Speckled Chub / carpa    natural flow x x x x x Rio Grande CHIH pecosa regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss flood-pulse, broadcast spawner; loss of Macrhybopsis australis upper Red    natural flow CGPL - Prairie Chub x x x x x River regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss flood-pulse, broadcast spawner; loss of Sabine River CGPL, CRTB, Macrhybopsis  natural flow to Lavaca TBPR, ECTP, hyostoma - Shoal Chub x x x x x regime; habitat River WGCP fragmentation; habitat loss flood-pulse, broadcast San Antonio, spawner; loss of Macrhybopsis marconis Guadalupe & EDPT, TBPR,   natural flow - Burrhead Chub x x x x x Colorado ECTP, GCPM regime; habitat rivers fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 89 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 flood-pulse, broadcast spawner; loss of Red River & Macrhybopsis TBPR, ECPL,    natural flow lower Brazos storeriana - Silver Chub x x x x x CRTB, CGPL regime; habitat River fragmentation; habitat loss flood-pulse, broadcast Macrhybopsis spawner; loss of upper South tetranema - Peppered    natural flow x x x x x Canadian SWTB Chub regime; habitat River fragmentation; habitat loss broad, stable distribution; no Edwards Notropis amabilis - evidence of Plateau Texas Shiner / carpita  EDPT X declines in streams to texana abundance or Pecos River range loss of natural lower Brazos flow regime; Notropis atrocaudalis - north and TBPR, ECPL,    habitat Blackspot Shiner eastward to WGCP, GCPM fragmentation; Red River habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; TBPR, ECPL, Notropis bairdi - Red    habitat Red River WGCP, CRTB, River Shiner x x x x x fragmentation; CGPL habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; Notropis blennius - CGPL, ECPL,  habitat Red River River Shiner WGCP fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 90 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 loss of natural Notropis braytoni - flow regime; Rio Grande & CHIH, GCPM- Tamaulipas Shiner /    habitat lower Pecos x x x x x LWR, STPL carpita tamaulipeca fragmentation; River habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; Notropis buccula -    E habitat Brazos River TBPR, ECPL Smalleye Shiner x x x x x fragmentation; habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; Red, Sabine & Notropis chalybaeus - TBPR, ECPL,    habitat loss; San Marcos Ironcolor Shiner x x x x x WGCP small, disjunct rivers population in the San Marcos River headwaters loss of natural Notropis chihuahua - flow regime; Chihuahua Shiner /    sT habitat x x x x x Rio Grande CHIH carpita chihuahuense fragmentation; habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; Notropis girardi - Canadian    T habitat SWTB Arkansas River Shiner x x x x x River fragmentation; habitat loss loss of natural Notropis jemezanus - flow regime; Rio Grande & Rio Grande Shiner /    habitat CHIH, STPL x x x x x Pecos River carpita del Bravo fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 91 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 loss of natural flow regime; Sulphur River Notropis maculatus -    habitat & Cypress WGCP Taillight Shiner fragmentation; Bayou habitat loss newly described lower Pecos & species; Devils rivers, Notropis megalops -  limited/uncertain San Felipe & CHIH, EDPT West Texas Shiner x x x x x distribution; Sycamore habitat loss creeks loss of natural flow regime; SWTB, TBPR, Notropis oxyrhynchus -    E habitat Brazos River ECPL, CRTB, Sharpnose Shiner x x x x x fragmentation; CGPL habitat loss loss of natural Red, lower flow regime; SWTB, TBPR, Notropis potteri - Chub Trinity, San    habitat ECPL, WGCP, Shiner x x x x x Jacinto and fragmentation; CRTB, CGPL Brazos rivers habitat loss loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; San Jacinto Notropis sabinae -    broadcast River to WGCP Sabine Shiner x x x x x spawner that Sabine River utilizes downstream drift hatching and dispersal

Page | 92 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 loss of natural Coastal Plain flow regime; Notropis shumardi - streams from TBPR, ECPL,    habitat Silverband Shiner x x x x x Lavaca River WGCP, GCPM fragmentation; to Red River habitat loss loss of natural Notropis simus flow regime; pecosensis - Pecos    sT habitat x x x x x Pecos River CHIH Bluntnose Shiner fragmentation; habitat loss loss of natural Canadian, flow regime; Red, Sabine, SWTB, CGPL, Phenacobius mirabilis -  habitat Trinity & CRTB, TBPR, Suckermouth Minnow x x x x x fragmentation; Colorado ECTP, WGCP habitat loss rivers flood-pulse, broadcast Platygobio gracilis - spawner; loss of Canadian Flathead Chub / carpita  natural flow SWTB x x x x x River cabeza plana regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Pteronotropis hubbsi - limited range;    sT Cypress Bayou WGCP Bluehead Shiner habitat loss x x x x x x loss of natural Rhinichthys cataractae flow regime; - Longnose Dace /    habitat x x x x x Rio Grande CHIH, STPL carpita rinconera fragmentation; habitat loss undescribed species in Llano Carpiodes sp. - Llano  River; Llano River EDPT River Carpsucker x x x x x limited/unknown distribution

Page | 93 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 habitat loss; fragmentation; major streams TBPR, ECPL, Cycleptus elongatus - loss of natural of Texas WGCP, CRTB, Blue Sucker / matalote    sT flow regime; x x x x x excluding the GCPM-UP, azul reduced water Rio Grande GCPM-MID quality habitat loss; fragmentation; Cycleptus sp. - Rio loss of natural CHIH, GCPM-   sT Rio Grande Grande Blue Sucker flow regime; x x x x x LWR, STPL reduced water quality previously Erimyzon oblongus; habitat Red River Erimyzon claviformis - loss; southward to Western Creek    sT fragmentation; ECPL, WGCP x x x x x San Jacinto Chubsucker loss of natural River flow regime; reduced water quality limited, uncertain distribution; Moxostoma albidum - habitat loss; Rio Grande, Longlip Jumprock /  fragmentation; CHIH, EDPT x x x x x Devils River matalote blanco loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality

Page | 94 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 limited, uncertain distribution; Moxostoma austrinum habitat loss; - Mexican Redhorse /    fragmentation; x x x x x Rio Grande CHIH matalote chuime loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality limited, Rio Grande in Ictalurus furcatus sp. - uncertain  Big Bend CHIH Rio Grande Blue Catfish distribution; x x x x x x region habitat loss; rare loss of natural flow regime; Rio Grande, habitat Pecos, upper Ictalurus lupus - fragmentation; Nueces, San CHIH, CRTB, Headwater Catfish /    habitat loss; Antonio, x x x x x x CGPL, EDPT bagre lobo competition and Guadalupe hybridization and Colorado with Channel rivers Catfish habitat loss; Ictalurus sp. - hybridization    Rio Grande CHIH Chihuahua Catfish with Channel x x x x x x Catfish Edwards- aquifer Prietella phreatophila - Trinity  E depletion; CHIH Mexican Blindcat x x x Aquifer, Rio pollution Grande basin San Antonio aquifer Satan eurystomus - Pool of the    sT depletion; TBPR Widemouth Blindcat x x x Edwards pollution Aquifer

Page | 95 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 San Antonio aquifer Trogloglanis pattersoni Pool of the    sT depletion; TBPR - Toothless Blindcat x x x Edwards pollution Aquifer habitat loss; Oncorhynchus clarkii competition and Limpia & virginalis - Rio Grande    Extirpated hybridization x x x x McKittrick CHIH Cutthroat Trout with Rainbow creeks Trout threats similar to Agonostomus American Eel - monticola - Mountain catadromous, Rio Grande to WGCP, TBPR,  Mullet / trucha de dams impede x x x x x Sabine River ECTP, GCPM tierra caliente migration, habitat loss, etc. springs in the Boquillas habitat loss; Crossing & Rio Gambusia gaigei - Big spring flow    E Grande CHIH Bend Gambusia reductions; x x x x x Village, Big exotic species Bend National Park diminished Clear Creek, spring flows; Gambusia heterochir - tributary to    E hybridization EDPT Clear Creek Gambusia x x x x x the San Saba with Western River Mosquitofish previously Gambusia clarkhubbsi; San Felipe Gambusia krumholzi - habitat Creek; ríos Spotfin Gambusia /    sT STPL modification; x x x x x San Diego & guayacón del Nava water quality Nava, México from urban pollution

Page | 96 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 groundwater pumping; habitat Balmorhea loss; pollution; springs Gambusia nobilis -    E hybridization complex & CHIH Pecos Gambusia x x x x x with introduced Diamond Y Largespring Springs Gambusia Gambusia senilis - Blotched Gambusia /    sT habitat loss x x x x x Devils River CHIH, STPL guayacón del Bravo groundwater pumping; habitat Cyprinodon bovinus - loss; pollution; Diamond Y    E CHIH Leon Springs Pupfish hybridization x x x x Springs with Sheepshead Minnow groundwater pumping; habitat Cyprinodon elegans - Balmorhea loss; pollution; Comanche Springs    E springs CHIH hybridization x x x x Pupfish complex with Sheepshead Minnow reductions in stream flow; Cyprinodon eximius - Alamito habitat loss; Conchos Pupfish /    sT Creek, Devils CHIH, EDPT hybridization x x x x cachorrito del Conchos River with Sheepshead Minnow groundwater pumping; Cyprinodon pecosensis -    sT hybridization Pecos River CHIH Pecos Pupfish x x x x with Sheepshead Minnow

Page | 97 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 habitat loss; Cyprinodon hybridization upper Brazos rubrofluviatilis - Red    SWTB, CGPL with Sheepshead x x x x & Red rivers River Pupfish Minnow limited/uncertain Micropterus salmoides distribution; Rio Grande, nuecensis - Rio Grande   CHIH, EDPT habitat loss; x x x x Devils River Largemouth Bass hybridization reductions in stream flow; streams of the habitat loss; northern and Micropterus treculii - TBPR, CRTB,    fragmentation; eastern Guadalupe Bass x x x x EDPT hybridization Edwards with Smallmouth Plateau Bass loss of natural Neches, Ammocrypta clara -    flow regime; Sabine & Red WGCP Western Sand Darter x x x x x habitat loss rivers loss of natural upper San Etheostoma fonticola -    E flow regime; Marcos & TBPR Fountain Darter x x x x x habitat loss Comal rivers Rio Grande, lower Pecos & Etheostoma grahami - loss of natural Devils rivers; Rio Grande Darter /    sT flow regime; x x x x x Dolan, San CHIH, EDPT perca del Bravo habitat loss Felipe & Sycamore creeks loss of natural Etheostoma radiosum -    flow regime; Red River ECPL, WGCP Orangebelly Darter x x x x x habitat loss

Page | 98 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Texas native new 2011 2005 conservation needs listing status justification drainage ecoregion freshwater fishes TCAP TCAP TWAP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 newly described species limited to Etheostoma thompsoni Neches &  Neches and WGCP - Gumbo Darter x x x x x Sabine rivers Sabine river basins loss of natural Guadalupe, Percina apristis - TBPR, ECPL,   flow regime; San Marcos & Guadalupe Darter x x x x x EDPT habitat loss Comal rivers loss of natural Red River in Percina maculata -    sT flow regime; the northeast WGCP Blackside Darter x x x x x habitat loss Texas reduction in East Red, Sulphur, TX distribution; Cypress, disjunct Percina shumardi - Sabine,  populations in ECPL, WGCP River Darter x x x x x Neches, Guadalupe and Guadalupe, San Antonio river San Antonio systems

Page | 99 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 4 – Species Trend Analysis Plots Documentation Discussion of the methods used to produce the plots included here is in a section of Activity 1, as are selected example outputs with brief discussions.

For all species that met basic starting criteria (1-5 below) for use in trend analysis, we provid plots and tabular summaries of trend analysis inputs and outputs online at:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jBP8e3oIdEHXtbm2z-4_c4m5Uy8FDKKer5wbKibFCwM/edit#gid=1806607429

There the preliminary results of the analysis can be interactively explored, searched, filtered, etc. Data that produced the plots in that link were from Track1 + Track 2 of the FoTX online database (Hendrickson and Cohen 2015) and the following operations were applied before processing in trend analysis:

(1) remove hybrid species ([space]x[space])

(2) remove all rows with suspect == 't'

(3) remove all rows with year uncertainty > 4 (year uncertainty=end date year - start date year)

(4) remove all rows with maximum location uncertainty > 5000 m

(5) remove all taxa (defined by full_name field) observed in < 10 distinct HUC12s

Operations to do the analysis and produce the plots then proceeded as follows (automated by a Python script available on request):

1) select a species 2) determine its total range (=list of all HUC12s with occurrences) 3) using records (of any species) from that total range set of HUCs (from step 2), initiate binning process a) initiate bin i) starting with the earliest collection date of the species of interest, accumulate occurrences (of any species) in chronological order until at least 25% of the HUCs in the species’ total range have occurrences, and the species of interest has been observed at least once. b) close bin c) increment bin number by 1 d) go to “a” (above) and repeat e) on reaching the end of data, close bin and stop processing f) go to “1”

The data table opened by the link above has multiple tabs:

• “documentation” - a copy of the content of this section of the report (but possibly updated after the report was completed).

Page | 100 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• “slopes” – summary output for all species for which the analysis was completed presented in tabular and graphical form. o Linear slopes derived from each plot are provided for DPHS, lat_min, lat_max, lat_mean, lat_range, long_min, long_max, long_mean, long_range. o The first plot is of Detections Per HUC Sampled (DPHS - computed as described in Buckwalter et al. (2018)) on the y axis against time (bin end years). o The second plot is of minimum, maximum and mean of latitudes of all occurrences of the species for each bin plotted against time (again using bin end date). Open circles are the minimum and maximum values for each bin and solid dots are the means. o The third plot is equal to the second, except for longitude o Trend lines for all variables (DPHS, mean (solid), minima and maxima (both dashed) were added using loess in R with degree=1 and span=1. • “bins” – tabular presentation for each species of bin-specific values of all variables mentioned above, as well as all values related to bin construction and DPHS calculation, and a matrix of basin- specific presence/absence of the species for all bins. • “binToHuc” – tabular summary of HUC12s with occurrences by bin for all species

All tabs in the file can be filtered, searched and sorted on any column.

Page | 101 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 5 – Data Growth and Improvement Preserved Specimen Human Observation Tissue/M Audio Recording Photo Voucher Grand Total Unknown

Short Institution Source olecular Collection Link Curator Name Link

Citizen/Angler/Other 92 37278 37370 Bowfin Anglers Website bowfinan 38 38 http://www.bowfin glers anglers.com/ Diveboard - Scuba diving Diveboard 57 57 citizen science observations Fishbrain FishBrain 32301 32301 Fishes of Texas Project and FoTX 35 49 84 https://sites.cns.ute https://www. Dean Dean Hendrickson Lab xas.edu/hendrickso utexas.edu/ Hendrickson nlab/people/dean- hendrickson iAngler iAngler 1525 1525 iNaturalist iNat 3365 3365 Federal Agency 59506 59506 United States, EPA 47424 47424 Environmental Protection Agency United States Geological USGS 12082 12082 Survey Literature 12960 522 13482 Fishes of Texas Project and FoTX 12960 12960 https://sites.cns.ute https://www. Dean Dean Hendrickson Lab xas.edu/hendrickso utexas.edu/ Hendrickson nlab/people/dean- hendrickson NatureServe NTSRV 522 522 http://www.natures http://www.n Lynn Kutner erve.org/ atureserve.org /

Page | 102 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Researcher Database 765 320 1085 University of Texas, Dean CCdb 765 1 766 https://sites.cns.ute https://www. Dean Hendrickson Lab xas.edu/hendrickso utexas.edu/ Hendrickson nlab/people/dean- hendrickson Peter Unmack's database Unmack 319 319 http://www.peter.u http://www.ca Peter nmack.net/cv.shtml nberra.edu.au Unmack / State Agency 11233 11233 70 70 Arizona Game and Fish AZGF 171 171 Department Texas Commission on TCEQ 34739 34739 Environmental Quality Texas Parks and Wildlife TPWD 37893 37893 Department Texas Parks and Wildlife TPWD_inl 41553 41553 Department, Inland and Fisheries Oklahoma Department of ODWC_fis 42442 42442 Wildlife Conservation, heries Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation Fisheries Data Arkansas Department of ADEQ_fis 9077 9077 Environmental Quality, h_data Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Fish Data Louisiana Department of LDEQ_fish 3658 3658 Environmental Quality, _data Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Fish Data Texas Parks and Wildlife TPWD_co 94216 94216 Department, Coastal astal 7 7 Fisheries

Page | 103 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Louisiana Department of LDWF_big 11670 11670 Wildlife and Fisheries, _rivers Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Big Rivers Biological Data Museum 168 85 3088 480 129 35719 03 10 5 American Museum of AMNH 83 83 http://research.am http://www.a Barbara

Natural History nh.org/vz/ichthyolo mnh.org/ Brown gy/index.php Australian Museum, AMS 24 24 https://australianm https://austral Mark Sydney useum.net.au/austr ianmuseum.ne McGrouther alian-museum- t.au/ ichthyology- collection Academy of Natural ANSP 2 1 3 http://www.ansp.or http://www.a John G. Sciences g/research/biodiv/ic nsp.org/ Lundberg hthyology/index.ph p Atlantic Reference Centre, ARC 1 1 http://www.huntsm http://www.h Lou Van Saint Andrews anmarine.ca/resear untsmanmarin Guelpan ch-applied-science- e.ca/ services/collections / Unspecified Ariidae_sy 1 1 http://plazi.or Guido stematic_ g Sautter revision Arizona State University ASU 1129 11291 http://sols.asu.edu/ http://www.as Thomas 1 collections/index.ph u.edu/ Dowling p Auburn University AUM 1697 1697 http://www.auburn http://www.a Jonathan W. .edu/cosam/collecti uburn.edu Armbruster ons/fish/index.htm Universidad Autónoma de BMCHIHU 127 127 http://www.u Celia López Chihuahua AHUA ach.mx González

Page | 104 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Natural History Museum, BMNH 15 15 http://www.nhm.ac http://www.n London .uk/our- hm.ac.uk/ science/collections/ zoology- collections.html California Academy of CAS 966 966 http://research.cala http://www.ca Tomio Sciences cademy.org/researc lacademy.org Iwamoto h/ichthyology/colle (retired) ction/index.asp University of Texas, Dean CCdb 1152 1152 https://sites.cns.ute https://www. Dean Hendrickson Lab xas.edu/hendrickso utexas.edu/ Hendrickson nlab/people/dean- hendrickson Cornell University, CLO_ML 168 168 https://www.macau http://www.bi Edwin Macaulay Library Audio laylibrary.org/ rds.cornell.ed Scholes III and Video Collection u/Page.aspx?p id=1478# Canadian Museum of CMNFI 1 1 http://nature.ca/en http://www.n Nature Fish Collection /research- ature.ca/ collections/our- collections/vertebra te-collections Colección Nacional de CNPE- 2279 2279 http://www.ib.una https://www. Héctor Peces, Instituto de IBUNAM m.mx/cnpe/ unam.mx/ Salvador Biología, Universidad Espinosa Nacional Autónoma de Pérez México (UNAM), México City Universidad Michoacana CPUM 4 4 http://www.u Omar de San Nicolás de Hidalgo mich.mx/ DomÍnguez DomÍnguez Colorado State University CSU 3428 3428 Cornell University CU 93 93 http://www.cumv.c http://www.c John Friel Museum of Vertebrates ornell.edu/collectio ornell.edu/ ns/fishes

Page | 105 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Universidad de Sonora DICTUS- 18 18 http://www.u Alejandro USON son.mx/ Varela Romero Duke University Duke 3 3 El Colegio de la Frontera ECOCH 125 109 234 https://www.e Manuel Sur (ECOSUR), Chetumal cosur.mx/unid Elías ad/chetumal/ Gutiérrez EPA's EMAP Database EMAP_NC 20 20 A European Bioinformatics EMBL-EBI 478 47856 http://www.e Institute 56 bi.ac.uk Escuela Nacional de ENCB 2056 2056 http://www.e José Alberto Ciencias Biológicas, ncb.ipn.mx/Pa Ocaña Luna Instituto Politécnico ginas/index.ht Nacional, México City ml Eastern New Mexico ENMU 762 762 http://www.enmu.e https://www.e Darren University, Portales, New du/about/general- nmu.edu/ Pollock Mexico information/local- events-and- info/arts-and- culture/natural- history-museum Sternberg Museum of FHSM 27 27 https://sternberg.fh http://sternbe Curtis Natural History, Fort Hays su.edu/research- rg.fhsu.edu/ Schmidt State University, Hays, collections/collectio Kansas ns/ichthyology/ Fishbase Fishbase 53 53 http://www.fishbas http://www.fi e.org/search.php shbase.org/se arch.php Field Museum of Natural FMNH 921 921 http://fieldmuseum http://fieldmu Mark W. History .org/explore/our- seum.org/ Westneat collections/fishes- collection Florida Fish & Wildlife FSBC 10 10 https://marinelab.fs https://www.f Ryan Conservation Commission, u.edu/research/zool su.edu/ Mckenzie Fish & Wildlife Research ogical-collection/

Page | 106 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Institute, St. Petersburg, Florida

Gulf Coast Research GCRL 776 776 http://www.usm.ed http://www.u Sara E. Laboratory u/gcrl/museum sm.edu/ LeCroy Institut de Ciències del IIPB 17 17 http://cbr.icm.csic.e http://www.ic Francisco Mar de Barcelona, s/en m.csic.es/ Javier Olivas Departament de Biologia González Marina i Oceanografia, Barcelona Institut Royal des Sciences IRSNB 1 1 https://www.natura https://www. Patrick Naturelles de Belgique lsciences.be/en/scie naturalscience Semal [Koninklijk Belgisch nce/collections s.be/ Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen (KBIN)], Brussels Illinois State Museum, ISM 11 11 http://www.illinoiss http://www.ill Meredith Springfield, Illinois tatemuseum.org/co inoisstatemus Mahoney ntent/welcome- eum.org/ ism-research- collections-center Natural History Museum KU 737 737 www.nhm.ku.edu/fi www.nhm.ku. Edward O. and Biodiversity Research shes/ edu Wiley Center Natural History Museum LACM 265 265 https://nhm.org/ https://nhm.o Rick Feeney of Los Angeles County, Los rg/ Angeles Louisiana State University LSUMZ 351 351 http://appl003.lsu.e http://www.ls Prosanta du/natsci/lmns.nsf/i u.edu/ Chakrabarty ndex Museu de Ciències MCNB 55 55 Naturals de Barcelona Museum of Comparative MCZ 446 446 http://www.mcz.ha http://www.h Karel Liem Zoology rvard.edu/Departm arvard.edu/ ents/Ichthyology/in dex.html

Page | 107 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Museo de Historia Natural MDUG 2 2 http://www.ugto.m http://www.u Gloria "Alfredo Dugès", x/noticias/noticias/ gto.mx/ Eugenia Universidad de 2601-alfredo-duges- Magaña Guanajuato, Guanajuato y-el-museo-de- Cota historia-natural-de- la-ug Unspecified Mex_mult 314 314 Guillermo i_inst_sha Salgado rks Maldonado Unspecified Mex_pece 26 26 s Unspecified Mex_pece 207 207 s_introdu cidas Mississippi Museum of MMNH 89 89 https://www.mdwf http://museu Matt Natural History p.com/museum/see m.mdwfp.com Wagner k-study/bio- / collections/fishes/ Mississippi Museum of MMNS 3071 3071 https://www.mdwf http://museu Matt Natural Science, Jackson, p.com/museum/see m.mdwfp.com Wagner Mississippi k-study/bio- / collections/fishes/ Department of MMUM 99 99 http://www.museu http://www.m Graham S. Entomology, The m.manchester.ac.uk useum.manch Proudlove Manchester Museum, The /collection/entomol ester.ac.uk/ University of Manchester ogy/ Muséum national MNHN 145 145 http://www.mnhn.f http://www.m Bruno David d'Histoire naturelle, Paris r/en/collections/coll nhn.fr/en ection- groups/vertebrates/ fishes-and- ichthyology Museu Nacional, MNRJ 6 6 http://www.mnrj.uf http://www.m Paulo Universidade Federal do rj.br useunacional. Andreas Rio de Janeiro, Rio de ufrj.br/ Buckup Janeiro

Page | 108 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Museu Oceanográfico MOVI 3 3 https://www.univali https://www. Univali, Peixes, .br/institucional/mu univali.br/insti Universidade do Vale do seu-oceanografico- tucional/muse Itajaí, Itajaí univali/colecoes/Pa u- ginas/default.aspx oceanografico- univali/Pagina s/inicial.aspx Museo Javeriano de MPUJ 1 1 http://ciencias.javer http://www.ja Saul Prada Historia Natural "Lorenzo iana.edu.co/investig veriana.edu.co Uribe, S.J.", Pontifica acion/colecciones- /home#.WjwQ Universidad Javeriana, biologicas dN-nGUk Bogotá Museum of Southwestern MSB 6572 65721 http://www.msb.un http://www.u Thomas F. Biology 1 m.edu/fishes/index. nm.edu/ Turner html Michigan State University MSU 15 15 http://www.m su.edu/ North Carolina State NCSM 1064 1064 http://collections.n http://www.n Wayne C. Museum of Natural aturalsciences.org/ aturalsciences. Starnes Sciences org/ University of Louisiana at NLU 7245 72454 http://www.ul Neil Douglas Monroe 4 m.edu/ NOAA, SEFSC Early Life NOAA_SE 38 38 History Dynamics Team FSC_early _life_hist NOAA's Ocean NODC 1503 15037 Biogeographic Information 7 System, NODC WOD01 Plankton Database Naturhistoriska riksmuseet NRM 12 12 http://www.nrm.se http://www.nr Sven O. [Swedish Museum of /en/forskningochsa m.se/ Kullander Natural History], mlingar/zoologi/sa Department of Vertebrate mlingar/vertebrater Zoology, Stockholm .9002804.html Museums and Art NTM 18 18 http://www.magnt. www.magnt.n Gavin Dally Galleries of the Northern net.au/natural- et.au Territory, Darwin sciences

Page | 109 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

NatureServe NTSRV 1445 1445 http://www.natures http://www.n Lynn Kutner erve.org/ atureserve.org / Oklahoma Museum of OMNH 5264 13 52655 http://www.snomn http://www.o Edie Marsh- Natural History 2 h.ou.edu/ u.edu/web.ht Matthews ml Oklahoma Museum of OMNH_O 3 3 http://samnoblemu http://www.o Janet Braun Natural History CGR seum.ou.edu/collec u.edu/ tions-and- research/ichthyolog y/ Oregon State University, OS 104 104 http://ichthyology.o http://oregons Brian Department of Fisheries regonstate.edu/ tate.edu/ Sidlauskas and Wildlife, Corvallis, Oregon Ohio State University, OSUM 1057 1057 https://mbd.osu.ed https://www. Meg Daly Museum of Biological u/collections osu.edu/ Diversity, Museum of Zoology, Fish Division, Columbus, Ohio Oklahoma State University OSU 1 32 33 http://osu.oks Anthony A. tate.edu/welc Echelle ome/ Royal Ontario Museum ROM 157 157 http://www.rom.on www.rom.on.c Richard .ca/collections/inde a Winterbotto x.php m Royal Ontario Museum, ROM_ost 8 8 http://www.rom.on http://www.ro Kevin Osteology Collection eo .ca/en/collections- m.on.ca/en Seymour research National Fish Collection of SAIAB 20 20 http://jaws.saiab.ac http://www.sa Willem South Africa .za/infoportal/ iab.ac.za/ Coetzer South African Museum, SAM_SHA 291 291 https://www.iziko.o Leonard J. Cape Town, shark RKS rg.za/static/landing/ V. collection natural-history- Compagno collections

Page | 110 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Scripps Institute of SIO 185 185 http://collections.uc http://sio.ucsd Phil Oceanography sd.edu/mv/index.cf .edu/ Hastings m Southeastern Louisiana SLU 124 124 http://www2.south http://www.s University eastern.edu/orgs/v outheastern.e ertebratemuseum/c du/ ollections.html Saint Louis University SLUM 29 29 https://www.s lu.edu/ Senckenberg SMF 14 14 http://www.sencke http://www.se Andreas Forschungsinstitut und nberg.de/root/inde nckenberg.de Allspach Naturmuseum, Frankfurt x.php?page_id=521 am Main, Hesse 7&organisation=tru e&institutID=1&abt eilungID=2 Staatliches Museum für SMNS 1 1 http://www.naturk http://www.n Juergen R. Naturkunde, Stuttgart, undemuseum- aturkundemus Hoppe Baden-Württemberg bw.de/forschung/co eum- llection bw.de/home- en Stanford University, Palo SU 1 1 https://www.s Alto, California tanford.edu/ The Deepwater Program: TAMU_D 91 91 Northern Gulf of Mexico GOMB Continental Slope Habitat and Benthic Ecology - DgoMB: Fish Texas Cooperative Wildlife TCWC 1313 13136 http://wfscnet.tam http://www.ta Kevin W. Collections 6 u.edu/tcwc/tcwc.ht mu.edu/ Conway m Texas Natural History TNHC 1895 18953 http://www.utexas. http://www.ut Dean Collections 3 edu/tmm/tnhc/fish/ exas.edu/ Hendrickson index.html Truchas Mexicanus Project Truchas_ 20 20 Mexicanu s

Page | 111 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Tulane Museum of Natural TU 5 5 http://www.museu http://tulane. Henry L. History m.tulane.edu/ edu/ Bart Universidad Autónoma de UABC 105 105 http://www.u Gorgonio Baja California, Ensenada abc.mx/ Ruiz Campos University of Arkansas UAFMC 5306 5306 https://fulbright.uar https://www. Nancy Collections Facility, k.edu/deans- uark.edu/ McCartney Fayetteville office/facilities/univ ersity-collections- facility/index.php University of Alabama UAIC 2288 47 2335 http://www.as.ua.e http://www.as Phillip Ichthyology Collection du/scf/page6/page6 .ua.edu/biolog Harris .html y/ University of Alberta, UAMZ 7 7 http://www.biology http://www.m Alison Museum of Zoology, .museums.ualberta. useums.ualber Murray Edmonton ca/museumofzoolo ta.ca/ gy.aspx Universidad Autónoma de UANL 4925 24 4949 http://www.u María de Nuevo León anl.mx/ Lourdes Lozano- Vilano University of Arizona, UAZ 50 2 52 http://www.eebwe http://www.ar Peter Department of Ecology b.arizona.edu/Colle izona.edu/ Reinthal and Evolutionary Biology, ctions/Fishes/fish.ht Tucson, Arizona m University of Colorado UCM 1208 1208 https://www.colora http://cumuse Christy Museum of Natural do.edu/cumuseum/ um.colorado.e McCain History, Boulder, Colorado research- du/ collections/vertebra tes Florida Museum of Natural UF 3986 3986 http://www.flmnh. http://www.fl Larry Page History ufl.edu/fish/Collecti mnh.ufl.edu/ on/collection.htm University of Michigan UMMZ 9585 9585 http://www.ummz.l http://www.u William L. sa.umich.edu/ mich.edu/ Fink Unknown UNKN 62 62

Page | 112 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

National Museum of USNM 85 5289 9 5383 http://collections.n http://vertebr Lynne Natural History mnh.si.edu/vzfishes ates.si.edu/fis Parenti /pages/nmnh/vz/Dt hes/ lQueryFishes.php University of Texas at El UTEP 88 88 https://www.utep.e https://www. Teresa Paso, Biodiversity du/biodiversity/coll utep.edu/ Mayfield Collections, El Paso, Texas ections/index.html University of Washington UW 17 17 http://www.washin http://www.w Theodore gton.edu/burkemus ashington.edu W. Pietsch eum/collections/ich / thyology/index.php Western Australian WAM 1 1 http://museum.wa. http://museu Glenn Museum, Perth gov.au/research/col m.wa.gov.au Moore lections/aquatic- zoology/fish- ichthyology-section Western New Mexico WNMU 344 344 http://natsci.wnmu. http://wnmu. Randy University edu/gila/ edu/ Jennings Yale University, Peabody YPM 1146 1146 http://peabody.yale http://peabod Thomas J. Museum of Natural .edu/collections/ver y.yale.edu/ Near History, New Haven tebrate- zoology/ichthyology The Fish Collection at the ZSM 14 14 http://www.zsm.m http://www.zs Renate El- Zoologische wn.de/ m.mwn.de/ein Oraby Staatssammlung München richtungen/ (blank) 2 1 3 Grand Totals 168 1,196, 37,363 308,8 48,0 971 1,592, 693 03 10 008

Page | 113 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 6 – Supplemental Modeling Data Table 1 - Proposed SGCN species considered for analysis with summary statistics of data input to the SDM and model quality (Test AUC) with reason for any model not produced (with model statistics indicated with a dash).

Family Genus Species Common Name Test AUC No. Records Reason for exclusion

Acipenseridae Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon - - too few records Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American Eel 0.9507 24 Catostomidae Carpiodes sp. 1 Llano River River Carp Sucker - - too few records Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker 0.972 64 Catostomidae Cycleptus sp Rio Grande blue sucker Rio Grande Blue Sucker 0.9945 90 Catostomidae Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker 0.9772 39 Catostomidae Moxostoma albidum Longlip Jumprock - - too few records Catostomidae Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse 0.9981 12 Centrarchidae Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass - - too few records Centrarchidae Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass 0.9839 181 Cyprinidae Campostoma ornatum Mexican Stoneroller 0.9973 35 Cyprinidae Cyprinella lepida Plateau Shiner 0.9975 30 Cyprinidae Cyprinella proserpina Proserpine Shiner 0.9954 66 Cyprinidae Cyprinella sp Nueces River shiner Nueces River Shiner 0.9983 16 Cyprinidae Dionda argentosa Manantial Roundnose Minnow 0.9954 78 Cyprinidae Dionda diaboli Devils River Minnow 0.9956 22 Cyprinidae Dionda episcopa Roundnose Minnow 0.9968 34 Cyprinidae Dionda flavipinnis n/a 0.9926 61 Cyprinidae Dionda nigrotaeniata Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow 0.9996 5

Page | 114 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cyprinidae Dionda serena Nueces Roundnose Minnow 0.9983 32 Cyprinidae Dionda sp 1 Conchos roundnose minnow Conchos Roundnose Minnow 0.9979 5 Cyprinidae Dionda sp 3 Colorado roundnose minnow Colorado Roundnose Minnow 0.9975 13 Cyprinidae Dionda texensis n/a 0.9981 26 Cyprinidae Gila pandora Rio Grande Chub - - too few records Cyprinidae Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow 0.985 18 Cyprinidae Hybognathus hayi Cypress Minnow 0.9485 5 Cyprinidae Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow 0.9868 110 Cyprinidae Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow 0.9641 90 Cyprinidae Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner 0.9816 150 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub 0.9885 113 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis australis Prairie Chub 0.9951 25 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub 0.9654 234 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub 0.9934 79 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub 0.9841 33 Cyprinidae Macrhybopsis tetranema Peppered Chub 0.9905 69 Cyprinidae Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner 0.9783 310 Cyprinidae Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner 0.9752 104 Cyprinidae Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner 0.9768 163 Cyprinidae Notropis bairdi Red River Shiner 0.9648 46 Cyprinidae Notropis blennius River Shiner - - too few records Cyprinidae Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner 0.9902 127 Cyprinidae Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner 0.9831 49 Cyprinidae Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner 0.9894 38

Page | 115 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cyprinidae Notropis chihuahua Chihuahua Shiner 0.9969 36 Cyprinidae Notropis girardi Arkansas River Shiner 0.9701 303 Cyprinidae Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner 0.9923 79 Cyprinidae Notropis maculatus Taillight Shiner 0.9991 8 Cyprinidae Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner 0.9854 77 Cyprinidae Notropis potteri Chub Shiner 0.9777 57 Cyprinidae Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner 0.9901 157 Cyprinidae Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner 0.9763 68 Cyprinidae Notropis simus pecosensis Pecos Bluntnose Shiner - - too few records Cyprinidae Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow 0.925 1036 Cyprinidae Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub 0.9793 204 Cyprinidae Pteronotropis hubbsi Bluehead Shiner 0.999 16 Cyprinidae Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace 0.9945 84 Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon bovinus Leon Springs Pupfish 0.9996 8 Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon elegans Comanche Springs Pupfish 0.9981 22 Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon sp. Devils River Pupfish - - too few records Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon pecosensis Pecos Pupfish 0.9935 35 Cyprinodontidae Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish 0.977 110 Hiodontidae Hiodon alosoides Goldeye - - too few records Ictaluridae Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish 0.9762 49 Ictaluridae Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish 0.9764 56 Ictaluridae Ictalurus sp Chihuahua catfish Chihuahua Catfish - - too few records Ictaluridae Ictalurus sp Rio Grande blue catfish Rio Grande Blue Catfish 0.9915 56 Ictaluridae Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat - - too few records

Page | 116 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Ictaluridae Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat - - too few records Lepisosteidae Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar 0.9725 18 Mugilidae Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet 0.9528 12 Percidae Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter 0.9946 29 Percidae Etheostoma asprigene Mud Darter 0.9833 26 Percidae Etheostoma fonticola Fountain Darter 0.9981 10 Percidae Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter 0.9882 9 Percidae Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter 0.9957 56 Percidae Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly Darter - - too few records Percidae Etheostoma thompsoni Gumbo Darter 0.9952 31 Percidae Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter 0.9957 37 Percidae Percina maculata Blackside Darter 0.9916 21 Percidae Percina shumardi River Darter 0.9752 36 Poeciliidae Gambusia gaigei Big Bend Gambusia - - too few records Poeciliidae Gambusia heterochir Clear Creek Gambusia - - too few records Poeciliidae Gambusia krumholzi Spotfin Gambusia - - too few records Poeciliidae Gambusia nobilis Pecos Gambusia 0.997 25 Poeciliidae Gambusia senilis Blotched Gambusia - - too few records Polyodontidae Polyodon spathula Paddlefish - - too few records Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout - - too few records

Page | 117 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Table 2 - Environmental variables used in species distribution models.

Layer Description Variable code Source category Topological Slope slope National Hydrology Dataset V21 compound topological index Topological cti 30-arc second DEM (ln(acc.flow/tan[slope])) Climate annual mean temperature bio_1 Wordclim variable 1 mean diurnal range (mean of monthly Climate bio_2 Wordclim variable 2 (max temp - min temp)) Climate isothermality (P2/P7)(*100) bio_3 Wordclim variable 3 Climate (temperature seasonality (sd *100) bio_4 Wordclim variable 4 Climate max temperature of warmest month bio_5 Wordclim variable 5 Climate min temperature of coldest month bio_6 Wordclim variable 6 Climate temperature annual range (P5-P6) bio_7 Wordclim variable 7 Climate Mean Temperature of Wettest Quarter bio_8 Wordclim variable 8 Climate Mean Temperature of Driest Quarter bio_9 Wordclim variable 9 Mean Temperature of Warmest Climate bio_10 Wordclim variable 10 Quarter Climate Mean Temperature of Coldest Quarter bio_11 Wordclim variable 11 Climate annual precipitation bio_12 Wordclim variable 12 Climate precipitation of wettest month bio_13 Wordclim variable 13 Climate precipitation of driest month bio_14 Wordclim variable 14 precipitation seasonality (coefficient of Climate bio_15 Wordclim variable 15 variation) Climate precipitation of wettest quarter bio_16 Wordclim variable 16 Climate precipitation of driest quarter bio_17 Wordclim variable 17 Climate precipitation of warmest quarter bio_18 Wordclim variable 18 Climate precipitation of coldest quarter bio_19 Wordclim variable 19 Geographic fresh water ecoregion feow The Nature Conservancy Hydrologic upstream distance (arbolate sum) arbolatesu National Hydrology Dataset V21 Hydrologic maximum elevation maxelevsmo National Hydrology Dataset V21 Hydrologic distance to Gulf of Mexico pathlength National Hydrology Dataset V21 Hydrologic potential evapotranspiration pet0001 National Hydrology Dataset V21 Hydrologic annual precipitation of catchment ppt0001 National Hydrology Dataset V21 annual flow with reference gage Hydrologic q0001c National Hydrology Dataset V21 regression applied Hydrologic mean runoff in area upstream runoffvc National Hydrology Dataset V21

Page | 118 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hydrologic modified Strahler Stream Order Streamorde National Hydrology Dataset V21 Hydrologic annual temperature at catchment temp0001 National Hydrology Dataset V21 total upstream cumulative drainage Hydrologic totdasqkm National Hydrology Dataset V21 area Hydrologic velocity for q0001c v0001c National Hydrology Dataset V21 1variables sourced from the National Hydrology Dataset V2 were converted to 30 arc-second grids using the NHDplus catchment unit

Page | 119 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 7 – Activities & Guidelines: Southern Plains NFCAs

CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES AND MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION AREAS

The NFCAs of the Southern Plains region of Texas are comprised of the upper watersheds of the Canadian, Red and Brazos rivers. Aquifer pumping for agriculture and mismanagement of surface flows through retention and diversion have negatively impacted the natural flow regime and diminished surface waters. These problems have been exacerbated by the proliferation of the non-native saltcedar (Tamarix spp.). As a result, the majority of the indigenous, aquatic fauna is imperiled. Causes for fish species declines include habitat fragmentation, dewatering, flow regime alteration, water pollution, and introduction of non-native species.

A multi-species, ecosystem approach to species conservation provides an improved method for addressing the common nature and magnitude of threats facing ecosystems and their component species. It also improves efficiency, cost effectiveness and is more likely to succeed. This plan is designed to coordinate projects to improve water quality, increase water quantity, restore natural habitats, reduce impacts of non-native species, diminish stream system fragmentation, and restore proper function of springs, creeks, rivers, and riparian areas. It will only be effective if it is able to inform and influence water management, land-use planning and zoning, and land-management decisions that will determine current and future conditions of rivers and streams and the associated habitat quality for native fishes. Additionally, to provide long-term benefits to focal species populations, conservation actions must be coordinated at sufficient scales to meet all life history stages of these species and must adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time.

To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to develop a holistic, habitat-oriented approach to conservation of focal species, restore and protect habitat, restore habitat connectivity and reduce deleterious effects of non-native species. Threat factors need to be delineated and prioritized based on threat level and what can be managed. Currently known threats in the Southern Plains NFCAs are identified in the species accounts at the end of this document and include:

a. habitat fragmentation b. barriers to migration c. loss of natural flow regime d. reduced stream flow e. spring flow declines f. habitat loss g. non-native species – habitat modification, hybridization, competition and predation Objective 1: Protect and maintain intact, healthy habitats • Determine locations and extent of healthy habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in healthy habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for protection actions.

Page | 120 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze current data, define challenges, determine conservation methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Maintain floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Maintain appropriate sediment transport and avoid channel narrowing. o Maintain native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor conservation efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations Objective 2: Restore impacted habitats • Determine locations, extent and type of impacted habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in impacted habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for restoration actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze data, define challenges, determine restoration methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Where feasible, restore floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Restore appropriate sediment transport and reduce channel narrowing. o Restore native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to improve appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor restoration efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations. Objective 3: Restore stream and habitat connectivity • Inventory fish passage barriers and delineate impacts on ecology of focal species. • Where feasible, diminish or remove fish passage barriers and restore aquatic connectivity. Objective 4: Mitigate effects of invasive species • Assess current status of focal species affected by invasive species. • Develop methods for reducing non-native species in targeted areas. • Develop methods to prevent introductions of invasive species and minimize impacts of existing invasive species.

Page | 121 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by non-native, invasive or problem species. • Reestablish genetic integrity of hybridized populations in targeted areas. Objective 5: Organize networks of public and private landowners • Provide technical guidance workshops, newsletters, social media, etc. to facilitate development and expansion of local citizen-based partnerships. • Landowner networks should be committed to the cooperative conservation of land and water resources within the watershed. • Landowner networks should promote values of functional upland, riparian, and stream systems and emphasize the conservation of native fish communities and supporting habitats. • Landowner networks should work to reduce or eliminate activities on the landscape that degrade water quality, reduce water quantity, degrade riparian systems, favor non-native species, or fragment stream systems. • Landowner networks should encourage an array of sustainable land-use activities that are compatible with aquatic resource conservation. • Landowner networks promote collaboration across jurisdictional and land ownership boundaries. Objective 6: Develop conservation demonstration areas • Provide fishing, paddling, and hiking opportunities. • Promote sustainable public use of rivers. • Describe benefits to other native species. • Demonstrate best management practices. • Highlight restoration actions through educational kiosks. Objective 7: Conduct research to fill critical information gaps • Identify knowledge gaps critical to restoration and conservation of the focal species. • Design and conduct research as needed to enhance conservation efforts in Objectives 1-4. • Initial sampling at representative locations within each NFCA should be quarterly and include: o Biological characteristics of focal species: population size, population structure (genetics & demographics), fecundity, food habits, habitat selectivity, flow-ecology relationships, associated species o Habitat structure: flow and discharge rates, channel width, channel morphology, substrate types, depth, cover, trends in surrounding land use o Water quality: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, hardness, chemical and biological oxygen demand • Threats and limiting factors for the focal species will determine the scale at which the monitoring is designed. As baseline data are developed, monitoring parameters can be modified and streamlined to address critical issues and needs for the focal species. Objective 8: Adaptive management and reporting • Develop annual and long-term reporting requirements to document acquired data, departures from plan and evaluations necessary for adaptive management. • Determine research needs for refining restoration and management actions. • Periodically modify strategies based on monitoring, evaluation and research results. • Share information with the public in an easy to use and understandable format.

Page | 122 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Upper Brazos River NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Anguilla rostrata American Eel Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Carassius auratus Goldfish Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Morone chrysops White Bass Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Percina sciera Dusky Darter Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom

Page | 123 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however, females may mature at lesser sizes (Hardy 1978).

Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mid-dorsal stripe broad and solid; first obvious dorsal fin ray a thin splint, closely attached to the following well developed but unbranched ray; distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal

Page | 124 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need peduncle contained two and one-half or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Central Texas from the Colorado and Brazos basins to the Red River and northward to North Dakota and Montana (Hubbs et al 2008). Habitat: Commonly in turbid rivers having exposed, shallow, sand-filled channels (Cross et al. 1985) where sediments accumulate in shallow backwaters, gentle eddies, and along the deeper edges of sand “waves” that are formed on shifting substrate by actions of the current (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Herbivore, primarily feeding on algae and other organic bottom material (Pflieger 1997; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Miller and Robison 2004; Lehtinen and Leyzer 1988; Cross and Collins 1995).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range in Texas: Sabine, Brazos and Colorado rivers (Underwood et al. 2003). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars. Considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950b). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Page | 125 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Faint, dusky lateral stripe usually present; caudal fin lightly pigmented, except the lower 3-4 rays, which are completely unpigmented (Becker 1983). Range in Texas: Red River (Warren et al. 2000) and the lower Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Ranges over gravel to silt substrates but found more commonly over silt or mud bottom (Kinney 1954; Linam et al. 1994). Biology: Planktivore/invertivore (Simon 1999). Rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Black pigments outlining dorsal scales, especially posterior to dorsal fin; dorsal stripe conspicuously interrupted in base of dorsal fin, producing a dark dash at base of dorsal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Brazos River watershed; presumed to have been introduced into the Colorado River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Common in river channels or periphery of channels in water with moderate depth and current velocities; substrate usually sand or silt (Moss and Mayes 1993). Biology: Opportunistic invertivore consuming aquatic insects, primarily dipterans, terrestrial insects, detritus, and plant material (Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner, producing multiple cohorts of semi-buoyant eggs within a spawning season; may spawn synchronously during pulse flows (Durham 2007, Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Page | 126 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Slightly falcate anal fin, dorsal fin begins well behind insertion of the pelvic fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to Brazos River watershed. Thought to be introduced in the Colorado River drainage (Conner and Suttkus 1986). Habitat: Usually found over sand substrate in moderate current velocities and depths (Ostrand and Wilde 2002; Durham 2007). Biology: Generalist drift invertivore, consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, detritus, plant material and sand (Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks 1999; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner during mid-May through September with multiple peaks (Durham 2007; Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Gilbert 1980a; Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Page | 127 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range in Texas: Lavaca River to Red River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand and gravel (Gilbert 1980b; Robison and Buchanan 1988; Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Breeds May through mid-fall (Edwards 1999). Pelagic spawner over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Brazos River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Juveniles, females, non-breeding males with a lateral and dorso-lateral series of brownish irregularly shaped blotches; females with spot at base of dorsal fin that is lacking in mature males; breeding males have bright blue iridescence in upper body, most intense in nape region; caudal fin bordered posteriorly with an intense black band; abdomen naked anterior to pelvic fins (Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the upper Red and Brazos basins, introduced in the Canadian and Colorado basins (Echelle et al. 1977; Page and Burr 1997; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 128 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: River edges, channels, backwaters, over sand bottoms; euryhaline and eurythermal (Minckley et al. 1991). Biology: Tolerant of a wide range of salinity and temperature (Hill and Holland 1971; Echelle et al. 1972; Higgins and Wilde 2005). Primarily a bottom-feeding omnivore (Echelle 1973) feeding on midge and other insect larvae (Miller and Robison 2004). Spawns February through November in territories maintained by individual males (Echelle 1973).

Page | 129 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Upper Red River NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Hiodon alosoides Goldeye Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish Macrhybopsis australis Prairie Chub Morone chrysops White Bass Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal chub Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Notropis bairdi Red River Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis blennius River Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Percina caprodes Logperch Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Percina shumardi River Darter Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Sander canadensis Sauger Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum

Page | 130 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however, females may mature at lesser sizes (Hardy 1978).

Hiodon alosoides Goldeye (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of habitat Description: Fleshy keel along belly extends from pectoral fin base to anal fin (Page and Burr 1997). During the breeding season, males have anterior rays of the anal fin elongated forming a distinct lobe (Battle and Sprules 1960). Range in Texas: Restricted to the Red River basin and is especially abundant in Lake Texoma (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 131 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Moderate to fast current, as well as quiet pools; tolerant of highly turbid conditions (Gilbert 1980c; Wallus et al. 1990). Biology: Invertivore feeding at surface and water column (Gilbert 1980c; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Nonguarder, rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Balon 1981; Simon 1999).

Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mid-dorsal stripe broad and solid; first obvious dorsal fin ray a thin splint, closely attached to the following well developed but unbranched ray; distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained two and one-half or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Central Texas from the Colorado and Brazos basins to the Red River and northward to North Dakota and Montana (Hubbs et al 2008). Habitat: Commonly in turbid rivers having exposed, shallow, sand-filled channels (Cross et al. 1985) where sediments accumulate in shallow backwaters, gentle eddies, and along the deeper edges of sand “waves” that are formed on shifting substrate by actions of the current (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Herbivore, primarily feeding on algae and other organic bottom material (Pflieger 1997; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Miller and Robison 2004; Lehtinen and Leyzer 1988; Cross and Collins 1995).

Page | 132 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis australis Prairie Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Broad, poorly defined mid-lateral stripe; small melanophores scattered over dorsolateral surface of body; lips very fleshy and thickened posteriorly (Eisenhour 2004). Range: Endemic to the upper Red River basin (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in streams; occupies intermittent streams that may dry to isolated, salt-encrusted pools (Winston et al. 1991; Eisenhour 2004). Distribution is correlated with high levels of dissolved salts (Taylor et al. 1993; Eisenhour 2004; Higgins and Wilde 2005), with salinities over 19‰ (Echelle et al. 1972; Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Primarily taste-feeders, swimming over the bottom with pectoral fins spread widely and barbels in contact with the sand substrate until cutaneous taste buds on the barbels, fins and body detect food items (Davis and Miller 1967).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with

Page | 133 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range in Texas: Sabine, Brazos and Colorado rivers (Underwood et al. 2003). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars. Considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950b). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Faint, dusky lateral stripe usually present; caudal fin lightly pigmented, except the lower 3-4 rays, which are completely unpigmented (Becker 1983). Range in Texas: Red River (Warren et al. 2000) and the lower Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Ranges over gravel to silt substrates but found more commonly over silt or mud bottom (Kinney 1954; Linam et al. 1994). Biology: Planktivore/invertivore (Simon 1999). Rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Notropis bairdi Red River Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mid-dorsal stripe conspicuously interrupted at base of dorsal fin, producing a dark dash at base of dorsal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 134 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Endemic to Red River basin (Hubbs 1957; Gilbert 1980d; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Turbid waters of broad, shallow channels of main stream, over bottom mostly of silt and shifting sand (Gilbert 1980d). Species is tolerant of high salinities (Taylor et al. 1993; Higgins and Wilde 2005). Biology: Feeds on benthic invertebrates (Echelle et al. 1972). Life history unknown, but likely similar to the Arkansas River Shiner (Notropis girardi).

Notropis blennius River Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Pale-colored with a silvery mid-lateral stripe; no bright breeding colors (Becker 1983; Miller and Robison 2004). Range in Texas: Red River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Usually found in turbid waters over substrate of silt, sand and gravel (Gilbert 1980e). Biology: Invertivore, benthic and drift (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Spawns in summer (Cross 1967) over sand and gravel (Trautman 1981).

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Gilbert 1980a; Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Page | 135 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range in Texas: Occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren 1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950a; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950b). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 136 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Juveniles, females, non-breeding males with a lateral and dorso-lateral series of brownish irregularly shaped blotches; females with spot at base of dorsal fin that is lacking in mature males; breeding males have bright blue iridescence in upper body, most intense in nape region; caudal fin bordered posteriorly with an intense black band; abdomen naked anterior to pelvic fins (Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the upper Red and Brazos basins, introduced in the Canadian and Colorado basins (Echelle et al. 1977; Page and Burr 1997; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: River edges, channels, backwaters, over sand bottoms; euryhaline and eurythermal (Minckley et al. 1991). Biology: Tolerant of a wide range of salinity and temperature (Hill and Holland 1971; Echelle et al. 1972; Higgins and Wilde 2005). Primarily a bottom-feeding omnivore (Echelle 1973) feeding on midge and other insect larvae (Miller and Robison 2004). Spawns February through November in territories maintained by individual males (Echelle 1973).

Percina shumardi River Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Upper Red River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Brown or olive dorsally and white or yellow ventrally, with 5-9 dusky, obscure dorsal blotches and 8-15 black, vertically elongate lateral blotches; black suborbital bar and small black basicaudal spot

Page | 137 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

(Page 1983). Upper lip connected to snout by a narrow frenum; belly scaled; upper jaw not extending as far as to below the middle of the eye (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Broadly distributed from Canada, south in the Mississippi River basin to Mississippi and Louisiana; also occurs in Gulf of Mexico drainages from the Mobile Basin west to the Coastal Plain of Texas (Page 1983). In Texas limited to eastern streams including Red southward to the Neches, and a disjunct population in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems east of the Balcones Escarpment (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Confined to large rivers and lower parts of major tributaries (Gilbert 1980b); found in lower reaches of medium-size lowland rivers throughout their range (Edwards 1997). Usually found in deep chutes and riffles where current is swift and bottom composed of coarse gravel or rock (Gilbert 1980b). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Non-guarding, rock and gravel spawner; eggs are buried in gravel depressions or in rock interstitial spaces (Balon 1975; Simon 1999).

Page | 138 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Upper Canadian River NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Fundulus kansae Northern Plains Killifish Macrhybopsis tetranema Peppered Chub Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis girardi Arkansas River Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Sander vitreus Walleye

Page | 139 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mid-dorsal stripe broad and solid; first obvious dorsal fin ray a thin splint, closely attached to the following well developed but unbranched ray; distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained two and one-half or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Central Texas from the Colorado and Brazos basins to the Red River and northward to North Dakota and Montana (Hubbs et al 2008). Habitat: Commonly in turbid rivers having exposed, shallow, sand-filled channels (Cross et al. 1985) where sediments accumulate in shallow backwaters, gentle eddies, and along the deeper edges of sand “waves” that are formed on shifting substrate by actions of the current (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Herbivore, primarily feeding on algae and other organic bottom material (Pflieger 1997; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Miller and Robison 2004; Lehtinen and Leyzer 1988; Cross and Collins 1995).

Macrhybopsis tetranema Peppered Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Pigment nearly confined to dorsal half of body; medium-large melanophores scattered over dorsolateral surface; head conical, flattened ventrally with long and relatively pointed snout; lips fleshy and thickened posteriorly; two distinct pairs of barbels present (Eisenhour 1999). Range in Texas: Only in portions of the upper South Canadian River (Eisenhour 1999; Luttrell et al. 1999; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 140 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in streams (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Generalist, bottom feeder; spawns May- August, multiple times per year (Bottrell et al. 1964; Bonner 2000; Durham and Wilde 2005, 2006). Spawns under both high and low flows, as well as in pools (Bonner 2000). Eggs are broadcast by breeding females in the deeper part of the stream current (Bottrell et al. 1964).

Notropis girardi Arkansas River Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: federally threatened; state threatened; SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Melanophores form a weak mid-dorsal stripe anterior to the dorsal fin; in clear water, a black chevron is present at the base of the caudal fin (Wilde 2002). Upper sides of body without scattered, large melanophores; no pronounced dark markings on dorsal fin membranes (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range in Texas: Canadian River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Shallow, slower moving water over mostly silt and shifting sand substrates (Gilbert 1980f) in areas having high conductivity and low turbidity (Bonner 2000). Biology: Generalist invertivore, feeding on organisms exposed by movement of the sand or washed downstream (Gilbert 1980f; Wilde et al. 2001). Spawns April - August (Gilbert 1980f; Bestgen et al. 1989; Bonner 2000; Wilde 2002; Hoagstrom and Brooks 2005; Durham and Wilde 2005) during high flows in main stream channel, after which eggs travel with current kilometers downstream (Gilbert 1980f; Bestgen et al. 1989).

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 141 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range in Texas: Occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren 1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950a; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950b). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Platygobio gracilis Flathead Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Body always silvery; small barbel present at corners of mouth (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range in Texas: Canadian River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found in strong currents over sandy bottoms and in shallow pools (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Invertivore using both sight and taste buds associated with the barbels (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Pelagic, broadcast spawn in response to floods during April – August and needs more than 200 km of unimpounded river for successful reproduction (Bonner and Wilde 2000; Durham and Wilde 2006).

Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Upper Canadian River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Juveniles, females, non-breeding males with a lateral and dorso-lateral series of brownish irregularly shaped blotches; females with spot at base of dorsal fin that is lacking in mature males; breeding males have bright blue iridescence in upper body, most intense in nape region; caudal fin

Page | 142 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need bordered posteriorly with an intense black band; Abdomen naked anterior to pelvic fins (Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to upper Red and Brazos basins, introduced in the Canadian and Colorado basins (Echelle et al. 1977; Page and Burr 1997; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: River edges, channels, backwaters, over sand bottoms; euryhaline and eurythermal (Minckley et al. 1991). Biology: Tolerant of a wide range of salinity and temperature (Hill and Holland 1971; Echelle et al. 1972; Higgins and Wilde 2005). Primarily a bottom-feeding omnivore (Echelle 1973) feeding on midge and other insect larvae (Miller and Robison 2004). Spawns February through November in territories maintained by individual males (Echelle 1973)

Literature Cited

Balon, E.K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:821-864. Balon, E.K. 1981. Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6:377-389. Battle, H.I. and W.M. Sprules. 1960. A description of the semibuoyant eggs and early developmental stages of the Goldeye, Hiodon alosoides (Rafinesque). Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 17:245-266. Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Bestgen, K.R., S.P. Platania, J.E. Brooks and D.L. Propst. 1989. Dispersal and life history traits of Notropis girardi (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), introduced into the Pecos River, New Mexico. American Midland Naturalist 122:228-235. Bonner, T.H. 2000. Life history and reproductive ecology of the Arkansas River shiner and peppered chub in the Canadian River, Texas and New Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Bonner, T.H. and G.R. Wilde. 2000. Changes in the Canadian River fish assemblage associated with reservoir construction. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 15:189-198. Bottrell, C.E., R.H. Ingersol and R.W. Jones. 1964. Notes on the embryology, early development, and behavior of Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus (Gilbert). Transactions of the Microscopical Society 83:391-399. Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1999. A new species of Cycleptus (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) from Gulf Slope drainages of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with a review of the distribution, biology, and conservation status of the genus. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 20:19-57. Burr, B.M. and M.L. Warren. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Scientific and Technical Series No. 4. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. Conner, J.V. 1977. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes in western Gulf Slope drainages between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande. Ph.D. dissertation. Tulane University. Conner, J.V. and R.D. Suttkus. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the western Gulf Slope of North America. Pages 413-456 in The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes (C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors). Wiley, New York. Cross, F.B. and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.

Page | 143 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Davis, B.J. and R.J. Miller. 1967. Brain patterns in minnows of the genus Hybopsis in relation to feeding habits. Copeia 1967:1-39. Deacon, J.E. 1961. Fish populations, following a drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas. University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History 13:359-427. Durham, B.W. 2007. Reproductive ecology, habitat associations, and population dynamics of two imperiled cyprinids in a Great Plains river. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Durham, B.W. and G.R. Wilde. 2005. Relationship between hatch date and first-summer growth of five species of prairie-stream cyprinids. Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:45-54. Durham, B.W. and G.R. Wilde. 2006. Influence of stream discharge on reproductive success of a prairie stream fish assemblage. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1644-1653. Echelle, A.A. 1973. Behavior of the pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis. Copeia 1973:68-76. Echelle, A.A., A.F. Echelle and F.B. Cross. 1977. First records of Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (Cyprinodontidae) from the Colorado and Arkansas River systems, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 22:142-143. Echelle, A.A., A.F. Echelle and L.G. Hill. 1972. Interspecific interactions and limiting factors of abundance and distribution in the Red River pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis. American Midland Naturalist 88:109-130. Edwards, R.J. 1999. Ecological profiles for selected stream-dwelling Texas freshwater fishes. Report to the Texas Water Development Board. Eisenhour, D.J. 1999. Systematics of Macrhybopsis tetranema (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Copeia 1999:969-980. Eisenhour, D.J. 2004. Systematics, variation, and speciation of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex west of the Mississippi River. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 23:9-48. Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Center Sandy Hook Laboratory Technical Series Report 17. Gilbert, C.R. 1980a. Notropis potteri (Hubbs and Bonham), chub shiner. Page 297 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980b. Notropis shumardi (Girard), silverband shiner. Page 308 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980c. Hiodon alosoides (Rafinesque), Goldeye. Page 74 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980d. Notropis bairdi (Hubbs and Ortenburger), Red River shiner. Page 236 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980e. Notropis blennius (Girard), River shiner. Page 239 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980f. Notropis girardi (Hubbs and Ortenburger), Arkansas River shiner. Page 268 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.

Page | 144 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Goldstein, R.M. and T.P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pages 123-202 in Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.P. Simon, editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An Atlas of Egg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages. Volume II – Anguillidae thorough Syngnathidae. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Dieter Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush and D. Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16. Higgins, C.L. and G.R. Wilde. 2005. The role of salinity in structuring fish assemblages in a prairie stream system. Hydrobiologia 549:197-203. Hill, L.G. and J.P. Holland. 1971. Preference behavior of the Red River pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (Cyprinodontidae), to acclimation-salinities. Southwestern Naturalist 16:55-63. Hoagstrom, C.W. and J.E. Brooks. 2005. Distribution and status of Arkansas River shiner Notropis girardi and Rio Grande shiner Notropis jemezanus, Pecos River, New Mexico. Texas Journal of Science 57:35- 58. Hubbs, C.L. and A.I. Ortenburger. 1929. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new species of Cyprinidae. Publications of the University of Oklahoma Biological Survey 1:15-43. Hubbs, C.L. and K. Bonham. 1951. New cyprinid fishes of the genus Notropis from Texas. Texas Journal of Science 3:91-110. Hubbs, C. 1957. Distributional patterns of Texas fresh-water fishes. Southwestern Naturalist 2:89-104. Hubbs, C. and A.A. Echelle. 1973. Endangered non-game fishes in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Pages 147- 167 in Endangered Vertebrates in the Southwest (W.C. Huey, editor). New Mexico Game and Fish. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science. Available from: http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/ Kinney, E.C. 1954. A life history of the silver chub, Hybopsis storeriana (Kirtland), in western Lake Erie with notes on associated species. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Koster, W.J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Linam, G.W., J.C. Henson and M.A. Webb. 1994. A fisheries inventory and assessment of Allens Creek and the Brazos River, Austin County, Texas. Report to the Texas Water Development Board. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin. Luttrell, G.R., A.A. Echelle and W.L. Fisher. 2002. Habitat correlates of the distribution of Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in western reaches of the Arkansas River Basin. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 105:153-161. Luttrell, G.R., A.A. Echelle, W.L. Fisher and D.J. Eisenhour. 1999. Declining status of two species of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in the Arkansas River Basin and related effects of reservoirs as barriers to dispersal. Copeia 1999:981-989. Marks, D.E. 1999. Life history characteristics of the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and the smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula) in the Brazos River, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock.

Page | 145 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Marks, D.E., G.R. Wilde, K.G. Ostrand and P.J. Zwank. 2001. Foods of the smalleye shiner and sharpnose shiner in the upper Brazos River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 53:327-334. Miller, R.J. and H.W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Minckley, W.L., G.K. Meffe and D.L. Soltz. 1991. Conservation and management of short-lived fishes: the cyprinodontoids. Pages 247-282 in Battle Against Extinction, Native Fish Management in the American West (W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, editors). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Moss, R.E. and K.B. Mayes. 1993. Current status of Notropis buccula and Notropis oxyrhynchus in Texas. Final report, project number E-1-4. Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. Moss, R.E., J.W. Scanlan and C.S. Anderson. 1983. Observations on the natural history of the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus Le Sueur) in the Neosho River. American Midland Naturalist 109:15-22. Ostrand, K.G. and G.R. Wilde. 2002. Seasonal and spatial variation in a prairie stream-fish assemblage. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 11:137-149. Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1997. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Perkin, J.S., C.S. Williams and T.H. Bonner. 2009. Aspects of chub shiner Notropis potteri life history with comments on native distribution and conservation status. American Midland Naturalist 162:276– 288. Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Robison, H.W. and T.N. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Simon, T.P. 1999. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton; London; New York; Washington. Starrett, W.C. 1950a. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with special reference to the minnows and darters. American Midland Naturalist 43:112-127. Starrett, W.C. 1950b. Food relationships of the minnows of the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 31:216- 233. Starrett, W.C. 1951. Some factors affecting the abundance of minnows in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 32:13-27. Taylor, C.M., M.R. Winston and W.J. Matthews. 1993. Fish species-environment and abundance relationships in a Great Plains river system. Ecography 16:16-23. Trautman, M.B. 1981. The fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. Underwood, D.M., A.A. Echelle, D.J. Eisenhour, M.D. Jones, A.F. Echelle, W.L. Fisher. 2003. Genetic variation in western members of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex (Teleostei: Cyprinidae), with emphasis on those of the Red and Arkansas river basins. Copeia 2003:493-501. Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) – American eel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Wallus, R., T.P. Simon and B.L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Vol. 1. Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Page | 146 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Warren, M.L. Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross and W. C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7- 29. Wilde, G.R. 2002. Threatened fishes of the world: Notropis girardi Hubbs and Ortenburger, 1929 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:98. Wilde, G.R. and T.H. Bonner. 2000. First records of the suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis from the Canadian River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52:71-74. Wilde, G.R., T.H. Bonner and P.J. Zwank. 2001. Diets of the Arkansas River shiner and peppered chub in the Canadian River, New Mexico and Texas. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 16:403–410. Wilde, G.R. and A.C. Urbanczyk. 2013. Relationship between river fragment length and persistence of two imperiled Great Plains cyprinids. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 28:445-451. Winston, M.R., C.M. Taylor and J. Pigg. 1991. Upstream extirpation of four minnow species due to damming of a prairie stream. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:98-105.

Page | 147 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 8 – Activities & Guidelines: Balconian NFCAs CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES AND MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR THE BALCONIAN NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION AREAS

The NFCAs of the Balconian biotic province traverse the most geologically, hydrologically and biologically diverse region of Texas. Terrestrial landscapes are comprised of a mixture of grasslands, savannas, shrublands and woodlands with steep hills and riparian corridors throughout. The karst geology of the region created one of the most important features relative to the biological diversity and endemism, the Edwards, Edwards-Trinity, and Trinity aquifers. The primary threat is groundwater extraction and the resultant reduction or loss of spring flows. This is also one of the fastest developing regions in the United States. The complexities at the interface of conservation and human population growth makes resource management even more challenging than usual. A multi-species, ecosystem approach to species conservation provides an improved method for addressing the common nature and magnitude of threats facing ecosystems and their component species. It is also improves efficiency, cost effectiveness and is more likely to succeed. This plan is designed to coordinate projects to improve water quality, increase water quantity, restore natural habitats, reduce impacts of non-native species, diminish stream system fragmentation, and restore proper function of springs, creeks, rivers, and riparian areas. It will only be effective if it is able to inform and influence water management, land-use planning and zoning, and land-management decisions that will determine current and future conditions of rivers and streams and the associated habitat quality for native fishes. Additionally, to provide long-term benefits to focal species populations, conservation actions must be coordinated at sufficient scales to meet all life history stages of these species and must adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to develop a holistic, habitat-oriented approach to conservation of focal species, restore and protect habitat, restore habitat connectivity and reduce deleterious effects of non-native species. Threat factors need to be delineated and prioritized based on threat level and what can be managed. Currently known threats in the Edwards Plateau NFCAs are identified in the species accounts at the end of this document and include: a. habitat fragmentation b. barriers to migration c. loss of natural flow regime d. reduced stream flow e. spring flow declines f. habitat loss g. non-native species – habitat modification, hybridization and competition Objective 1: Protect and maintain intact, healthy habitats • Determine locations and extent of healthy habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in healthy habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for protection actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze current data, define challenges, determine conservation methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress.

Page | 148 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

o Maintain floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Maintain appropriate sediment transport and avoid channel narrowing. o Maintain native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor conservation efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations Objective 2: Restore impacted habitats • Determine locations, extent and type of impacted habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in impacted habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for restoration actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze data, define challenges, determine restoration methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Where feasible, restore floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Restore appropriate sediment transport and reduce channel narrowing. o Restore native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to improve appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor restoration efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations. Objective 3: Restore stream and habitat connectivity • Inventory fish passage barriers and delineate impacts on ecology of focal species. • Where feasible, diminish or remove fish passage barriers and restore aquatic connectivity. Objective 4: Mitigate effects of invasive species • Assess current status of focal species affected by invasive species. • Develop methods for reducing non-native species in targeted areas. • Develop methods to prevent introductions of invasive species and minimize impacts of existing invasive species. • Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by non-native, invasive or problem species. • Reestablish genetic integrity of hybridized populations in targeted areas. Objective 5: Organize networks of public and private landowners

Page | 149 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Provide technical guidance workshops, newsletters, social media, etc. to facilitate development and expansion of local citizen-based partnerships. • Landowner networks should be committed to the cooperative conservation of land and water resources within the watershed. • Landowner networks should promote values of functional upland, riparian, and stream systems and emphasize the conservation of native fish communities and supporting habitats. • Landowner networks should work to reduce or eliminate activities on the landscape that degrade water quality, reduce water quantity, degrade riparian systems, favor non-native species, or fragment stream systems. • Landowner networks should encourage an array of sustainable land-use activities that are compatible with aquatic resource conservation. • Landowner networks promote collaboration across jurisdictional and land ownership boundaries. Objective 6: Develop conservation demonstration areas • Provide fishing, paddling, and hiking opportunities. • Promote sustainable public use of rivers. • Describe benefits to other native species. • Demonstrate best management practices. • Highlight restoration actions through educational kiosks. Objective 7: Conduct research to fill critical information gaps • Identify knowledge gaps critical to restoration and conservation of the focal species. • Design and conduct research as needed to enhance conservation efforts in Objectives 1-4. • Initial sampling at representative locations within each NFCA should be quarterly and include: o Biological characteristics of focal species: population size, population structure (genetics & demographics), fecundity, food habits, habitat selectivity, flow-ecology relationships, associated species o Habitat structure: flow and discharge rates, channel width, channel morphology, substrate types, depth, cover, trends in surrounding land use o Water quality: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, hardness, chemical and biological oxygen demand • Threats and limiting factors for the focal species will determine the scale at which the monitoring is designed. As baseline data are developed, monitoring parameters can be modified and streamlined to address critical issues and needs for the focal species. Objective 8: Adaptive management and reporting • Develop annual and long-term reporting requirements to document acquired data, departures from plan and evaluations necessary for adaptive management. • Determine research needs for refining restoration and management actions. • Periodically modify strategies based on monitoring, evaluation and research results. • Share information with the public in an easy to use and understandable format.

Page | 150 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Carassius auratus Goldfish Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Gambusia heterochir Clear Creek Gambusia Dionda flavipinnis Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Dionda sp. 3 Colorado Roundnose Minnow Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis Red River Pupfish Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Morone chrysops White Bass Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Carpiodes sp.1 Llano River Carpsucker Etheostoma lepidum Greenthroat Darter Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Percina sciera Dusky Darter Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish

Page | 151 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however, females may mature at lesser sizes (Hardy 1978).

Dionda flavipinnis Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dorsal region dusky, black band through eye to snout; black, rounded caudal spot. (Cope 1880; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to Guadalupe and southern Colorado drainages (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012).

Page | 152 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Primarily restricted to clear spring-fed waters that have slight temperature variations (Jurgens 1951; Brown 1953; Hubbs et al. 1953; Kuehne 1955; Tilton 1961; Wayne 1979). Biology: Vegetation (e.g., green filamentous algae) main component of diet (Wayne 1979). Spawns from January – August with peaks occurring April - May and July - August (Wayne 1979; Wayne and Whiteside 1985).

Dionda sp. 3 Colorado Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Likely similar to D. flavipinnis: Dorsal region dusky, black band through eye to snout; black, rounded caudal spot. (Cope 1880; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to San Saba and Concho rivers, northern Colorado drainage (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012). Habitat: Likely similar to D. flavipinnis: Primarily restricted to clear spring-fed waters that have slight temperature variations (Brown 1953; Hubbs et al. 1953; Jurgens 1951; Kuehne 1955; Tilton 1961; Wayne 1979). Biology: Likely similar to D. flavipinnis: Vegetation (e.g., green filamentous algae) is the main component of diet (Wayne 1979). Spawns from January – August with peaks occurring April - May and July - August (Wayne 1979; Wayne and Whiteside 1985).

Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 153 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Mid-dorsal stripe broad and solid; first obvious dorsal fin ray a thin splint, closely attached to the following well developed but unbranched ray; distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained two and one-half or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Central Texas from the Colorado and Brazos basins to the Red River and northward to North Dakota and Montana (Hubbs et al 2008). Habitat: Commonly in turbid rivers having exposed, shallow, sand-filled channels (Cross et al. 1985) where sediments accumulate in shallow backwaters, gentle eddies, and along the deeper edges of sand “waves” that are formed on shifting substrate by actions of the current (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Herbivore, primarily feeding on algae and other organic bottom material (Pflieger 1997; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Miller and Robison 2004; Lehtinen and Leyzer 1988; Cross and Collins 1995).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range in Texas: Sabine River to the Lavaca River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008) Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars. Considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950b). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Page | 154 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Lateral stripe distinct along the side of the body; one pair of maxillary barbels; pale olive dorsally and silvery-white ventrally with broad silver lateral stripe; small melanophores on posterior dorsolateral scales concentrated to form submarginal band on scales appearing as vague diamond pattern (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers; remnant populations may exist in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in medium to large streams; Found to be most abundant in riffles over large gravel and cobble (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Likely similar to M. aestivalis with a diet consisting of small insects, crustaceans and plant material, sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005).

Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Black pigments outlining dorsal scales, especially posterior to dorsal fin; dorsal stripe conspicuously interrupted in base of dorsal fin, producing a dark dash at base of dorsal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Brazos River drainage; presumed to have been introduced into the Colorado River (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 155 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Common in river channels or periphery of channels in water with moderate depth and current velocities. Substrate usually sand or silt (Moss and Mayes 1993). Biology: Opportunistic invertivore consuming aquatic insects, primarily dipterans, terrestrial insects, detritus, and plant material (Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner, producing multiple cohorts of semi-buoyant eggs within a spawning season; may spawn synchronously during pulse flows (Durham 2007, Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Slightly falcate anal fin, dorsal fin begins well behind insertion of the pelvic fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to Brazos River drainage. Also found in the Red River drainage due to stream capture (Conner and Suttkus 1986, Cross et al. 1986). Thought to be introduced in the Colorado River drainage (Conner and Suttkus 1986). Habitat: Usually found over sand substrate in moderate current velocities and depths (Ostrand and Wilde 2002; Durham 2007). Biology: Generalist drift invertivore, consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, detritus, plant material and sand (Marks 1999, Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner during mid-May through September with multiple peaks (Durham 2007, Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 156 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range in Texas: Occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950a; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; Feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950b). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Carpiodes sp. 1 Llano River Carpsucker (Image Credit: FoTX) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Most closely resembles Carpiodes cyprinus as described in the literature, but differs primarily in body and head shape, from both C. carpio and C. cyprinus. Suttkus and Bart (2002) pointed out these distinctions and Bart (pers. comm. 2015) continues work describing and defining distributions of Texas forms of Carpiodes. Range: Llano River (FoTX database). Habitat: Unknown, but likely similar to C. carpio in preference for quiet, silt-bottomed pools of rivers having low to moderate gradients. Biology: Unknown, but likely similar to C. carpio as a suction and filter feeder, consuming periphyton, small planktonic plants and animals (Goldstein and Simon 1999) and spawning over silt or sand substrate (Jester 1972).

Page | 157 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: disjunct population in the Llano River Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; siltation Description: Slim-bodied (Miller and Robison 2004) with rows of black spots along sides (Hubbs et al. 2008). Lips fairly thin and plicate (Miller and Robison 2004). Range: Ranges widely throughout U.S. and in Texas is found primarily in east Texas streams from the Red to the Brazos basins. An isolated, disjunct population occurs in the Llano River near Junction downstream to about Mason (Hubbs et al. 2008). This may be an introduced population (Lowman 1957).

Page | 158 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Typically in clear creeks with firm substrates (Gilbert and Burgess 1980). Biology: Invertivore/herbivore (Becker 1983). Spawns March – June (Edwards 1999) over rock and gravel with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. It is likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Page | 159 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Gambusia heterochir Clear Creek Gambusia (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: diminished spring flows; hybridization with Western Mosquitofish Description: Relatively stocky gambusia with a metallic sheen; scattered terminal dark marks on many lateral or dorsal scales form distinctive crescentic marks; females have a more pronounced anal spot than that found in G. affinis; males are distinct in having a unique notch in their pectoral fins (Hubbs et al. 2002). Range: Endemic to Clear Creek, Menard County (Hubbs et al. 2002). Habitat: Impounded headwater spring pool of Clear Creek formed by a small earthen 2-m wide dam built in 1880 (Hubbs et al. 2002). Biology: Females have an interbrood interval of 48-60 days (Yan 1986). Males place their gonopodia on their unique pectoral fins during copulation (Peden 1970).

Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN; State Fish of Texas Threats in Central Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; fragmentation; hybridization with Smallmouth Bass Description: Distinctive black, diamond-shaped pattern along sides and rows of spots that form stripes on its belly; jaw does not extend beyond eye; glossohyal teeth present on tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1942; Garrett 1991). Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau

Page | 160 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small lentic environments in flowing water; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1999). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1999), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Page | 161 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Belonesox belizanus Pike Killifish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Gambusia georgei San Marcos Gambusia Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Poecilia reticulata Guppy Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Xiphophorus hellerii Green Swordtail Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Dionda flavipinnis Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Etheostoma fonticola Fountain Darter Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Etheostoma lepidum Greenthroat Darter Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Percina shumardi River Darter Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus Vermiculated Sailfin Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique Tilapia Catfish Tilapia zillii Redbelly Tilapia Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish

Page | 162 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 163 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however, females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Dionda flavipinnis Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dorsal region dusky; black band through eye to snout; black, rounded caudal spot (Cope 1880; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Guadalupe and southern Colorado drainages (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012). Habitat: Primarily restricted to clear spring-fed waters that have slight temperature variations (Jurgens 1951; Brown 1953; Hubbs et al. 1953; Kuehne 1955; Tilton 1961; Wayne 1979). Biology: Vegetation (e.g., green filamentous algae) is the main component of the diet (Wayne 1979). Spawns from January – August with peaks occurring April - May and July - August (Wayne 1979; Wayne and Whiteside 1985).

Page | 164 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout, stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe Basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Lateral stripe distinct along the side of the body; one pair of maxillary barbels; pale olive dorsally and silvery-white ventrally with broad silver lateral stripe; small melanophores on posterior dorsolateral scales concentrated to form submarginal band on scales appearing as vague diamond pattern (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers; remnant populations may exist in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in medium to large streams; found to be most abundant in riffles over large gravel and cobble (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Likely similar to M. aestivalis with a diet consisting of small insects, crustaceans and plant material, sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 165 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Caudal spot attached to midlateral stripe; midlateral stripe distinct; paired dots along lateral line (Hubbs et al 2008). Large eye, longer than snout (Page and Burr 1997). Dorsal fin more triangular, last fin ray less than one-half length of the longest; (Hubbs et al. 2008). Belly scaled; breast naked or partially scaled (Ross 2001). Range: Found in coastal streams from New York to Texas, and in the southern Great Lakes through parts of the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico; in Texas, found only in northeastern streams from the Sabine to the Red River with the exception of an isolated population found in the San Marcos River headwaters (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found primarily in acidic, tannin-stained, non-turbid, sluggish Coastal Plain streams and rivers of low to moderate gradient (Robison 1977). Occurs in aggregation, often at the upstream ends of pools, with a moderate to sluggish current and sand, mud, silt or detritus substrates (Robison 1977; Ross 2001). Usually associated with aquatic vegetation (Hellier 1967; Robison 1977). Biology: Invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish

Page | 166 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. It is likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: aquifer depletion; pollution Description: Eyeless; body is white or pink in color (Page and Burr 1997). Well-developed teeth on jaws; lips at corner of mouth thick (Hubbs and Bailey 1947; Hubbs et al. 2008). The swim bladder has been replaced with adipose tissue as an adaptation to the hydrostatic pressure where they live; other adaptations include highly developed sensory systems, lower metabolic rates, smaller body size (50-100 mm) and longer life cycles (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004). Range: San Antonio Pool of the Edwards Aquifer (Cooper and Longley 1980a; Page and Burr 1997; Warren et al. 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Subterranean waters (Page and Burr 1997) at depths of 300 - 600 m (Cooper and Longley 1980a; Hubbs et al. 2008); Biology: Opportunistic predator (Longley and Karnei 1979) feeding on decapods, amphipods and isopods. It also probably preys on the Toothless Blindcat Trogloglanis pattersoni (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004).

Page | 167 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: aquifer depletion; pollution Description: Eyeless; body is white or pink in color (Page and Burr 1997). Small body with toothless suckermouth (Langecker and Longley 1993). Range: San Antonio Pool of the Edwards Aquifer (Cooper and Longley 1980b; Page and Burr 1997; Warren et al. 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Subterranean waters (Page and Burr 1997) at depths of 300 - 600 m (Cooper and Longley 1980b; Hubbs et al. 2008); Biology: Thought to be a detritivore (Langecker and Longley 1993) feeding on dead or dying invertebrates and a fungus commonly found in the Edwards Aquifer (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004).

Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN; State Fish of Texas Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; hybridization with Smallmouth Bass Description: Distinctive black, diamond-shaped pattern along sides and rows of spots that form stripes on its belly; jaw does not extend beyond eye; glossohyal teeth present on tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1942; Garrett 1991). Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau

Page | 168 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Etheostoma fonticola Fountain Darter (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Sides with large black rectangular blotches (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body is olive dorsally, white ventrally, with scattered dark spots dorsally and laterally and sometimes with 7-8 dusky dorsal saddles; midlateral row of greatly elongated dark blotches and often 3 small dark basicaudal spots; dark orbital bars present (Page 1983). Range: Endemic to the upper San Marcos and Comal rivers in central Texas. The original population in the Comal River was extirpated in the mid-1950s when Comal Springs ceased to flow. A population from San Marcos was reintroduced into Comal Springs during the early 1970s (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Usually associated with filamentous algae, Vallisneria, and other aquatic plants in the thermally constant reaches of the upper San Marcos and Comal rivers (Schenck and Whiteside 1976). Biology: Diet consists of immature insects and microcrustaceans (Schenck and Whiteside 1977a). Spawns year round, with two spawning peaks, August and late winter (Schenck and Whiteside 1977b).

Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss

Page | 169 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Olive colored, with seven distinct rectangular black blocks along the midline; proximal half of the spinous dorsal is black in males and gray in females; distal part is yellow to orange in males and clear to yellow in females, depending on the season; upper jaw extends to a point below the most anterior part of the eye (Hubbs 1954a). Range: Endemic to the Guadalupe River basin (Hubbs 1954a). Habitat: Gravelly runs and riffles; most common under or around small boulders in the main current; seems to prefer moderately turbid water (Hubbs et al. 1953; Hubbs 1954a; Robins and Page 2007). Biology: Spawns from mid-January to mid-June (Brown 1955; Hubbs 1985).

Percina shumardi River Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Brown or olive dorsally and white or yellow ventrally, with 5-9 dusky, obscure dorsal blotches and 8-15 black, vertically elongate lateral blotches; black suborbital bar and small black basicaudal spot (Page 1983). Upper lip connected to snout by a narrow frenum; belly scaled; upper jaw not extending as far as to below the middle of the eye (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Broadly distributed from Canada, south in the Mississippi River basin to Mississippi and Louisiana; also occurs in Gulf of Mexico drainages from the Mobile Basin west to the Coastal Plain of Texas (Page 1983). In Texas limited to eastern streams including Red southward to the Neches, and a disjunct population in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems east of the Balcones Escarpment (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Confined to large rivers and lower parts of major tributaries (Gilbert 1980); found in lower reaches of medium-size lowland rivers throughout their range (Edwards 1997). Usually found in deep chutes and riffles where current is swift and bottom composed of coarse gravel or rock (Gilbert 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Non-guarding, rock and gravel spawner; eggs are buried in gravel depressions or in rock interstitial spaces (Balon 1975; Simon 1999).

Page | 170 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat Anguilla rostrata American Eel Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Cyprinella lepida Plateau Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Cyprinella sp. Nueces River Shiner Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Dionda nigrotaeniata Medina Roundnose Minnow Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Dionda serena Frio Roundnose Minnow Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Dionda texensis Nueces Roundnose Minnow Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Micropterus salmoides floridanus Florida Largemouth Bass Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Largemouth Bass Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Etheostoma lepidum Greenthroat Darter Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish

Page | 171 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984).

Page | 172 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however, females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Cyprinella lepida Plateau Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Head blunt and rounded, upper jaw length greater than snout length; black median chin stripe extends no farther posteriorly than below the eye; interradial membranes of dorsal fin have melanophores (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Frio, Sabinal (Richardson and Gold 1995; Edwards et al. 2004, Carson et al. 2014) and Guadalupe rivers (Mayden 1989). Habitat: Found over gravel and limestone substrates (Page and Burr 1997; Edwards et al. 2004) in clear, cool, spring-fed headwater creeks (Hubbs 1954b; Edwards et al. 2004). Biology: Unknown, but likely similar to both Proserpine Shiner (C. proserpina) and Red Shiner (C. lutrensis).

Cyprinella sp. Nueces River Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Head blunt and rounded, upper jaw length greater than snout length; black median chin stripe extends no farther posteriorly than below eye; interradial membranes of dorsal fin have melanophores (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 173 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Nueces River (Richardson and Gold 1995; Edwards et al. 2004, Carson et al. 2014). Habitat: Found over gravel and limestone substrates (Page and Burr 1997; Edwards et al. 2004) in clear, cool, spring-fed headwater creeks (Hubbs 1954b; Edwards et al. 2004). Biology: Unknown, but likely similar to the Plateau Shiner (C. lepida), Proserpine Shiner (C. proserpina) and Red Shiner (C. lutrensis).

Dionda nigrotaeniata Medina Roundnose Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: limited distribution; reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dusky dorsal region (Cope 1880). Black band through eye to snout; black rounded caudal spot (Cope 1880; Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the upper Medina River (Schönhuth et al 2012). Habitat: As with the other Dionda, primarily restricted to clear spring-fed waters that have slight temperature variations (Hubbs et al. 1953; Kuehne 1955; Wayne 1979). Biology: likely similar to other Dionda species - Vegetation (e.g., green filamentous algae) main component of diet (Wayne 1979). Spawns from January – August with peaks occurring April - May and July - August (Wayne 1979; Wayne and Whiteside 1985).

Dionda serena Frio Roundnose Minnow (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 174 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Cross-hatched scale markings and double dashes along the lateral line; rounded caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Edwards 1999). Black band through eye to snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Frio and Sabinal rivers (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012; Carson et al. 2014). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters (Edwards 1997; Edwards et al. 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Biology: Spawns in the spring with non-adhesive and demersal eggs (Hubbs 1951).

Dionda texensis Nueces Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Cross-hatched scale markings and double dashes along the lateral line; rounded caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Edwards 1999). Black band through eye to snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Nueces River (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012; Carson et al. 2014). Habitat: Unknown, but likely similar to D. serena and D. diaboli. Biology: Spawns in spring when water temperatures reach about 17-18°C; eggs heavy and non-adhesive (Hubbs 1951).

Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 175 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Lateral stripe distinct along the side of the body; one pair of maxillary barbels; pale olive dorsally and silvery white ventrally with broad silver lateral stripe; small melanophores on posterior dorsolateral scales concentrated to form submarginal band on scales appearing as vague diamond pattern (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers; remnant populations may exist in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in medium to large streams; found to be most abundant in riffles over large gravel and cobble (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Likely similar to M. aestivalis with a diet consisting of small insects, crustaceans and plant material, sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005).

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. It is likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Page | 176 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: aquifer depletion; pollution Description: Eyeless; body is white or pink in color (Page and Burr 1997). Well-developed teeth on jaws; lips at corner of mouth thick (Hubbs and Bailey 1947; Hubbs et al. 2008). The swim bladder has been replaced with adipose tissue as an adaptation to the hydrostatic pressure where they live; other adaptations include highly developed sensory systems, lower metabolic rates, smaller body size (50-100 mm) and longer life cycles (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004). Range: San Antonio Pool of the Edwards Aquifer (Cooper and Longley 1980a; Page and Burr 1997; Warren et al. 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Subterranean waters (Page and Burr 1997) at depths of 300 - 600 m (Cooper and Longley 1980a; Hubbs et al. 2008); Biology: Opportunistic predator (Longley and Karnei 1979) feeding on decapods, amphipods and isopods. It also probably preys on the Toothless Blindcat Trogloglanis pattersoni (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004).

Page | 177 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Subterranean waters (Page and Burr 1997) at depths of 300 - 600 m (Cooper and Longley 1980b; Hubbs et al. 2008); Biology: Thought to be a detritivore (Langecker and Longley 1993) feeding on dead or dying invertebrates and a fungus commonly found in the Edwards Aquifer (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004).

Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Florida Largemouth Bass Description: Glossohyal tooth patch (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980). Genetically distinct based on nuclear microsatellite markers (Lutz-Carrillo et al. 2006). Range: Original distribution thought to be from the Nueces River in Texas to the Río Soto La Marina, Mexico (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980), currently in the upper Devils River. Habitat: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides. Biology: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides.

Page | 178 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1999), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Literature Cited

Bailey, R.M. and C.L. Hubbs. 1949. The black basses (Micropterus) of Florida with description of a new species. Occasional Papers Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 516:1-43. Balon, E.K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:821-864. Bean, P.T., J.T. Jackson, D.J. McHenry, T.H. Bonner and M.R.J. Forstner. 2011. Rediscovery of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Ictaluridae) in a western Gulf-Slope drainage. Southwestern Naturalist 56:287–291. Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Bonham, K. 1941. Food of gars in Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 70:356-362. Bonner, T.H., C. Thomas, C.S. Williams and J.P. Karges. 2005. Temporal assessment of a west Texas stream fish assemblage. Southwestern Naturalist 50:74-106. Bottrell, C.E., R.H. Ingersol and R.W. Jones. 1964. Notes on the embryology, early development, and behavior of Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus (Gilbert). Transactions of the Microscopial Society 83:391- 399. Brown, W.H. 1953. Introduced fish species of the Guadalupe River Basin. Texas Journal of Science 5:245- 251. Brown, W.H. 1955. Egg production of the fish Hadropterus scierus apristis in San Marcos River, Texas. Copeia 1955:149-150. Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1999. A new species of Cycleptus (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) from Gulf Slope drainages of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with a review of the distribution, biology, and conservation status of the genus. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 20:19-57. Burr, B.M. and M.L. Warren. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Scientific and Technical Series No. 4. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. Carson, E.W., A.H. Hanna, G.P. Garrett, R.J. Edwards and J.R. Gold. 2014. Conservation genetics of cyprinid fishes in the upper Nueces River basin in Central Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 59:1–8.

Page | 179 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Clemmer, G.H. 1980. Notropis amnis (Hubbs and Greene), Pallid shiner. Page 224 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Conner, J.V. and R.D. Suttkus. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the western Gulf Slope of North America. Pages 413-456 in The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes (C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors). Wiley, New York. Cooper, J.E. and G. Longley. 1980a. Satan eurystomus (Hubbs and Bailey), Widemouth Blindcat. Page 474 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Cooper, J.E. and G. Longley. 1980b. Trogloglanis pattersoni (Eigenmann) Toothless Blindcat. pp 474 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Cope, E.D. 1880. On the zoological position of Texas. Washington: Bulletin of the United States National Museum 17:1-51. Cross, F.B., R.L. Mayden and J.D. Stewart. 1986. Fishes in the Western Mississippi drainage. Pages 363- 412 in The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes (C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors). Wiley, New York. Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Institute of Marine Science 5:353-406. Darnell, R.M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake Pontchartrain. Ecology 42:553-568. Deacon, J.E. 1961. Fish populations, following a drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas. University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History 13:359-427. Durham, B.W. 2007. Reproductive ecology, habitat associations, and population dynamics of two imperiled cyprinids in a Great Plains river. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Echelle, A.A. 1973. Behavior of the pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis. Copeia 1973:68-76. Echelle, A.A., A.F. Echelle and F.B. Cross. 1977. First records of Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (Cyprinodontidae) from the Colorado and Arkansas River systems, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 22:142-143. Echelle, A.A., A.F. Echelle and L.G. Hill. 1972. Interspecific interactions and limiting factors of abundance and distribution in the Red River pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis. American Midland Naturalist 88:109-130. Edwards, R.J. 1980. The ecology and geographic variation of the Guadalupe bass, Micropterus treculi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Edwards, R.J. 1999. Ecological profiles for selected stream-dwelling Texas freshwater fishes II. Report to the Texas Water Development Board. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and N. L. Allan. 2004. Aquifer-dependent fishes of the Edwards Plateau region. Pages 253-267 in Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau (R.E. Mace, E.S. Angle and W.F. Mullican, III, editors). Report 360, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and E. Marsh-Matthews. 2002. Conservation and status of the fish communities inhabiting the Río Conchos basin and middle Rio Grande, Mexico and U.S.A. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:119-132.

Page | 180 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Eisenhour, D.J. 2004. Systematics, variation, and speciation of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex west of the Mississippi River. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 23:9-48. Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Center Sandy Hook Laboratory Technical Series Report 17. Garrett, G.P. 1991. Guidelines for the Management of the Guadalupe Bass. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. PWD-RP-N3200-367. Garrett, G.P., R.J. Edwards and C. Hubbs. 2004. Discovery of a new population of Devils River minnow (Dionda diaboli), with implications for conservation of the species. Southwestern Naturalist 49:435- 441. Garrett, G.P., R.J. Edwards and A.H. Price. 1992. Distribution and status of the Devils River minnow, Dionda diaboli. Southwestern Naturalist 37:259-267. Gilbert, C.R. 1980. Percina shumardi (Girard), Dusky darter. Page 741 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. and G.H. Burgess. 1980. Minytrema melanops (Rafinesque), Spotted sucker, Page 408 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Goldstein, R.M. and T.P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pages 123-202 in Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.P. Simon, editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Goodyear, C.P. 1967. Feeding habits of three species of gars, Lepisosteus, along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 96:297-300. Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of Fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An Atlas of Egg, Larval, and Juvenile Stages. Volume II – Anguillidae thorough Syngnathidae. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Dieter Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush and D. Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16. Helfman, G.S., E.L. Bozeman and E.B. Brothers. 1984. Size, age, and sex of American eels in a Georgia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:132-141. Hellier, T.R., Jr. 1967. The fishes of the Santa Fe River system. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biology 2:1-46. Higgins, C.L. and G.R. Wilde. 2005. The role of salinity in structuring fish assemblages in a prairie stream system. Hydrobiologia 549:197-203. Hill, L.G. and J.P. Holland. 1971. Preference behavior of the Red River pupfish, Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (Cyprinodontidae), to acclimation-salinities. Southwestern Naturalist 16:55-63. Hubbs, C.L. and R.M. Bailey. 1942. Subspecies of spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) in Texas. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 457:1-11 Hubbs, C.L. and R.M. Bailey. 1947. Blind catfishes from artesian waters of Texas. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 499:1-17. Hubbs, C.L. and A.I. Ortenburger. 1929. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new species of Cyprinidae. Publications of the University of Oklahoma Biological Survey 1:15-43.

Page | 181 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hubbs, C. 1951. Observations on the breeding of Dionda episcopa serena in the Nueces River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 3:490-492. Hubbs, C. 1954a. A new Texas subspecies, apristis, of the darter Hadropterus scierus, with a discussion of variation within the species. American Midland Naturalist 52:211-220. Hubbs, C. 1954b. Corrected distributional records for Texas fresh-water fishes. Texas Journal of Science 6:277-291. Hubbs, C. 1985. Darter reproductive seasons. Copeia 1985:56-68. Hubbs, C. and W.H. Brown. 1956. Dionda diaboli (Cyprinidae), a new minnow from Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 1:69-77. Hubbs, C. and A.A. Echelle. 1973. Endangered non-game fishes in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Pages 147- 167 in Endangered Vertebrates in the Southwest (W.C. Huey, editor). New Mexico Game and Fish. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2002. Threatened fishes of the world: Gambusia heterochir Hubbs 1957 (Poeciliidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:422. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science. Available from: http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/ Hubbs, C., R.A. Kuehne and J.C. Ball. 1953. The fishes of the upper Guadalupe River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 5:216-244. Hurst, H., G. Bass and C. Hubbs. 1975. The biology of the Guadalupe, Suwanee, and Redeye Basses. Pages 47-53 in Black Bass Biology and Management (R. Stroud and H. Clepper, editors). Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC. Inebnit, T.E., III. 2009. Aspects of the reproductive and juvenile ecology of alligator gar in the Fourche LaFave River, Arkansas. M.S. thesis. University of Central Arkansas, Conway. Jester, D.B. 1972. Life history, ecology, and management of river carpsucker, Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque), with reference to Elephant Butte Lake. Research Rept. No. 243, New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Las Cruces. 120 pp. Jurgens, K.C. 1951. The distribution and ecology of the fishes of the San Marcos River. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Kelsch, S.W., and F.S. Hendricks. 1990. Distribution of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Osteichthyes: Ictaluridae). Southwestern Naturalist 35:292-297. Koster, W.J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Kuehne, R.A. 1955. Stream surveys of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers. Texas Game and Fish Commission, IF Report Ser. 1:1-56. Kwak, T.J. 1991. Ecological characteristics of a northern population of the pallid shiner. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:106-115. Lambou, V.W. 1961. Utilization of macrocrustaceans for food by freshwater fishes in Louisiana and its effect on the determination of predator-prey relations. Progressive Fish-Culturist 23:18-25. Langecker, T. G., and G. Longley. 1993. Morphological adaptations of the Texas Blind Catfishes Trogloglanis pattersoni and Satan eurystomus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) to their underground environment. Copeia 1993:976-986.

Page | 182 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Lee, D.S. and E.O. Wiley. 1980. Atractosteus spatula (Lacépède), Alligator gar. Page 47 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Longley, G. and H. Karnei. 1979. Status of Trogloglanis pattersoni Eigenmann, the toothless blindcat, and status of Satan eurystomus Hubbs and Bailey, the widemouth blindcat. Endangered Species Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Lowman, F.G. Jr. 1957. Basic survey and inventory of fish species present, as well as their distribution in the Llano River, its tributaries and watershed, lying within Sutton, Edwards, Kimble, Mason, Gillespie and Llano counties, Texas. Job Completion Report; Proj. F-9-R-3, Job B-11. Luttrell, G.R., A.A. Echelle and W.L. Fisher. 2002. Habitat correlates of the distribution of Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in western reaches of the Arkansas River Basin. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 105:153-161. Lutz-Carrillo, D.J., C.C. Nice, T.H. Bonner, M.R.J. Forstner and L.T. Fries. 2006. Admixture analysis of Florida Largemouth Bass and northern Largemouth Bass using microsatellite loci. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:779–791. Marks, D.E. 1999. Life history characteristics of the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and the smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula) in the Brazos River, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Marks, D.E., G.R. Wilde, K.G. Ostrand and P.J. Zwank. 2001. Foods of the smalleye shiner and sharpnose shiner in the upper Brazos River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 53:327-334. Mayden, R. L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication 80:1-189. Miller, R.J. and H.W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Miller, R.R., W.L. Minckley and S.M. Norris. 2005. Freshwater fishes of Mexico. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Minckley, W.L., G.K. Meffe and D.L. Soltz. 1991. Conservation and management of short-lived fishes: the cyprinodontoids. Pages 247-282 in Battle Against Extinction, Native Fish Management in the American West (W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, editors). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Moss, R.E. and K.B. Mayes. 1993. Current status of Notropis buccula and Notropis oxyrhynchus in Texas. Final report, project number E-1-4. Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. Moss, R.E., J.W. Scanlan and C.S. Anderson. 1983. Observations on the natural history of the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus Le Sueur) in the Neosho River. American Midland Naturalist 109:15-22. Ostrand, K.G. and G.R. Wilde. 2002. Seasonal and spatial variation in a prairie stream-fish assemblage. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 11:137-149. Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1997. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Peden, A.E. 1970. Courtship behavior of Gambusia (Poeciliidae) with emphasis on isolating mechanisms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City.

Page | 183 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Raney, E.C. 1942. Alligator gar feeds upon birds in Texas. Copeia 1942:50. Richardson, L.R., and J.R. Gold. 1995. Evolution of the Cyprinella lutrensis species-complex. II. Systematics and biogeography of the Edwards Plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida. Copeia 1995:28-37. Robins, R.H. and L.M. Page. 2007. Taxonomic status of the Guadalupe darter, Percina apristis (Teleostei: Percidae). Zootaxa 1618:51-60. Robison, H.W. 1977. Distribution, habitat notes and status of the ironcolor shiner, Notropis chalybaeus Cope in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 31:92-94. Ross, S.T. 2001. Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson Schönhuth, S., D.M. Hillis, D.A. Neely, L. Lozano-Vilano, A. Perdices and R.L. Mayden. 2012. Phylogeny, diversity, and species delimitation of the North American Round-Nosed Minnows (Teleostei: Dionda), as inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62:427-446. Simon, T.P. 1999. Assessment of Balon’s reproductive guilds with application to Midwestern North American Freshwater Fishes, Pages 97-121 in Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.L. Simon, editor). CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Schenck, J.R., and B.G. Whiteside. 1976. Distribution, habitat preference and population size estimate of Etheostoma fonticola. Copeia 1976:697-703. Schenck, J.R., and B.G. Whiteside. 1977a. Food habits and feeding behavior of the fountain darter, Etheostoma fonticola (Osteichthyes: Percidae). Southwestern Naturalist 21:487-492. Schenck, J.R., and B.G. Whiteside. 1977b. Fecundity, sexual dimorphism and sex ratio of Etheostoma fonticola (Osteichthyes: Percidae). American Midland Naturalist 98:365-375.Sneegas, G.W. and D.A. Hendrickson. 2004. Extreme catfish. http://www.nanfa.org/akiweb/blindcats.html Simon, T. 1999. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton; London; New York; Washington. Starrett, W.C. 1950a. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with special reference to the minnows and darters. American Midland Naturalist 43:112-127. Starrett, W.C. 1950b. Food relationships of the minnows of the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 31:216- 233. Starrett, W.C. 1951. Some factors affecting the abundance of minnows in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 32:13-27. Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Suttkus, R.D. 1963. Order Lepisostei. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1(3):61-68. Suttkus, R.D. and H.L. Bart Jr. 2002. A preliminary analysis of the River Carpsucker, Carpiodes carpio (Rafinesque), in the southern portion of its range. Pages 209-221 in Libro Jubilar En Honor Al Dr. Salvador Contreras Balderas (María de Lourdes Lozano Vilano, editor). Nuevo León: Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Tilton, J.E. 1961. Ichthyological survey of the Colorado River of Texas. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin.

Page | 184 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) – American eel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Warren, M.L., Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7- 29. Wayne, L.M. 1979. Ecology of the roundnose minnow, Dionda episcopa (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae) from three central Texas springs. M.S. thesis, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos. Wayne, L.M. and B.G. Whiteside. 1985. Reproduction data on Dionda episcopa from Fessenden Spring, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 37:321-328. Wilde, G.R. and T.H. Bonner. 2000. First records of the suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis from the Canadian River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52:71-74. Wilde, G.R. and A.C. Urbanczyk 2013. Relationship between river fragment length and persistence of two imperiled Great Plains cyprinids. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 28:445-451. Yan, H.Y. 1987. Size at maturity in male Gambusia heterochir. Journal of Fish Biology 30:731-741.

Page | 185 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 9 – Activities & Guidelines: Chihuahuan-Navahonian NFCAs CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES AND MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR THE NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION AREAS OF THE CHIHUAHUAN-NAVAHONIAN BIOTIC PROVINCE

The NFCAs of the Chihuahuan Desert region are comprised of the most remote watersheds in the state and contain a wide variety of habitats with many uniquely adapted plants and animals. In addition to flows from the Rio Grande, Río Conchos and Pecos River, three major (Hueco-Mesilla Bolsons, Pecos Valley and Edwards-Trinity Plateau) and six or more minor aquifers provide water to the region. Desert ecosystems are fragile and slow to recover. Some changes may not be recoverable. Deep trenching of streams by erosion from overgrazing and deforestation (Ohmart and Anderson 1982), introductions of exotic species and extinction of native species may cause irreversible damage to these ecosystems. Under these conditions droughts are even more devastating. Droughts not only reduce rainfall, but also cause an increase in groundwater pumping for agricultural and municipal uses. Such extreme conditions put stress on fish community equilibrium with more tolerant species gaining a competitive and numerical advantage. Tributary creeks tend to be impacted more severely yet are critical to the breeding and rearing of young of many of the indigenous species. These changes have been gradual and long-term, taking place since the mid-1800s (Miller 1961), but their effects have been compounded over time and are now becoming dramatic. While perturbations such as pollution, reduced groundwater and dam construction are theoretically fixable, recovery to a pristine state is unlikely. Although many data gaps exist, what is known is somewhat grim. Approximately half of the native fishes of the Chihuahuan Desert are threatened with extinction or already are extinct (Hubbs 1990). Likely extinctions from this area include: Maravillas Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis blairi, Phantom Shiner Notropis orca, Rio Grande Bluntnose Shiner Notropis simus and Amistad Gambusia Gambusia amistadensis (Miller et al. 1989). Extirpations include Rio Grande Shiner Notropis jemezanus in the New Mexico portion of the Rio Grande (Propst et al. 1987) and Shovelnose Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus platorynchus, Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Hybognathus amarus, Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis and Blotched Gambusia Gambusia senilis in Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008). Endemic species other than fishes are also being lost from this region (Howells and Garrett 1995). A significant threat to a large portion of the Chihuahuan NFCAs is the establishment of the invasive giant reed (Arundo donax) and saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) These non-native plants have effectively channelized stream segments and the resulting constricted flow has reduced shallow, backwater habitat and changed bottom sediments from a mixture of sand and gravels to one of primarily larger gravels and cobble. The effect of the dense stands has also armored and stabilized the riverbanks, thus preventing natural sediments and sand to be available for habitat within the river itself (Garrett and Edwards 2014). The streams of the Chihuahuan NFCAs hardly resemble their natural state where many of the original water courses were lined with gallery forests and diverse riparian zones. Exploitation of limited resources, particularly groundwater pumping, has degraded that environment, caused extirpation and extinction of species and ultimately, loss of habitat and ecosystems (Smith and Miller 1985). The few relatively natural faunas and fairly intact ecosystems that remain need careful management if they are to be preserved. The two Big Bend NFCAs represent two contiguous, but very diverse segments (above and below Mariscal Canyon) with distinct differences in base flow, sediment movement and water quality. These differences are primarily due to reduced base flow and water quality in the upper segment and considerable spring flow inputs and improved water quality in the lower segment (Bennett et al. 2014). As a result, the lower segment remains largely intact and still supports a high diversity of native aquatic species (Bennett and Urbanczyk 2014). Bennett et al. (2014) noted the numerous threats to the aquatic natural resources of

Page | 186 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need the river corridor that have been documented, including channel narrowing and sediment accumulation (Dean and Schmidt 2011; Dean et al. 2011), deteriorating aquatic habitat, invasive and exotic species (Everitt 1998), increasing mercury concentrations in fish (Heard et al. 2012), continued water-quality deterioration (Sandoval-Solis et al. 2010; Bennett et al. 2012), groundwater extraction (Donnelly 2007) and climate change (Ingol-Blanco 2011). The combination of regional water management and invasive, non-native riparian species have changed stream flow, sediment dynamics and riparian vegetation cover (Everitt 1998; Schmidt et al. 2003; Dean and Schmidt 2011). The once wide and shallow channel is now filled with sediment and has become narrow and deep. Non-native riparian plants (Giant Reed and Saltcedar) affect channel sediment retention, aquatic habitat and riverside communities by covering up and eliminating backwaters and side channels, diminishing channel conveyance capacity and increasing flooding frequency (Dean and Schmidt 2011; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Non-native feral livestock are also negatively impacting natural resources. Feral pigs Sus scrofa, burros Equus africanus asinus, horses Equus ferus caballus, and cattle Bos spp. occur throughout the river corridor. In addition to the focal fish species, other aquatic species of concern include Salina Mucket Potamilus metnecktayi, Tampico Pearlymussel Cyrtonaias tampicoensis, Texas Hornshell Popenaias popeii, Big Bend Rough-footed Mud Turtle Kinosternon hirtipes murrayi, Big Bend Slider Trachemys gaigeae, American Beaver Castor canadensis, and Pecos River Muskrat Ondrata zibethicus ripensis. Areas being actively managed for conservation include Big Bend National Park, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, Big Bend Ranch State Park, Black Gap Wildlife Management Area, Chinati Mountains State Natural Area and Alamito Creek watershed. Agricultural and municipal water diversions have greatly diminished water quantity in the upper part of the Pecos River NFCA and increased salinity to near that of seawater. High salinity has resulted in the loss of many fish species and the repeated occurrence of a highly dangerous golden alga bloom (Prymnesium parvum). Inputs from Independence Creek and other springs greatly improve water quality and quantity in the lower segment. Other threats include groundwater extraction, oil and gas development and invasive species. In addition to the focal fish species, other species of concern include the Rio Grande Cooter, American Beaver and Pecos River Muskrat. The Nature Conservancy owns an 8,000-hectare preserve along Independence Creek, adjacent to an additional 280 hectares under conservation easement (CEC 2014). The Davis Mountains Streams NFCA includes the Balmorhea Springs Complex and streams in the Davis Mountains. The Balmorhea Springs Complex is considered one of the largest and most important of the remaining desert spring systems in West Texas (CEC 2014). The main springs include Phantom Lake, San Solomon, Giffin, Saragosa, Toyah Creek, East Sandia and West Sandia springs. This was once a massive ciénega system fed by spring flows of more than 130,000,000 liters per day. Because of groundwater pumping and draining ciénegas for agriculture, today there are only refuge ciénegas and canals for habitat. In addition to the focal fish species, other species of concern include the Diminutive Amphipod Gammarus hyalleloides, Phantom Cave Snail Pyrgulopsis texana, Phantom Springsnail Tryonia cheatumi, Rio Grande Cooter Pseudemys gorzugi and the Pecos Sunflower Helianthus paradoxus. Areas being actively managed for conservation include Davis Mountains State Park, Balmorhea State Park and Guadalupe Mountains National Park. The Davis Mountains Streams NFCA also includes Comanche, Leon, and Diamond-Y springs. Comanche Springs no longer flow and as Gunnar Brune (1981) noted “failure of Comanche Springs was probably the most spectacular example in Texas of man’s abuse of nature.” Flowing at 1,200 - 1,900 L/s, this spring was one of the largest in Texas, but flow completely ceased in 1962 due to aquifer pumping for irrigation from a well field up-gradient of the springs during the drought of the 1950s (Mace 2001). The outflow from the springs, Comanche Creek, supported a vast ciénega of approximately 25 km in length. The drying of the

Page | 187 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need springs was not only an ecological disaster, but also had severe impacts on the more than 100 farmers who had, since the 1860s, depended on waters flowing from Comanche Springs and the ciénega for irrigation of approximately 2,500 ha of cropland (Brune 1981). Leon Springs, up-gradient and in the same aquifer as Comanche Springs, were also modified to provide irrigation for farming. Originally the springs were deep and up to 30 m in diameter and supported a large ciénega that extended for many kilometers downstream (Brune 1981). During the 1920s, a stone and earth dam created Lake Leon (Scudday 2003) that backed water up to, or over, Leon Springs. Unfortunately, this modification likely led to the extirpation of both Pecos Gambusia nobilis and Leon Springs Pupfish Cyprinodon bovinus as none were collected by Carl Hubbs in his 1938 survey of this type locality for the Leon Springs Pupfish (Hubbs 1980, Minckley et al. 1991). The same groundwater pumping that led to the demise of Comanche Springs also dried Leon Springs in 1958 (Brune 1981). Although Diamond-Y Springs were not as large as Comanche and Leon springs, they continue to flow and provide habitat for the federally endangered Pecos Gambusia and Leon Springs Pupfish as well as several other species; however, the flow is greatly reduced from historical levels (Scudday 2003). Fortunately, the Diamond-Y Springs ecosystem does not derive its flow from the same aquifer as Comanche and Leon springs. Other rare species in this system include federally endangered invertebrates: Diamond Tryonia Pseudotryonia adamantina, Gonzales Tryonia circumstriata, Pecos Amphipod Gammarus pecos, and Pecos Assiminea pecos, and the federally threatened Pecos Sunflower. Some degree of protection is afforded the inhabitants of the ciénega at Diamond-Y Springs in that The Nature Conservancy owns 1,600 ha that encompass it and is committed to its maintenance and perpetuation. Unfortunately, while state water law would allow The Nature Conservancy to pump as much of the water that they “own” beneath their land, it does not allow them to protect this “owned” water. Additionally, the Diamond-Y Springs is adjacent to an active oil and gas extraction field. Working wells are within 100 m of surface water, a natural gas refinery is 30 m upslope from the spring, and old brine pits are just a few meters away (Garrett et al. in press). McKittrick Creek NFCA (Guadalupe Mountains) is unique in that it supports a population of introduced Rainbow Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. The stream could be a viable option for creating sustainable populations of Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis and/or Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora. The Balmorhea Springs Complex, Davis Mountains streams and McKittrick Creek connect to the Pecos River only during extremely high water events. The Devils River NFCA is situated in an ecological transition zone at the confluence of three biotic provinces (Chihuahuan, Balconian and Tamaulipan) and as a result supports a high level of aquatic biodiversity and endemism. This NFCA includes the Devils River which extends 100 km from its headwaters at Pecan Springs to Amistad International Reservoir and San Felipe Creek in Del Rio. Streams in this NFCA are fed by the Edwards-Trinity Plateau Aquifer. The primary threat is groundwater extraction and the resultant reduction or loss of spring flows. In addition to the focal fish species, other species of concern include the Rio Grande Cooter, Spring Salamander Eurycea spp. and endemic spring invertebrates. American Beaver also inhabit the river, but suffer from habitat loss, changes to the natural hydrological regime, competition with the Nutria Myocastor coypus, decreased food supply and the presence of the invasive and exotic giant reed and saltcedar. Although most of the Devils River flows through private property, several conservation areas and initiatives exist within the basin. The TPWD currently protects 15,000 hectares in the Devils River State Natural Area. In addition, The Nature Conservancy owns and manages the 1,900-hectare Dolan Falls Preserve and a total of 63,000 hectares of private and public lands are currently under conservation easements (CEC 2014). A multi-species, ecosystem approach to species conservation provides an improved method for addressing the common nature and magnitude of threats facing ecosystems and their component species. It is also improves efficiency, cost effectiveness and is more likely to succeed. This plan is designed to

Page | 188 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need coordinate projects to improve water quality, increase water quantity, restore natural habitats, reduce impacts of non-native species, diminish stream system fragmentation, and restore proper function of springs, creeks, rivers, and riparian areas. It will only be effective if it is able to inform and influence water management, land-use planning and zoning, and land-management decisions that will determine current and future conditions of rivers and streams and the associated habitat quality for native fishes. Additionally, to provide long-term benefits to focal species populations, conservation actions must be coordinated at sufficient scales to meet all life history stages of these species and must adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to develop a holistic, habitat-oriented approach to conservation of focal species, restore and protect habitat, restore habitat connectivity and reduce deleterious effects of non-native species. Threat factors need to be delineated and prioritized based on threat level and what can be managed. Currently known threats in the Chihuahuan Desert NFCAs are identified in the species accounts at the end of this document and include: a. habitat fragmentation b. barriers to migration c. loss of natural flow regime d. reduced stream flow e. spring flow declines f. channel narrowing and sediment accumulation g. groundwater pollution h. habitat loss i. non-native species – habitat modification, hybridization, competition and predation Objective 1: Protect and maintain intact, healthy habitats • Determine locations and extent of healthy habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in healthy habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for protection actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze current data, define challenges, determine conservation methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Maintain floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Maintain appropriate sediment transport and avoid channel narrowing. o Maintain native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor conservation efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations Objective 2: Restore impacted habitats • Determine locations, extent and type of impacted habitats.

Page | 189 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in impacted habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for restoration actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze data, define challenges, determine restoration methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Where feasible, restore floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Restore appropriate sediment transport and reduce channel narrowing. o Restore native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to improve appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor restoration efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations. Objective 3: Restore stream and habitat connectivity • Inventory fish passage barriers and delineate impacts on ecology of focal species. • Where feasible, diminish or remove fish passage barriers and restore aquatic connectivity. Objective 4: Mitigate effects of invasive species • Assess current status of focal species affected by invasive species. • Develop methods for reducing non-native species in targeted areas. • Develop methods to prevent introductions of invasive species and minimize impacts of existing invasive species. • Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by non-native, invasive or problem species. • Reestablish genetic integrity of hybridized populations in targeted areas. Objective 5: Organize networks of public and private landowners • Provide technical guidance workshops, newsletters, social media, etc. to facilitate development and expansion of local citizen-based partnerships. • Landowner networks should be committed to the cooperative conservation of land and water resources within the watershed. • Landowner networks should promote values of functional upland, riparian, and stream systems and emphasize the conservation of native fish communities and supporting habitats. • Landowner networks should work to reduce or eliminate activities on the landscape that degrade water quality, reduce water quantity, degrade riparian systems, favor non-native species, or fragment stream systems. • Landowner networks should encourage an array of sustainable land-use activities that are compatible with aquatic resource conservation. • Landowner networks promote collaboration across jurisdictional and land ownership boundaries. Objective 6: Develop conservation demonstration areas • Provide fishing, paddling, and hiking opportunities. • Promote sustainable public use of rivers.

Page | 190 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Describe benefits to other native species. • Demonstrate best management practices. • Highlight restoration actions through educational kiosks. Objective 7: Conduct research to fill critical information gaps • Identify knowledge gaps critical to restoration and conservation of the focal species. • Design and conduct research as needed to enhance conservation efforts in Objectives 1-4. • Initial sampling at representative locations within each NFCA should be quarterly and include: o Biological characteristics of focal species: population size, population structure (genetics & demographics), fecundity, food habits, habitat selectivity, flow-ecology relationships, associated species o Habitat structure: flow and discharge rates, channel width, channel morphology, substrate types, depth, cover, trends in surrounding land use o Water quality: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, hardness, chemical and biological oxygen demand • Threats and limiting factors for the focal species will determine the scale at which the monitoring is designed. As baseline data are developed, monitoring parameters can be modified and streamlined to address critical issues and needs for the focal species. Objective 8: Adaptive management and reporting • Develop annual and long-term reporting requirements to document acquired data, departures from plan and evaluations necessary for adaptive management. • Determine research needs for refining restoration and management actions. • Periodically modify strategies based on monitoring, evaluation and research results. • Share information with the public in an easy to use and understandable format.

Page | 191 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Big Bend NFCAs (Upper & Lower) Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Campostoma ornatum Mexican Stoneroller Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish Carassius auratus Goldfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Cyprinella lutrensis blairi Maravillas Red Shiner Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Dionda sp. 1 Conchos Roundnose Minnow Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Gambusia gaigei Big Bend Gambusia Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub Cyprinodon eximius Conchos Pupfish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis chihuahua Chihuahua Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis orca Phantom Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis simus simus Rio Grande Bluntnose Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Micropterus salmoides floridanus Florida Largemouth Bass Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace Largemouth Bass Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia

Page | 192 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; sedimentation; loss of spawning habitat Description: Flat, shovel-shaped snout surrounded by barbels; long, slender caudal peduncle flat in cross section and covered with bony scutes; upper lobe of caudal fin is greatly elongated (Hubbs 1958a; Page and Burr 1997; Pflieger 1997). Range in Texas: Currently found in the Red River below Lake Texoma Reservoir (Hubbs et al. 2008). Evidence of the presence of this species in the lower Pecos River during prehistoric times, strongly suggests that it likely occurred in many Texas rivers (Jurgens 2005; Hubbs et al. 2008). Cope and Yarrow (1875) reported Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Rio Grande near Albuquerque. Hubbs et al. (1977) obtained hearsay reports of sturgeon from near Dryden Crossing (Terrell County) and from Mexican tributaries in Coahuila. It is assumed to now be rare or extirpated in the Rio Grande and Pecos basins. Habitat: Frequently inhabits flowing water over sandy bottoms or near rocky points or bars (Bailey and Cross 1954; Page and Burr 1997; Pflieger 1997; Keenlyne 1997). Biology: Shovelnose Sturgeon feed by raking the bottom with sensitive barbels; bulk of the diet made up of aquatic insect larvae (Lee 1980). Spawning normally occurs from April through early July with mature Shovelnose Sturgeon migrating upriver to spawn over rocky substrates in flowing water. Larval fish drift in the water column for up to 12 days after hatching before settling out of the water column to begin the benthic phase of life (Kynard et al. 2002; Braaten and Fuller 2007). Adults do not spawn every year; frequency of spawning is influenced by food supply and ability to store adequate fat to produce gametes (Keenlyne 1997).

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963).

Page | 193 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range in Texas: Occurs in coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Campbell (1962) noted they were common, but not abundant as far upstream as Presidio. Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede upstream migration and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Occurs in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984; Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: Carnivorous, main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Page | 194 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Campostoma ornatum Mexican Stoneroller (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; competition with introduced Plains Killifish Description: Most adults have mottled coloration typical of the genus; juveniles generally lack mottling but frequently have a dark mid-lateral stripe extending from snout to caudal peduncle and terminating in a small basicaudal spot; fins are typically transparent in both sexes, but the dorsal fin may have a black band prior to and during breeding season (Burr 1976). Range: Occurs primarily in Mexico and ranges into Texas in Rio Grande tributaries in Brewster and Presidio counties (Hubbs 1940; Hubbs 1954; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Favors gravel runs or gravel-bottom pools in shallow headwaters of tributaries; vegetation may or may not be present (Burr 1976). Biology: Herbivorous, bottom feeder (Contreras-Balderas 1977) with a diet consisting mainly of diatoms, bacteria and algae (Burr 1976). Spawns in winter and spring (Hubbs and Wauer 1973). In Cienega Creek (tributary of Alamito Creek) on Big Bend Ranch State Park, there are only two fish species (C. ornatum and Lepomis cyanellus) and in an unpublished study (Garrett 1989) Mexican Stoneroller was found to have 75% relative abundance. In collections from Tornillo Creek, prior to the introduction of F. zebrinus (around 1954), C. ornatum was the most abundant fish (Hubbs and Wauer 1973). In the period from 1967 to 1970, Hubbs and Wauer (1973) found that the relative abundance of this species in Tornillo Creek ranged from 0 to 17% and occurred in only 5 of 11 samples. Apparently, the introduced Fundulus zebrinus caused displacement of C. ornatum.

Cyprinella lutrensis blairi Maravillas Red Shiner (no image available) Status: likely extinct Threats in Lower Big Bend NFCA: competition with introduced Plains Killifish Description: Well-developed black mark between mandibles extends to opposite the root of the mandibles; shoulder bar very prominent; dorsal and lateral scales with dark margins that form a cross- hatched pattern on the body; snout broadly rounded in top and side views; small eye (Hubbs 1940). Cyprinella l. blairi differs from C. l. lutrensis in having a smaller dorsal fin with a more posterior origin, a thicker body and a more rounded muzzle (Hubbs 1940). Range: Garden Springs and Peña Colorado Creek in the Maravillas Creek drainage (Hubbs 1940; Miller et al. 1989; Scharpf 2005). Likely replaced by introduced Fundulus zebrinus (Miller et al. 1989). Habitat: Peña Colorado Creek flows between clay banks in a desert flat, over mud and stones, forming pools, riffles and narrow swift sections; some vegetation present (Hubbs 1940). Biology: Unknown.

Page | 195 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Dionda sp. 1 Conchos Roundnose Minnow (Image Credit: Kevin Conway) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe extends from snout to base of caudal and ends in a round spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs 1958a). Range: Río Conchos and tributaries (e.g., Cibolo, Alamito, Terlingua and Tornillo creeks) in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande (Schönhuth et al. 2012). Habitat: Prefers clear, spring-fed waters of tributaries (Hubbs 1958a). Biology: Unknown, but likely similar to Dionda argentosa with a peak in reproduction during the fall (Cantu and Winemiller 1997).

Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Back and upper sides silvery to olive with broad, greenish mid-dorsal stripe on lower sides and abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Subterminal mouth extends horizontally to almost the anterior margin of the orbit; snout is rounded and overhangs the upper lip when viewed ventrally; eye is small and orbit diameter is much less than gape width or snout length (Bestgen and Propst 1996). Range: Historically was one of the most abundant and widespread of the native fishes in the Rio Grande and Pecos River, from northern New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico. More recently, until reintroductions began in the Big Bend region, the fish only occurred in New Mexico occupying about seven percent of its historical range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

Page | 196 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: During its various life stages, the Rio Grande silvery minnow uses relatively shallow, low-velocity habitats with sandy and silty substrates, historically inhabiting a meandering river that included a diversity of aquatic habitats including side channels, oxbows, and backwaters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Most often found in areas of low or moderate water velocity (e.g., eddies formed by debris piles, pools, backwaters and embayments) and is rarely found in habitats with high water velocities, such as main channel runs (Dudley and Platania 1997, Watts et al. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Biology: Important food components include macroinvertebrates, aufwuch and epipsammic algae on benthic substrates (Cowley et al. 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is a pelagic spawner (Platania 1995) that produces thousands of semibuoyant, non-adhesive eggs that passively drift while developing (Platania and Altenbach 1998). Spawning is associated with high and/or increased flow events such as spring runoff or summer rainstorms, and typically occurs over a relatively brief period in May or June (Platania and Dudley 2006).

Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides covered in fine speckles; the mouth is ventral with a pair of barbels on the upper jaw (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to streams of the Rio Grande and Río San Fernando (Eisenhour 2004). Found throughout the Rio Grande and lower Pecos (FoTX database), but occurs most frequently between the Río Conchos confluence and the Pecos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in flowing water over small-gravel riffles or coarse sands (Eisenhour 2004; Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Diet consists of small insects, crustaceans and plant material; sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005). Pelagic, broadcast spawner producing semibuoyant eggs that develop as they drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Page | 197 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Distinct lateral stripe terminates in a basicaudal spot (Miller et al. 2005). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande (including the Devils River and lower Pecos River) in Texas and Río Conchos in Mexico (Edwards et al. 2004). Habitat: Rocky and sandy channels of large creeks and small to medium rivers over substrates of rock and gravel to silt and mud (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Typically does not exhibit narrow ecological limitations (Treviño 1955). Biology: Diet consists primarily of aquatic insects (Contreras-Balderas 1977). Spawns December to July (Miller et al. 2005). Population abundance in Texas has declined in recent decades (Hubbs et al. 2008), with collections during the 1990s yielding no Tamaulipas Shiners below Amistad Reservoir to the mouth of the river. The decline in abundance is likely due to reservoir construction, dewatering of stream courses, and decreases in water quantity and quality (Edwards et al. 2004). Conversely, collections in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande from 1977–2006 indicated that relative abundance had increased (Hubbs et al. 1977; Garrett and Edwards 2014).

Notropis chihuahua Chihuahua Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides of body with scattered, large melanophores (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Occurs only sporadically in tributaries in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande, but is currently abundant in tributaries of the Río Conchos (Edwards et al. 2002). Habitat: Typically in clear water with nearby springs, over gravel or sandy bottoms (Burr 1980; Burr and Mayden 1981) without dense vegetation (Hubbs 1958a). Biology: Feeds on small, aquatic insects; spawns from March through August (Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 198 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mostly plain silvery, except for a faint dusky band; eye diameter equal to length of snout (Koster 1957) Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin, including the Rio Grande, Pecos River (New Mexico and Texas), and the ríos Conchos, San Juan and Salado drainages of Mexico. Although once abundant throughout the basin (Treviño 1955; Treviño-Robinson 1959), it is now sparsely distributed in Texas in the Rio Grande downstream from the Río Conchos confluence to Amistad Reservoir and in Independence Creek in the lower Pecos River (Edwards et al. 2002). None have been taken below Amistad Reservoir since the mid- 1990s (Edwards et al. 2004) or in New Mexico since 1949 (Platania 1991). This species has not been collected in Independence Creek since 1991 or in the lower Pecos River since 1987 (Hoagstrom 2003; Bonner et al. 2005). Habitat: Main channel of rivers and streams over sand and small-gravel riffles with sparse vegetation (Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Primarily carnivorous-omnivorous (Sublette et al. 1990). Pelagic spawner with eggs and larvae that drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Notropis orca Phantom Shiner (Image © W. H. Brandenburg) Status: likely extinct Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species

Page | 199 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Pallid with little pigmentation; posterior edge of jaw does not reach pupil; eye small, slightly shorter than snout; dorsal fin insertion well behind insertion of pelvic fin, nearer base of caudal than snout; depth at occiput more than width at occiput (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande and widely distributed from the mouth of the river to central New Mexico, including the lower Pecos River (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al. 1989). Notropis orca was last seen in 1975 when a single adult was collected from the Mexican side of the lower Rio Grande (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al. 1989). Habitat: Uncertain but was collected from shallow riffles over a rocky streambed (Woolman 1894). Biology: Biological requirements are not known as only one specimen has been collected in the last 50 years (Edwards et al. 2004).

Notropis simus simus Rio Grande Bluntnose Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: likely extinct Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Head and body silvery with faint lateral band; mouth subterminal, extending to anterior margin of the eye; snout is blunt and rounded (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Rio Grande Bluntnose Shiner historically inhabited the Rio Grande in New Mexico and Texas (Chernoff et al. 1982; Sublette et al. 1990; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in main river channel over sand, gravel, and silt. Apparently dependent on large flows (Chernoff et al. 1982). Biology: Unknown.

Page | 200 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides are dark or coarsely mottled; the mouth is ventral with a small barbel on the upper jaw (Hubbs 1958a). Range: Inhabits a widespread area of north-central North America south to throughout the Rio Grande in Texas downstream to about Laredo (Hubbs et al. 2008) and the Río Conchos basin in Mexico (Miller et al. 2005). Habitat: Prefers clear, flowing water in gravelly riffles (Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Adults feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates, especially ephemeropterans and dipterans, as well as plant material (Gerald 1966). Spawns in riffles over gravelly bottoms; larvae are benthic (Balon 1990) and fry are pelagic, inhabiting quiet waters inshore (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Morphologically similar to C. elongatus, but lip papillae are longer, extending forward onto end of snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body color of Cycleptus sp. tends to be more golden or brassy than C. elongatus (Burr and Mayden 1999). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin (Bessert 2006). Habitat: Requirements are likely very similar to C. elongatus. Typically found over cobble and bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow; juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983).

Page | 201 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Biology: Diet is likely similar to C. elongatus - invertebrates and periphytic algae (Walburg et al. 1971; Moss et al. 1983). Rio Grande Blue Sucker probably spawns in March and April (Miller et al. 2005). Likely similar to C. elongatus by spawning in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983). As with C. elongatus, adults probably winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn in riffles (Cross 1967). Males likely migrate into spawning area before females (Moss et al. 1983).

Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse (Image Credit: Miller et al. 2005) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Pectoral fin length less than head length; width of eye goes nearly 5.5 times into head length; 47 - 50 scales along the lateral line; closely related, and similar, to the Gray Redhorse (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Pacific coast drainages and Río Conchos system in Mexico to the mid-Rio Grande in Texas (Garrett and Edwards 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). FoTX data shows distribution extends downstream through Maverick County. Habitat: Rocky runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers; often near boulders in swift water (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Nuptial tuberculation and capture of young suggests spring spawning period (Jenkins 1980; Miller et al. 2005).

Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish (Image Credit: Dean Hendrickson) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: habitat loss; hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: 22 to 26 (usually 23-24) anal rays; 38 to 42 (usually 39-41) vertebrae; shallowly forked caudal fin; short pectoral and dorsal spines; robust, heavy-set body, cylindrical in cross section, with a deep caudal peduncle and broad head; pectoral spine with smooth anterior surface and weak posterior serration (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.).

Page | 202 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Historically occurred in the Rio Grande basin of New Mexico and Texas (including the Pecos River), the Río Conchos basin in Chihuahua and the Río San Fernando in Tamaulipas; occurrences in the Davis Mountains include a 1929 sample from Limpia Creek and specimens from Big Aguja Canyon in 1980 (Hubbs et al. 2008; Humphries and Miller, unpubl.; FoTX database). It has also been introduced into the Gila River, western New Mexico. Habitat: Similar to Headwater Catfish, with which it is commonly sympatric except in the Rio Conchos basin; it inhabits the middle to upper parts of moderate to large rivers and also occurs in small, headwater creeks and springs over gravel, rubble, rocks, boulders and mud substrates (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.). Biology: Very little is known about this rare species.

Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Differs in appearance from Blue Catfish in having small spots (1-2 mm) uniformly distributed over back and sides (Wilcox 1960; Graham 1999) and 35-36 anal rays (Knapp 1953). Baird and Girard (1854) originally described it as a unique species, Pimelodus affinis, based in part on the unique coloration pattern. Knapp (1953) considered it a subspecies of Blue Catfish (I. furcatus affinis). Range: Big Bend region of the Rio Grande to the vicinity of Laredo (Garrett and Edwards 2001). Habitat: There are no studies on habitat requirements. Biology: There are no studies on biological aspects.

Page | 203 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. They are likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Gambusia gaigei Big Bend Gambusia (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Lower Big Bend NFCA: habitat loss; spring flow reductions; exotic species Description: Plain, yellowish in color with a faint lateral stripe; suborbital bar and a faint, dark chin bar; the gonopodium has a pronounced elbow, with only one or two segments (Hubbs et al. 2002a).

Page | 204 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Originally occurred in Boquillas Spring and Graham Ranch Warm Springs in present day Big Bend National Park. Currently, several thousand Big Bend Gambusia inhabit two spring pool refuges in the park (Hubbs et al. 2002a). Habitat: The species is often found in dense stands of Chara in the refuge ponds (Hubbs et al. 2002a). Biology: Little is known about most aspects of the life history of this species in its natural environments. It can compete with G. affinis only in stenothermal warm spring environments and is unsuccessful in habitats with more eurythermal conditions (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). All G. gaigei are descendants of the three individuals salvaged in 1956 (Hubbs and Broderick 1963). Big Bend Gambusia presumably reproduces year-round (Hubbs and Mosier 1985).

Cyprinodon eximius Conchos Pupfish (Image Credit: Gary Garrett) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Caudal fin on mature males has black spots on the interradial membranes and the caudal fin bar is relatively wide preceded by a clear band (Miller 1976). Range: Widely distributed in the upper Río Conchos and Río Sauz in Chihuahua, Mexico, Devils River in Texas and Alamito, Terlingua and Tornillo creeks in the Big Bend region of Texas (Miller 1981). It is the most widespread member of the distinctive complex of seven pupfish species in the Chihuahuan Desert Region of north central Mexico and southern Texas (Miller 1976; Minckley 1980). Except for the Devils River population, the other Rio Grande tributary populations are sparse (Garrett et al. 2005). The Devils River population is disjunct and morphologically distinct (Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Miller 1976; Minckley 1980; Hubbs et al. 2008). The population in the Devils River at one time extended from Dolan Creek to the confluence with the Rio Grande (Hubbs and Echelle 1973). Cyprinodon eximius was first taken in the Devils River during surveys by the Texas Game and Fish Commission in 1953 (Hubbs and Garrett 1990). Subsequent activities (e.g., reservoir filling and stream rotenoning) reduced the range to a small portion of the Devils River. In 1979, approximately 200 individuals from the remaining population were transported upstream, above Dolan Falls, to reestablish them in one of their previous locations, Dolan Creek (Garrett 1980; Hubbs and Garrett 1990). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and The Nature Conservancy now own most of Dolan Creek and adjacent habitats in the Devils River. Habitat: Typically in backwaters, stream margins and creek mouths: rarely in headsprings (Minckley 1980; Minckley et al. 1991). Biology: Herbivorous, bottom feeder (Contreras-Balderas 1977). Reproductive characteristics for this species have not been documented (Garrett et al. 2005).

Page | 205 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Big Bend NFCAs: habitat loss; hybridization with Florida Largemouth Bass Description: Glossohyal tooth patch (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980). Genetically distinct based on nuclear microsatellite markers (Lutz-Carrillo et al. 2006). Range: Original distribution thought to be from the Nueces River in Texas to the Río Soto La Marina, Mexico (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980), currently in the upper Devils River. Habitat: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides. Biology: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides.

Page | 206 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Guadalupe Mountains Streams, Davis Mountains Streams, and Pecos River NFCAs Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Prietella phreatophila Mexican Blindcat Carassius auratus Goldfish Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Cyprinella proserpina Proserpine Shiner Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Dionda argentosa Manantial Roundnose Minnow Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Dionda episcopa Roundnose Minnow Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Gila pandora Rio Grande Chub Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Gambusia nobilis Pecos Gambusia Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub Gambusia speciosa Tex-Mex Gambusia Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Cyprinodon bovinus Leon Springs Pupfish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Cyprinodon elegans Comanche Springs Pupfish Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner Cyprinodon pecosensis Pecos Pupfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis megalops West Texas Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis orca Phantom Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis simus pecosensis Pecos Bluntnose Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace Micropterus salmoides floridanus Florida Largemouth Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Bass Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter Moxostoma albidum Longlip Jumprock Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique Tilapia

Page | 207 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; sedimentation; loss of spawning habitat Description: Flat, shovel-shaped snout surrounded by barbels; long, slender caudal peduncle flat in cross section and covered with bony scutes; upper lobe of caudal fin is greatly elongated (Hubbs 1958a; Page and Burr 1997; Pflieger 1997). Range in Texas: Currently found in the Red River below Lake Texoma Reservoir (Hubbs et al. 2008). Evidence of the presence of this species in the lower Pecos River during prehistoric times, strongly suggests that it likely occurred in many Texas rivers (Jurgens 2005; Hubbs et al. 2008). Cope and Yarrow (1875) reported Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Rio Grande near Albuquerque. Hubbs et al. (1977) obtained hearsay reports of sturgeon from near Dryden Crossing (Terrell County) and from Mexican tributaries in Coahuila. It is assumed to now be rare or extirpated in the Rio Grande and Pecos basins. Habitat: Frequently inhabits flowing water over sandy bottoms or near rocky points or bars (Bailey and Cross 1954; Page and Burr 1997; Pflieger 1997; Keenlyne 1997). Biology: Shovelnose Sturgeon feed by raking the bottom with sensitive barbels; bulk of the diet made up of aquatic insect larvae (Lee 1980). Spawning normally occurs from April through early July with mature Shovelnose Sturgeon migrating upriver to spawn over rocky substrates in flowing water. Larval fish drift in the water column for up to 12 days after hatching before settling out of the water column to begin the benthic phase of life (Kynard et al. 2002; Braaten and Fuller 2007). Adults do not spawn every year; frequency of spawning is influenced by food supply and ability to store adequate fat to produce gametes (Keenlyne 1997).

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest

Page | 208 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Occurs in coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Campbell (1962) noted they were common, but not abundant as far upstream as Presidio. Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous, the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Page | 209 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cyprinella proserpina Proserpine Shiner (Image Credit: Gary Garrett) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime Description: Dark stripe between jaws extends to below eye (Hubbs 1954). Dark bar on side behind head (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Extremely limited range includes the Devils and lower Pecos rivers, Las Moras, Pinto and San Felipe creeks in west Texas, and the Río San Carlos in Mexico (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers spring-fed tributaries (Harrell 1978; Bonner et al. 2005) in pools to swift channels and riffles (Matthews 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore feeding on dipterans, lepidopterans, trichopterans, ephemeropterans and coleopterans (Harrell 1978; Watson 2006). Spawns late spring to early fall (Cantu and Winemiller 1997; Bonner et al. 2008).

Dionda argentosa Manantial Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: A black band through eye to snout; small black caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the lower Pecos River drainage below the spring-fed tributaries of Live Oak Creek and Independence Creek, Devils River, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks in Val Verde County (Garrett et al. 1992; Hubbs et al. 2008; Schönhuth et al. 2012).

Page | 210 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Occurs in most mesohabitats in headwaters and runs of spring-influenced waters (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs and Garrett 1990; Hubbs et al. 2008). Biology: Reproduction peaks during the fall in the Devils River, Texas (Cantu and Winemiller 1997). Sympatric with Devils River minnow (D. diaboli) in the Devils River, Sycamore Creek and San Felipe Creek (Schönhuth et al. 2012).

Dionda episcopa Roundnose Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe extends from snout to base of caudal and ends in a round spot (Cope 1880; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Isolated desert springs and spring-fed creeks of the middle Pecos River drainage in southern New Mexico and Texas (Schönhuth et al. 2012). Habitat: Prefers clear, spring-fed waters of tributaries (Hubbs et al. 2008). Biology: Herbivorous (Hlohowskyj et al. 1989; Sublette et al. 1990). Vegetation comprises the bulk of diet (Koster 1957). Spawns over gravel in spring-fed streams (Koster 1957).

Gila pandora Rio Grande Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Davis Mountains Streams NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Back and sides dusky; sides with two darker stripes (Sublette et al. 1990). Breeding individuals with red-orange anal, dorsal and paired fin bases and side of head; orange lower side (Page and Burr 1997). Males commonly have brighter and more intense breeding coloration than females (Rinne 1995).

Page | 211 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Inhabits limited areas of the Rio Grande and Pecos basins in New Mexico and southern Colorado and in the Canadian River in New Mexico (Propst et al. 1987; Propst 1999; Hubbs et al. 2008). Isolated, disjunct population found in Little Aguja Creek, Davis Mountains (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers clear, cool, fast-flowing water over rubble or gravel substrates (Platania 1991; Rinne 1995). Biology: Mid-water carnivore with a diet of zooplankton, aquatic and terrestrial insects, crustaceans and juvenile fishes (Sublette et al. 1990; Zuckerman and Langlois 1990; Bestgen et al. 2003). In spring and early summer, G. pandora apparently moves from pools into riffles to spawn (Koster 1957; Rees et al. 2005).

Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Back and upper sides silvery to olive with broad, greenish mid-dorsal stripe on lower sides and abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Subterminal mouth extends horizontally to almost the anterior margin of the orbit; snout is rounded and overhangs the upper lip when viewed ventrally; eye is small and orbit diameter is much less than gape width or snout length (Bestgen and Propst 1996). Range: Historically was one of the most abundant and widespread of the native fishes in the Rio Grande and Pecos River, from northern New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico. More recently, until reintroductions began in the Big Bend region, the fish only occurred in New Mexico occupying about seven percent of its historical range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Habitat: During its various life stages, the Rio Grande silvery minnow uses relatively shallow, low velocity habitats with sandy and silty substrates, historically inhabiting a meandering river that included a diversity of aquatic habitats including side channels, oxbows, and backwaters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Most often found in areas of low or moderate water velocity (e.g., eddies formed by debris piles, pools, backwaters and embayments) and is rarely found in habitats with high water velocities, such as main channel runs (Dudley and Platania 1997, Watts et al. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Biology: Important food components include macroinvertebrates, aufwuch and epipsammic algae on benthic substrates (Cowley et al. 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is a pelagic spawner (Platania 1995) that produces thousands of semibuoyant, non-adhesive eggs that passively drift while developing (Platania and Altenbach 1998). Spawning is associated with high and/or increased flow events such as spring runoff or summer rainstorms, and typically occurs over a relatively brief period in May or June (Platania and Dudley 2006).

Page | 212 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides covered in fine speckles; the mouth is ventral with a pair of barbels on the upper jaw (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to streams of the Rio Grande and Río San Fernando (Eisenhour 2004). Found throughout the Rio Grande and lower Pecos (FoTX database) but occurs most frequently between the Río Conchos confluence and the Pecos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in flowing water over small-gravel riffles or coarse sands (Eisenhour 2004; Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Diet consists of small insects, crustaceans and plant material; sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005). Pelagic, broadcast spawner producing semibuoyant eggs that develop as they drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Distinct lateral stripe terminates in a basicaudal spot (Miller et al. 2005). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande (including the Devils River and lower Pecos River) in Texas and Río Conchos in Mexico (Edwards et al. 2004).

Page | 213 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Rocky and sandy channels of large creeks and small to medium rivers over substrates of rock and gravel to silt and mud (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Typically does not exhibit narrow ecological limitations (Treviño 1955). Biology: Diet consists primarily of aquatic insects (Contreras-Balderas 1977). Spawns December to July (Miller et al. 2005). Population abundance in Texas has declined in recent decades (Hubbs et al. 2008), with collections during the 1990s yielding no Tamaulipas Shiners below Amistad Reservoir to the mouth of the river. The decline in abundance is likely due to reservoir construction, dewatering of stream courses, and decreases in water quantity and quality (Edwards et al. 2004). Conversely, collections in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande from 1977–2006 indicated that relative abundance had increased (Hubbs et al. 1977; Garrett and Edwards 2014).

Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mostly plain silvery, except for a faint dusky band; eye diameter equal to length of snout (Koster 1957) Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin, including the Rio Grande, Pecos River (New Mexico and Texas), and the Río Conchos, San Juan and Salado drainages of Mexico. Although once abundant throughout the basin (Treviño 1955; Treviño-Robinson 1959), it is now sparsely distributed in Texas in the Rio Grande downstream from the Río Conchos confluence to Amistad Reservoir and in Independence Creek in the lower Pecos River (Edwards et al. 2002). None have been taken below Amistad Reservoir since the mid- 1990s (Edwards et al. 2004) or in New Mexico since 1949 (Platania 1991). This species has not been collected in Independence Creek since 1991 or in the lower Pecos River since 1987 (Hoagstrom 2003; Bonner et al. 2005). Habitat: Main channel of rivers and streams over sand and small-gravel riffles with sparse vegetation (Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Primarily carnivorous-omnivorous (Sublette et al. 1990). Pelagic spawner with eggs and larvae that drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Page | 214 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis megalops West Texas Shiner (Image Credit: Kevin Conway) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dense melanophores on the anterodorsal surface of the head creating a distinct dark stripe along the dorsal surface, extending from the tip of the snout to the occiput. The dark stripe along the dorsal midline of the body is thicker posteriorly, where it is expanded laterally to form a triangular marking (Conway and Kim 2016). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande drainage in Mexico (Coahuila and Nuevo Leon) and Texas in the lower Pecos River, San Felipe Creek, Devils River and Sycamore Creek (Conway and Kim 2016). Habitat: There are no studies on habitat requirements. Biology: There are no studies on biological aspects.

Notropis orca Phantom Shiner (Image © W. H. Brandenburg) Status: likely extinct Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Pallid with little pigmentation. Posterior edge of jaw does not reach pupil; eye small, slightly shorter than snout; dorsal fin insertion well behind insertion of pelvic fin, nearer base of caudal than snout; depth at occiput more than width at occiput (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande and widely distributed from the mouth of the river to central New Mexico, including the lower Pecos River (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al. 1989). Notropis orca was last seen in 1975 when a single adult was collected from the Mexican side of the lower Rio Grande (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al. 1989). Habitat: Uncertain but was collected from shallow riffles over rocky streambed (Woolman 1894). Biology: Biological requirements are not known as only one specimen has been collected in the last 50 years (Edwards et al. 2004).

Page | 215 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis simus pecosensis Pecos Bluntnose Shiner (Image Credit: David Rogowski) Status: federally threatened; state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; reduced water quality; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Head and body silvery with faint lateral band; mouth subterminal, extending to anterior margin of the eye; snout is blunt and rounded (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Pecos Bluntnose Shiner historically inhabited the lower Pecos River prior to the deterioration of habitat and water quality (Hoagstrom 2003). It is likely extirpated from Texas and now limited to the New Mexico portion of the Pecos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in main river channel over sand, gravel, and silt. Apparently dependent on large flows (Chernoff et al. 1982). Biology: Diet is primarily detritus, filamentous algae, and terrestrial invertebrates (Sublette et al. 1990). Spawning in early summer, with occasional spring and late summer spawning (Sublette et al. 1990).

Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides are dark or coarsely mottled; the mouth is ventral with a small barbel on the upper jaw (Hubbs 1958a). Range: Inhabits a widespread area of north-central North America south to throughout the Rio Grande in Texas downstream to about Laredo (Hubbs et al. 2008) and the Río Conchos basin in Mexico (Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 216 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Prefers clear, flowing water in gravelly riffles (Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Adults feed on a variety of aquatic invertebrates, especially ephemeropterans and dipterans, as well as plant material (Gerald 1966). Spawns in riffles over gravelly bottoms; larvae are benthic (Balon 1990) and fry are pelagic, inhabiting quiet waters inshore (Scott and Crossman 1973).

Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Morphologically similar to C. elongatus, but lip papillae are longer, extending forwards onto end of snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body color of Cycleptus sp. tends to be more golden or brassy than C. elongatus (Burr and Mayden 1999). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin (Bessert 2006). Habitat: Requirements are likely very similar to C. elongatus. Typically found over cobble and bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow; juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Diet is likely similar to C. elongatus - invertebrates and periphytic algae (Walburg et al. 1971; Moss et al. 1983). Rio Grande Blue Sucker probably spawns in March and April (Miller et al. 2005). Likely similar to C. elongatus by spawning in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983). As with C. elongatus, adults probably winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn in riffles (Cross 1967). Males likely migrate into spawning area before females (Moss et al. 1983).

Page | 217 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Moxostoma albidum Longlip Jumprock (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Typically with 20 or more lip plicae; 46 to 47 scales along the lateral line. Closely related, and similar, to the Gray Redhorse. Range: Restricted to the lower Rio Grande, lower Pecos and tributaries (e.g., Devils River) and to the upper Rio San Fernando system (Clements et al. 2012). Often sympatric with Gray Redhorse. Habitat: Likely similar to Gray Redhorse - rocky runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers; often near boulders in swift water (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Likely similar to Gray Redhorse - opportunistic, benthic invertivore (Bean and Bonner 2008). Spawns during spring months (Hubbs and Wauer 1973; Jenkins 1980).

Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse (Image Credit: Miller et al. 2005) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Pectoral fin length less than head length; width of eye goes nearly 5.5 times into head length; 47 - 50 scales along the lateral line; closely related, and similar, to the Gray Redhorse (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Pacific coast drainages and Río Conchos system in Mexico to the mid-Rio Grande in Texas (Garrett and Edwards 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). FoTX data shows distribution extends downstream through Maverick County. Habitat: Rocky runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers; often near boulders in swift water (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Nuptial tuberculation and capture of young suggests spring spawning period (Jenkins 1980; Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 218 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish (Image Credit: Dean Hendrickson) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River and Davis Mountains Streams NFCAs: habitat loss; hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: 22 to 26 (usually 23-24) anal rays; 38 to 42 (usually 39-41) vertebrae; shallowly forked caudal fin; short pectoral and dorsal spines; robust, heavy-set body, cylindrical in cross section, with a deep caudal peduncle and broad head; pectoral spine with smooth anterior surface and weak posterior serration (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.). Range: Historically occurred in the Rio Grande basin of New Mexico and Texas (including the Pecos River), the Río Conchos basin in Chihuahua and the Río San Fernando in Tamaulipas; occurrences in the Davis Mountains include a 1929 sample from Limpia Creek and specimens from Big Aguja Canyon in 1980 (Hubbs et al. 2008; Humphries and Miller, unpubl.; FoTX database). It has also been introduced into the Gila River, western New Mexico. Habitat: Similar to Headwater Catfish, with which it is commonly sympatric except in the Rio Conchos basin; it inhabits the middle to upper parts of moderate to large rivers and occurs also in small, headwater creeks and springs over gravel, rubble, rocks, boulders and mud substrates (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.). Biology: Very little is known about this rare species.

Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Differs in appearance from Blue Catfish in having small spots (1-2 mm) uniformly distributed over back and sides (Wilcox 1960; Graham 1999) and 35-36 anal rays (Knapp 1953). Baird and Girard

Page | 219 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

(1854) originally described it as a unique species, Pimelodus affinis, based in part on the unique coloration pattern. Knapp (1953) considered it a subspecies of Blue Catfish (I. furcatus affinis). Range: Big Bend region of the Rio Grande to the vicinity of Laredo (Garrett and Edwards 2001). Habitat: There are no studies on habitat requirements. Biology: There are no studies on biological aspects.

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River and Davis Mountains Streams NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. They are likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Page | 220 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Prietella phreatophila Mexican Blindcat (Image Credit: Jean Krejca) Status: federally endangered; endangered in Mexico; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: aquifer drawdown; groundwater pollution Description: No eyes; pinkish-white, smooth, scaleless body with four pairs of long, whisker-like barbels around the mouth. The adipose fin on the back is joined to the caudal fin. Well-developed pores on the head, linked by canals, form the lateral-line used to detect movement and vibration in the surrounding water (Hendrickson et al. 2001). Range: Subterranean freshwater cave environments in the northern Coahuila, Mexico and Val Verde County, Texas portions of the Edwards-Trinity Aquifer. Habitat: Usually found associated with a silt substrate in still pools at water temperatures of 21 − 31.5ºC (Hendrickson et al. 2001). Biology: Mexican Blindcat has acute hearing and can rapidly perceive the odor or taste of organic debris and invertebrates, such as mosquito larvae (Hendrickson et al. 2001).

Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Image Credit: David Propst) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe Mountains Streams and Davis Mountains Streams NFCAs: habitat loss; hybridization with Rainbow Trout Description: Paired fins uniformly brown or reddish but without a white border; deep red to orangish slash on each side of throat along inner side of dentary bone; large spots concentrated on caudal peduncle in adults (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: The current distribution is one of highly fragmented populations within the Canadian, Pecos and Rio Grande systems in New Mexico (Behnke 1979). It is thought to have been originally present in at least

Page | 221 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Limpia and McKittrick creeks in Texas and possibly elsewhere in the Davis Mountains, but is now extirpated (Garrett and Matlock 1991). Habitat: Originally occupied a variety of fluvial habitats, ranging from first-order streams to the Rio Grande mainstem, now restricted to small headwater streams with gravelly substrates (Behnke 1979, 1980; Pritchard and Cowley 2006) Biology: Opportunistic foragers, feeding mainly on insects and small fishes (Goldstein and Simon 1999; Pritchard and Cowley 2006). Sexual maturity reached at two (males) to three (females) years (Pritchard and Cowley 2006).

Gambusia nobilis Pecos Gambusia (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Davis Mountains Streams NFCA: groundwater pumping; habitat loss; pollution; hybridization with introduced Largespring Gambusia Description: Relatively robust Gambusia, with a caudal peduncle depth approximately two-thirds of the head length; margins of the scale pockets are outlined in black and dorsal fin has a subbasal row of spots; females have a prominent black area on the abdomen that surrounds the anus and anal fin (Hubbs and Springer 1957). Range: Endemic to the Pecos River basin in southeastern New Mexico and western Texas. Restricted to two locations in New Mexico and two in Texas (Balmorhea springs complex and Diamond Y Draw; Hubbs et al. 2002b). Habitat: Stenothermal springs, runs, ciénegas and irrigation canals carrying spring waters (Echelle and Echelle 1980). One or two other Gambusia may also be found in association with G. nobilis but these segregate by habitat (Hubbs et al. 1995). Biology: Pecos Gambusia feed relatively non-selectively, consuming a diversity of food types with an inclination towards amphipods (Hubbs et al. 1978). Like all Gambusia, G. nobilis have internal fertilization and produce live young (Peden 1970; Bednarz 1979).

Page | 222 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cyprinodon bovinus Leon Springs Pupfish (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Davis Mountains Streams NFCA: groundwater pumping; habitat loss; pollution; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Rectangular lateral blotches of female longer than deep; dark terminal caudal bar on adult males; abdomen fully scaled (Baird and Girard 1853; Echelle and Miller 1974; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: The type locality, Leon Springs, no longer exists due to impounding and groundwater pumping (Hubbs 1980). Now only found in a small segment (8–10 km) of Diamond Y Draw, a flood tributary of the Pecos River owned by The Nature Conservancy (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet water near edges of shallow pools, especially in areas with minimal vegetation (Echelle and Miller 1974). Biology: Individuals live about 20–23 months and have a generalized diet of algae and invertebrates; spawning occurs almost year around, but peaks in July (Kennedy 1977).

Cyprinodon elegans Comanche Springs Pupfish (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Davis Mountains Streams NFCA: groundwater pumping; habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow Description: Males possess a unique, speckled color pattern and all individuals have a relatively streamlined body shape (Garrett et al. 2002a). Range: Originally inhabited two isolated spring systems approximately 90 km apart in the Pecos River drainage of west Texas. Groundwater pumping caused the type locality, Comanche Springs, Pecos County, to go dry in 1954 and that population is extinct. The other population is restricted to the Balmorhea

Page | 223 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need springs complex (Phantom, San Solomon, Giffin and East Sandia springs) and three artificial refugia, all near Balmorhea (Reeves County), Texas (Garrett et al. 2002a). Habitat: Modified springs, various irrigation canals and refugia designed to resemble the original natural habitat (Garrett et al. 2002a). Biology: Food is mostly filamentous algae and some snails (Winemiller and Anderson 1997). Breeding occurs over territories maintained by males. Eggs are guarded by the males who aggressively defend their territories against all intruders until the young fish hatch (Itzkowitz 1969).

Cyprinodon pecosensis Pecos Pupfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow; groundwater pumping Description: The only scales on the abdomen are in a patch anterior to the pelvic fins and one posterior to the gill membrane isthmus; males have larger dorsal and anal fins, a dark bar on the distal portion of the caudal fin and an iridescent blue nape (Echelle and Echelle 1978). Females are cryptically colored olive- brown and the dorsal fin is marked by a dark ocellus; young adult males may retain the female color pattern (Garrett 1981a). Range: Originally occurring in the Pecos River system from Roswell, New Mexico to Independence Creek, Terrell County, Texas, its range is now restricted to Salt Creek in Texas and a few locations in New Mexico (Propst 1999). Habitat: Can occur in a wide variety of habitats and water quality conditions, ranging from highly saline sinkholes to typical desert streams (Garrett et al. 2002b). Biology: Opportunistic omnivore, feeding mainly on algae and detritus (Davis 1981). Few adults survive more than one year; winter populations consist primarily of fish born the previous summer (Kodric-Brown 1977, Garrett 1981b). Age at reproductive maturity, ovary size, egg size and egg number vary among populations, and are apparently associated with population density. With the exception of egg size, these reproductive traits can be altered in response to changing environments (Garrett 1982).

Page | 224 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Florida Largemouth Bass; competition with Smallmouth Bass Description: Glossohyal tooth patch (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980). Genetically distinct based on nuclear microsatellite markers (Lutz-Carrillo et al. 2006). Range: Original distribution thought to be from the Nueces River in Texas to the Río Soto La Marina, Mexico (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980), currently in the upper Devils River. Habitat: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides. Biology: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides.

Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Pecos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Throat red in males; 10-12 body bars (Hubbs et al. 2008). Many small red (on male) or black (on female) spots on side; red 1st dorsal fin (faint on female); male has red 2nd dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, also yellow caudal and pectoral fins; olive above (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Endemic to the lower Pecos River and the mainstem and spring-fed tributaries of the Rio Grande from the Pecos River confluence downstream to the Devils River and Dolan, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks (Hubbs et al. 2008). Occasionally found in the Rio Grande as far downstream as Maverick and Webb counties (FoTX database; Platania 1990). Habitat: Runs, riffles, and shorelines with clean cobble substrate having a small amount of attached macrophytes (Platania 1990). Biology: Invertivore; spawns late March to early June; eggs laid on vegetation and on the tops or undersides of rocks (Strawn 1956; Harrell 1980; Page 1983).

Page | 225 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Devils River NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Hypostomus sp. Armadillo Del Rio Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Gambusia krumholzi Spotfin Gambusia Cyprinella proserpina Proserpine Shiner Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Gambusia senilis Blotched Gambusia Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Gambusia speciosa Tex-Mex Gambusia Dionda argentosa Manantial Roundnose Minnow Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Dionda diaboli Devils River Minnow Cyprinodon eximius Conchos Pupfish Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis megalops West Texas Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker Micropterus salmoides floridanus Florida Largemouth Bass Ictiobus niger Black Buffalo Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Moxostoma albidum Longlip Jumprock Largemouth Bass Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique Tilapia Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish

Page | 226 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Occurs in coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Campbell (1962) noted they were common, but not abundant as far upstream as Presidio. Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream

Page | 227 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Cyprinella proserpina Proserpine Shiner (Image Credit: Gary Garrett) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime Description: Dark stripe between jaws extends to below eye (Hubbs 1954). Dark bar on side behind head (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Extremely limited range includes the Devils and lower Pecos rivers, Las Moras, Pinto, and San Felipe creeks in west Texas, and the Río San Carlos in Mexico (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers spring-fed tributaries (Harrell 1978; Bonner et al. 2005) in pools to swift channels and riffles (Matthews 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore feeding on dipterans, lepidopterans, trichopterans, ephemeropterans and coleopterans (Harrell 1978; Watson 2006). Spawns late spring to early fall (Cantu and Winemiller 1997; Bonner et al. 2008).

Page | 228 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Dionda argentosa Manantial Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: A black band through eye to snout; small black caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the lower Pecos River drainage below the spring-fed tributaries of Live Oak Creek and Independence Creek, Devils River, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks in Val Verde County (Garrett et al. 1992; Hubbs et al. 2008; Schönhuth et al. 2012). Habitat: Occurs in most mesohabitats in headwaters and runs of spring-influenced waters (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Hubbs and Garrett 1990; Hubbs et al. 2008). Biology: Reproduction peaks during the fall in the Devils River, Texas (Cantu and Winemiller 1997). Sympatric with Devils River minnow (D. diaboli) in the Devils River, Sycamore Creek and San Felipe Creek (Schönhuth et al. 2012).

Dionda diaboli Devils River Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: federally threatened; state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Darkly outlined scales above the lateral stripe give a cross-hatched appearance; black lateral stripe through the eye and onto the snout; double dashes along the lateral line; black spot on the caudal fin base that is often wedge shaped (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Garrett et al. 2002c). Range: Devils River, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks, Val Verde County, Las Moras (extirpated) and Pinto creeks, Kinney County (Garrett et al. 1992; 2004). Río San Carlos and upper Río Salado basin in Mexico (Scharpf 2005).

Page | 229 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Often found in association with spring outflows over gravel-cobble substrate and adjacent to aquatic macrophytes; may inhabit a microhabitat associated with the interface between spring runs and the river (Hubbs and Garrett 1990). Biology: Likely to spawn in the spring with non-adhesive and demersal eggs, similar to traits reported for D. serena (Hubbs 1951).

Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides covered in fine speckles; the mouth is ventral with a pair of barbels on the upper jaw (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to streams of the Rio Grande and Río San Fernando (Eisenhour 2004). Found throughout the Rio Grande and lower Pecos (FoTX database), but occurs most frequently between the Río Conchos confluence and the Pecos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in flowing water over small-gravel riffles or coarse sands (Eisenhour 2004; Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Diet consists of small insects, crustaceans and plant material; sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005). Pelagic, broadcast spawner producing semibuoyant eggs that develop as they drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Distinct lateral stripe terminates in a basicaudal spot (Miller et al. 2005). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande (including the Devils River and lower Pecos River) in Texas and Río Conchos in Mexico (Edwards et al. 2004).

Page | 230 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mostly plain silvery, except for a faint dusky band; eye diameter equal to length of snout (Koster 1957). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin, including the Rio Grande, Pecos River (New Mexico and Texas), and the Río Conchos, San Juan and Salado drainages of Mexico. Although once abundant throughout the basin (Treviño 1955; Treviño-Robinson 1959), it is now sparsely distributed in Texas in the Rio Grande downstream from the Río Conchos confluence to Amistad Reservoir and in Independence Creek in the lower Pecos River (Edwards et al. 2002). None have been taken below Amistad Reservoir since the mid- 1990s (Edwards et al. 2004) or in New Mexico since 1949 (Platania 1991). This species has not been collected in Independence Creek since 1991 or in the lower Pecos River since 1987 (Hoagstrom 2003; Bonner et al. 2005). Habitat: Main channel of rivers and streams over sand and small-gravel riffles with sparse vegetation (Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Primarily carnivorous-omnivorous (Sublette et al. 1990). Pelagic spawner with eggs and larvae that drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Page | 231 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis megalops West Texas Shiner (Image Credit: Kevin Conway) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dense melanophores on the anterodorsal surface of the head creating a distinct dark stripe along the dorsal surface, extending from the tip of the snout to the occiput. The dark stripe along the dorsal midline of the body is thicker posteriorly, where it is expanded laterally to form a triangular marking (Conway and Kim 2016). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande drainage in Mexico (Coahuila and Nuevo Leon) and Texas in the lower Pecos River, San Felipe Creek, Devils River and Sycamore Creek (Conway and Kim 2016). Habitat: There are no studies on habitat requirements. Biology: There are no studies on biological aspects.

Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Morphologically similar to C. elongatus, but lip papillae are longer, extending forward onto end of snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body color of Cycleptus sp. tends to be more golden or brassy than C. elongatus (Burr and Mayden 1999). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin (Bessert 2006).

Page | 232 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Requirements are likely very similar to C. elongatus. Typically found over cobble and bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow; juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Diet is likely similar to C. elongatus - invertebrates and periphytic algae (Walburg et al. 1971; Moss et al. 1983). Rio Grande Blue Sucker probably spawns in March and April (Miller et al. 2005). Likely similar to C. elongatus by spawning in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983). As with C. elongatus, adults probably winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn in riffles (Cross 1967). Males likely migrate into spawning area before females (Moss et al. 1983).

Moxostoma albidum Longlip Jumprock (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Typically with 20 or more lip plicae; 46 to 47 scales along the lateral line. Closely related, and similar, to the Gray Redhorse. Range: Restricted to the lower Rio Grande and tributaries (e.g., Devils River) and to the upper Rio San Fernando system (Clements et al. 2012). Often sympatric with Gray Redhorse. Habitat: Likely similar to Gray Redhorse - rocky runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers; often near boulders in swift water (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Likely similar to Gray Redhorse - opportunistic, benthic invertivore (Bean and Bonner 2008). Spawns during spring months (Hubbs and Wauer 1973; Jenkins 1980).

Ictalurus sp. Chihuahua Catfish (Image Credit: Dean A. Hendrickson) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Channel Catfish

Page | 233 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: 22 to 26 (usually 23-24) anal rays; 38 to 42 (usually 39-41) vertebrae; shallowly forked caudal fin; short pectoral and dorsal spines; robust, heavy-set body, cylindrical in cross section, with a deep caudal peduncle and broad head; pectoral spine with smooth anterior surface and weak posterior serration (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.). Range: Historically occurred in the Rio Grande basin of New Mexico and Texas (including the Pecos River), the Río Conchos basin in Chihuahua and the Río San Fernando in Tamaulipas; occurrences in the Davis Mountains include a 1929 sample from Limpia Creek and specimens from Big Aguja Canyon in 1980 (Hubbs et al. 2008; Humphries and Miller, unpubl.; FoTX database). It has also been introduced into the Gila River, western New Mexico. Habitat: Similar to Headwater Catfish, with which it is commonly sympatric except in the Rio Conchos basin; it inhabits the middle to upper parts of moderate to large rivers and also occurs in small, headwater creeks and springs over gravel, rubble, rocks, boulders and mud substrates (Humphries and Miller, unpubl.). Biology: Very little is known about this rare species.

Ictalurus sp. Rio Grande Blue Catfish (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Differs in appearance from Blue Catfish in having small spots (1-2 mm) uniformly distributed over back and sides (Wilcox 1960; Graham 1999) and 35-36 anal rays (Knapp 1953). Baird and Girard (1854) originally described it as a unique species, Pimelodus affinis, based in part on the unique coloration pattern. Knapp (1953) considered it a subspecies of Blue Catfish (I. furcatus affinis). Range: Big Bend region of the Rio Grande to the vicinity of Laredo (Garrett and Edwards 2001). Habitat: There are no studies on habitat requirements. Biology: There are no studies on biological aspects.

Page | 234 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. It is likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Gambusia krumholzi Spotfin Gambusia (Image Credit: Robert Edwards) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss; water quality from urban pollution Description: Dark scale margins (3–5 melanophores in width) give a strong cross-hatched appearance throughout the body; both the middorsal stripe and lateral band are broad, however the lateral band is

Page | 235 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need somewhat obscured by the cross-hatched pattern on the scales; there is no subocular bar and no spotting pattern on the caudal fin (Minckley 1963; Garrett and Edwards 2003). Range: Endemic to San Felipe and Sycamore creeks in Texas, ríos San Diego and la Compuerta in Mexico (Echelle et al. 2013). Habitat: Prefers densely vegetated, edge or quiet water habitats in close association with areas of swift flows (Edwards and Garrett 2006). Biology: Stomach content analysis revealed large quantities of filamentous green algae; however, this may be a result of incidental ingestion with other prey (Garrett and Edwards 2003).

Gambusia senilis Blotched Gambusia (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss Description: Dusky stripe (about 1-scale deep) along side; dark scale outlines (often appearing as black crescents) and black spots (often poorly developed on male) on lower side; usually a large black teardrop (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Primarily within the Río Conchos drainage of Chihuahua, Mexico; known from the Devils River in Texas (Hubbs and Springer 1957; Hubbs 1958b; Edwards et al. 2002), but likely extirpated (Edwards et al. 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Springs, marshes, channels, vegetated quiet pools and backwaters (Minckley et al. 1991, Page and Burr 1997). Biology: Feeds on invertebrates, fish and sometimes algae; ovoviviparous, reproducing year around (Lozano-Vilano et al. 2009).

Cyprinodon eximius Conchos Pupfish (Image Credit: Gary Garrett) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; hybridization with Sheepshead Minnow

Page | 236 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Caudal fin on mature males has black spots on the interradial membranes and the caudal fin bar is relatively wide preceded by a clear band (Miller 1976). Range: Widely distributed in the upper Río Conchos and Río Sauz in Chihuahua, Mexico, Devils River in Texas and Alamito, Terlingua and Tornillo creeks in the Big Bend region of Texas (Miller 1981). It is the most widespread member of the distinctive complex of seven pupfish species in the Chihuahuan Desert Region of north central Mexico and southern Texas (Miller 1976; Minckley 1980). Except for the Devils River population, the other Rio Grande tributary populations are sparse (Garrett et al. 2005). The Devils River population is disjunct and morphologically distinct (Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Miller 1976; Minckley 1980; Hubbs et al. 2008). The population in the Devils River at one time extended from Dolan Creek to the confluence with the Rio Grande (Hubbs and Echelle 1973). Cyprinodon eximius was first taken in the Devils River during surveys by the Texas Game and Fish Commission in 1953 (Hubbs and Garrett 1990). Subsequent activities (e.g., reservoir filling and stream rotenoning) reduced the range to a small portion of the Devils River. In 1979, approximately 200 individuals from the remaining population were transported upstream, above Dolan Falls, to reestablish them in one of their previous locations, Dolan Creek (Garrett 1980; Hubbs and Garrett 1990). The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and The Nature Conservancy now own most of Dolan Creek and adjacent habitats in the Devils River. Habitat: Typically in backwaters, stream margins and creek mouths: rarely in headsprings (Minckley 1980; Minckley et al. 1991). Biology: Herbivorous, bottom feeder (Contreras-Balderas 1977). Reproductive characteristics for this species have not been documented (Garrett et al. 2005).

Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Florida Largemouth Bass; competition with Smallmouth Bass Description: Glossohyal tooth patch (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980). Genetically distinct based on nuclear microsatellite markers (Lutz-Carrillo et al. 2006). Range: Original distribution thought to be from the Nueces River in Texas to the Río Soto La Marina, Mexico (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980), currently in the upper Devils River. Habitat: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides. Biology: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides.

Page | 237 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Devils River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Throat red in males; 10-12 body bars (Hubbs et al. 2008). Many small red (on male) or black (on female) spots on side; red 1st dorsal fin (faint on female); male has red 2nd dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, also yellow caudal and pectoral fins; olive above (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Endemic to the lower Pecos River and the mainstem and spring-fed tributaries of the Rio Grande from the Pecos River confluence downstream to the Devils River and Dolan, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks (Hubbs et al. 2008); occasionally found in the Rio Grande as far downstream as Maverick and Webb counties (FoTX database; Platania 1990). Habitat: Runs, riffles, and shorelines with clean cobble substrate having a small amount of attached macrophytes (Platania 1990). Biology: Invertivore; spawns late March to early June; eggs laid on vegetation and on the tops or undersides of rocks (Strawn 1956; Harrell 1980; Page 1983).

Literature Cited

Bailey, R.M. and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the American genus Scaphirhynchus: characters, distribution, and synonymy. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 39:169- 208. Bailey, R.M. and C.L. Hubbs. 1949. The black basses (Micropterus) of Florida with description of a new species. Occasional Papers Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 516:1-43. Baird, S.F. and C. Girard. 1853. Descriptions of new species of fishes collected by Mr. John H. Clark, on the U. S. and Mexican Boundary Survey, under Lt. Col. Jas. D. Graham. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science Philadelphia 6:387-390. Baird, S.F. and C. Girard. 1854. Descriptions of new species of fishes collected in Texas, New Mexico and Sonora, by Mr. John H. Clark, on the U.S. and Mexican Boundary Survey, and in Texas by Capt. Stewart Van Vliet, U.S.A. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Science Philadelphia 7:24-29. Balon, E.K. 1990. Epigenesis of an epigeneticist: the development of some alternative concepts on the early ontogeny and evolution of fishes. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 1:1-48. Bean, P.T. and T.H. Bonner. 2008. Diet and reproduction of the gray redhorse (Moxostoma congestum) in a Texas Hill Country stream and reservoir. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 23:397-404.

Page | 238 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Bean, P.T., J.T. Jackson, D.J. McHenry, T.H. Bonner and M.R.J. Forstner. 2011. Rediscovery of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Ictaluridae) in a western Gulf-Slope drainage. Southwestern Naturalist 56:287–291. Bednarz, J. 1979. Ecology and status of the Pecos gambusia, Gambusia nobilis (Poeciliidae), in New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 24:311–322. Behnke, R.J. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North America. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Lakewood, Colorado. Behnke, R.J. 1980. Salmo clarki (Richardson), Cutthroat trout. Page 105 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Bennett, J., B. Brauch and K. Urbanczyk. 2012. Estimating ground water contribution from the Edwards- Trinity Plateau Aquifer to the Big Bend reach of the Rio Grande, Texas. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 44:2. Bessert, M.L. 2006. Molecular systematics and population structure in the North American endemic fish genus Cycleptus (Teleostei: Catostomidae). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Bestgen, K.R., R.I. Compton, K.A. Zelasko and J.E. Alves. 2003. Distribution and status of Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 135, Larval Fish Laboratory, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. Bestgen, K.R. and D.L. Propst. 1996. Redescription, geographic variation, and taxonomic status of the Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus (Girard 1856). Copeia 1996:41-55. Bonham, K. 1941. Food of gars in Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 70:356-362. Bonner, T.H., C. Thomas, C.S. Williams and J.P. Karges. 2005. Temporal assessment of a west Texas stream fish assemblage. Southwestern Naturalist 50:74-106. Bonner, T.H., J.M. Watson and C.S. Williams. 2008. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 81:365-366. Braaten, P.J. and D.B. Fuller. 2007. Growth rates of young-of-year shovelnose sturgeon in the upper Missouri River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23:506-515. Burr, B.M. 1976. A review of the Mexican stoneroller, Campostoma ornatum Girard (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 18:127-144. Burr, B.M. 1980. Notropis chihuahua (Woolman), Chihuahua shiner. Page 251 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1981. Systematics, distribution, and life history notes on Notropis chihuahua (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Copeia 1981:255-265. Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1999. A new species of Cycleptus (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) from Gulf Slope drainages of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with a review of the distribution, biology, and conservation status of the genus. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 20:19-57. Campbell, L.S. 1962. Basic survey and inventory of species in the Rio Grande River of Texas in Region 3-B. Job No. B-15. Job Completion Report. Federal Aid Project F-5-R-8. Cantu, N.E.V. and K.O. Winemiller. 1997. Structure and habitat associations of Devils River fish assemblages. Southwestern Naturalist 42:265-278. CEC. 2014. Conservation assessment for the Big Bend-Río Bravo region: A binational collaborative approach to conservation. M.D. Wesson, C. Hallmich, J. Bennett, C. Sifuentes Lugo, A. Garcia, A.M.

Page | 239 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Roberson, J. Karges and G.P. Garrett, editors. Montreal QC: Commission for Environmental Cooperation. Chernoff, B., R.R. Miller and C.R. Gilbert. 1982. Notropis orca and Notropis simus, cyprinid fishes from the American Southwest, with description of a new subspecies. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 698:1-49. Clements, M.D., H.L. Bart Jr. and D.L. Hurley. 2012. A different perspective on the phylogenetic relationships of the Moxostomatini (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) based on cytochrome-b and Growth Hormone intron sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 63:159–167. Contreras-Balderas, S. 1977. Speciation aspects and man-made community composition changes in Chihuahuan Desert fishes. Pages 405-431 in Transactions of the Symposium on the Biological Resources of the Chihuahuan Desert Region United States and Mexico (R.H. Wauer and D.H. Riskind, editors). National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series 3. Conway, K.W. and D. Kim. 2016. Redescription of the Texas Shiner Notropis amabilis from the southwestern United States and northern Mexico with the reinstatement of N. megalops (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 26:305-340. Cope, E.D. 1880. On the zoological position of Texas. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 17:1- 51. Cope, E.D. and H.C. Yarrow. 1875. Report upon the collection of fishes made in portions of Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona during the years 1871-1874. Chapter 6, Pages 645- 703 in United States Army Engineers Department Report, in charge of George M. Wheeler. Geography and Geology of the Explorations and Surveys West of the 100th meridian 5:1-1021. Cowley, D.E., P.D. Shirey and M.D. Hatch. 2006. Ecology of the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Cyprinidae: Hybognathus amarus) inferred from specimens collected in 1874. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:111–125. Cross, F.B. 1967. Handbook of fishes of Kansas. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publications No. 45, Lawrence. Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Institute of Marine Science 5:353-406. Darnell, R.M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake Pontchartrain. Ecology 42:553-568. Davis, J.R. 1981. Diet of the Pecos River pupfish, Cyprinodon pecosensis (Cyprinodontidae). Southwestern Naturalist 25:535–540. Dean, D.J. and J.C. Schmidt. 2011. The role of feedback mechanisms in historic channel changes of the lower Rio Grande in the Big Bend region. Geomorphology 126:333–349. Dean, D.J., M.L. Scott, P.B. Shafroth and J.C. Schmidt. 2011. Stratigraphic, sedimentologic, and dendrogeomorphic analyses of rapid floodplain formation along the Rio Grande in Big Bend National Park, Texas. Geological Society of America Bulletin 123:1908–1925. Donnelly, A.C.A. 2007. Groundwater availability run. Austin (TX); Texas Water Development Board; 15 p. Report No. 06-16. Dudley, R.K. and S.P. Platania. 1997. Habitat use of Rio Grande silvery minnow. Report to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Page | 240 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Echelle, A.A. and A.F. Echelle. 1978. The Pecos River pupfish, Cyprinodon pecosensis n. sp. (Cyprinodontidae), with comments on its evolutionary origin. Copeia 1978:569–582. Echelle, A.A. and A.F. Echelle. 1980. Status of the Pecos gambusia, Gambusia nobilis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Endangered Species Report 10:1–73. Echelle, A.A., M.L. Lozano Vilano, S. Baker, W.D. Wilson, A.F. Echelle, G.P. Garrett and R.J. Edwards. 2013. Conservation genetics of Gambusia krumholzi (Teleostei: Poeciliidae) with assessment of the species status of G. clarkhubbsi and hybridization with G. speciosa. Copeia 2013:72–79. Echelle, A.A. and R.R. Miller. 1974. Rediscovery and redescription of the Leon Springs pupfish, Cyprinodon bovinus, from Pecos County, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 9:179–190. Edwards, R.J. 1980. The ecology and geographic variation of the Guadalupe bass, Micropterus treculi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Edwards, R.J. and G.P. Garrett. 2006. Aspects of the life history of the San Felipe gambusia, Gambusia clarkhubbsi: Habitat utilization patterns. (Aspectos de la historia de vida del gambusino de San Felipe, Gambusia clarkhubbsi: Patrones de utilización del hábitat.) Pages 40-46 in Studies of North American desert fishes in honor of E.P. (Phil) Pister, conservationist (M.L. Lozano-Vilano and A.J. Contreras- Balderas, editors), Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and N.L. Allan. 2004. Aquifer-dependent fishes of the Edwards Plateau region. Pages 253-268 in Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau (R.E. Mace, E.S. Angle and W.F. Mullican, III, editors). Report 360, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and E. Marsh-Matthews. 2002. Conservation and status of the fish communities inhabiting the Río Conchos basin and middle Rio Grande, Mexico and U.S.A. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:119-132. Eisenhour, D.J. 2004. Systematics, variation, and speciation of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex west of the Mississippi River. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 23:9-48. Everitt, B.L. 1998. Chronology of the spread of tamarisk in the central Rio Grande. Wetlands 18:658–668. Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Center Sandy Hook Laboratory Technical Series Report 17. Garrett, G.P. 1980. Update on some of the protected and endangered fishes of Texas. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 11:34–36. Garrett, G.P. 1981a. Unusual secondary sex characteristics in Cyprinodon or puzzling pupfish patterns. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 12:41–48. Garrett, G.P. 1981b. Variation in reproductive strategy in the Pecos pupfish, Cyprinodon pecosensis. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Garrett, G.P. 1982. Variation in the reproductive traits of the Pecos pupfish, Cyprinodon pecosensis. American Midland Naturalist 108:355–363. Garrett, G.P., M.G. Bean, R.J. Edwards, and D.A. Hendrickson. In press. Mining Hidden Waters: Groundwater Depletion, Aquatic Habitat Degradation and Loss of Fish Diversity in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecoregion of Texas. In D. L. Propst, J. E. Williams, K. R. Bestgen and C. W. Hoagstrom, editors. Standing between life and extinction: Ethics and ecology of conserving aquatic species in the American Southwest. University of Chicago Press.

Page | 241 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards. 2001. Regional ecology and environmental issues. Aquifers of West Texas, Report 356. Texas Water Development Board. Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards. 2003. New species of Gambusia (Cyprinodontiformes: Poeciliidae) from Del Rio, Texas. Copeia 2003:783-788. Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards. 2014. Changes in fish populations in the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande. Pages 396–408 in Proceedings of the sixth symposium on the natural resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region (C.A. Hoyt and J. Karges, editors). Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute, Fort Davis, TX. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/62996 Garrett, G.P., R.J. Edwards and C. Hubbs. 2004. Discovery of a new population of Devils River minnow (Dionda diaboli), with implications for conservations of the species. Southwestern Naturalist 49:435- 441. Garrett, G.P., R.J. Edwards and A.H. Price. 1992. Distribution and status of the Devils River minnow, Dionda diaboli. Southwestern Naturalist 37:259-267. Garrett, G.P., C. Hubbs and R.J. Edwards. 2002a. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinodon elegans Baird & Girard, 1853 (Cyprinodontidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:288-288. Garrett, G.P., C. Hubbs and R.J. Edwards. 2002b. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinodon pecosensis Echelle & Echelle, 1978 (Cyprinodontidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:366. Garrett, G.P., C. Hubbs and R.J. Edwards. 2002c. Threatened fishes of the world: Dionda diaboli Hubbs and Brown, 1956 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:478. Garrett, G.P., C. Hubbs and R.J. Edwards. 2005. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinodon eximius Girard 1859 (Cyprinodontidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 72:98. Garrett, G.P. and G.C. Matlock. 1991. Rio Grande cutthroat trout in Texas. Texas Journal of Science 43:405- 410. Gerald, J.W. 1966. Food habits of the longnose dace, Rhinichthys cataractae. Copeia 1966:478-485. Goldstein, R.M. and T.P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pages 123-202 in Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.P. Simon, editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Goodyear, C.P. 1967. Feeding habits of three species of gars, Lepisosteus, along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 96:297-300. Graham, K. 1999. Biology and management of blue catfish. Pages 37-49 in Catfish 2000: Proceedings of the international ictalurid symposium (E.R. Irwin, W.A. Hubert, C.F. Rabeni, J.L. Schramm Jr. and T. Coon, editors). American Fisheries Society, Symposium 24, Bethesda, Maryland. Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages. Volume II – Anguillidae thorough Syngnathidae. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Dieter Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush and D. Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16. Harrell, H.L. 1978. Response of the Devil’s River (Texas) fish community to flooding. Copeia 1978:60-68. Harrell, H.L. 1980. Etheostoma grahami (Girard), Rio Grande darter. Page 652 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.

Page | 242 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Heard, T.C., J.S. Perkin and T.H. Bonner. 2012. Intra-annual variation in fish communities and habitat associations in a Chihuahuan Desert reach of the Rio Grande/Río Bravo Del Norte. Western North American Naturalist 72:1-15. Helfman, G.S., E.L. Bozeman and E.B. Brothers. 1984. Size, age, and sex of American eels in a Georgia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:132-141. Hendrickson, D.A., J.K. Krejca and J.M. Rodríguez Martinez. 2001. Mexican blindcats genus Prietella (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae): an overview of recent explorations. Environmental Biology of Fishes 62:315–337. Hlohowskyj, C.P., M.M. Coburn and T.M. Cavender. 1989. Comparison of a pharyngeal filtering apparatus in seven species of the herbivorous cyprinid genus, Hybognathus (Pisces: Cyprinidae). Copeia 1989:172-183. Hoagstrom, C.W. 2003. Historical and recent fish fauna of the lower Pecos River. Pages 91-109 in Aquatic fauna of the northern Chihuahuan Desert (G.P. Garrett and N.L. Allen, editors). Special Publications Number 46, Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Howells, R.G. and G.P. Garrett. 1995. Freshwater mussel surveys of Rio Grande tributaries in Chihuahua, Mexico. Triannual Unionid Report 8:10. Hubbs, C.L. 1940. Fishes from the Big Bend region of Texas. Transactions of the Texas Academy of Science 23:3-12. Hubbs, C. 1951. Observations on the breeding of Dionda episcopa serena in the Nueces River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 3:490-492. Hubbs, C. 1954. Corrected distributional records for Texas fresh-water fishes. Texas Journal of Science 1954:277-291. Hubbs, C. 1958a. List of fishes known or expected to belong to the fauna of the Big Bend National Park. Report to Big Bend National History Association. Hubbs, C. 1958b. Gambusia senilis from the Devil's River, Texas, an addition to the fish fauna of the United States. Copeia 1958:239. Hubbs, C. 1980. Solution to the C. bovinus problem: eradication of a pupfish genome. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 10:9–18. Hubbs, C. and H.J Brodrick. 1963. Current abundance of Gambusia gaigei, an endangered fish species. Southwestern Naturalist 8:46-48. Hubbs, C. and W.H. Brown. 1956. Dionda diaboli (Cyprinidae), a new minnow from Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 1:69–77. Hubbs, C. and A.A. Echelle. 1973. Endangered non-game fishes in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Pages 147- 167 in Endangered Vertebrates in the Southwest (W.C. Huey, editor). New Mexico Game and Fish. Hubbs, C., A.F. Echelle and G. Divine. 1995. Habitat partitioning by two congeners (Gambusia geiseri and Gambusia nobilis) at Balmorhea State Park, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 47:325-326. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2002a. Threatened fishes of the world: Gambusia gaigei Hubbs, 1929 (Poeciliidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes 65:82. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2002b. Threatened fishes of the world: Gambusia nobilis Baird and Girard, 1853 (Poeciliidae). Environmental Biology of the Fishes 64:428.

Page | 243 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science. Available from: http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/ Hubbs, C. and G.P. Garrett. 1990. Reestablishment of Cyprinodon eximius (Cyprinodontidae) and status of Dionda diaboli (Cyprinidae) in the vicinity of Dolan Creek, Val Verde Co., Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 35:446-448. Hubbs, C., T. Lucier, E Marsh, G.P. Garrett, R.J. Edwards and E. Milstead. 1978. Results of an eradication program on the ecological relationships of fishes in Leon Creek, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 23:487-496. Hubbs, C., R.R. Miller, R.J. Edwards, K.W. Thompson, E. Marsh, G.P. Garrett, G.L. Powell, D.J. Morris and R.W. Zerr. 1977. Fishes inhabiting the Rio Grande, Texas-Mexico, between El Paso and the Pecos confluence. Pages 91-97 in Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones editors). USDA Forest Service, General Tech. Report, RM- 43. Hubbs, C. and D.T. Mosier. 1985. Fecundity of Gambusia gaigei. Copeia 1985:1063-1064. Hubbs, C. and V.G. Springer 1957. A revision of the Gambusia nobilis species group, with descriptions of three new species, and notes on their variation, ecology and evolution. Texas Journal of Science 9:279-327. Hubbs, C. and R. Wauer. 1973. Seasonal changes in the fish fauna of Tornillo Creek, Brewster County, Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 17:375-379. Humphries, J. and R.R. Miller. Unpubl. Ictalurus chihuahua, a new catfish from New Mexico, Texas and northeastern Mexico, with remarks on the status of Ictalurus lupus. (1998) at http://www.nativefishlab.net/library/textpdf/14516.pdf Inebnit, T.E., III. 2009. Aspects of the reproductive and juvenile ecology of Alligator Gar in the Fourche LaFave River, Arkansas. M.S. thesis. University of Central Arkansas, Conway. Ingol-Blanco, E. 2011. Modeling climate change impacts on hydrology and water resources: Case study Río Conchos basin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas. www.crwr.utexas.edu/reports/2011/rpt11-3.shtml. Itzkowitz, M. 1969. Observations on the breeding behavior of Cyprinodon elegans in swift water. Texas Journal of Science 21:229-231. Jenkins, R.E. 1980. Moxostoma austrinum (Bean), West Mexican redhorse. Page 413 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Jurgens, C.J. 2005. Zooarcheology and bone technology from Arenosa Shelter (41VV99), Lower Pecos Region, Texas. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin. Keenlyne, K.D. 1997. Life history and status of the shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:291-298. Kelsch, S.W. and F.S. Hendricks. 1990. Distribution of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Osteichthyes: Ictaluridae). Southwestern Naturalist 35:292-297. Kennedy, S.E. 1977. Life history of the Leon Springs pupfish, Cyprinodon bovinus. Copeia 1977:93–103. Knapp, F.T. 1953. Fishes found in the freshwaters of Texas. Ragland Studio and Litho Printing Co., Georgia.

Page | 244 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Kodric-Brown, A. 1977. Reproductive success and the evolution of breeding territories in pupfish (Cyprinodon). Evolution 31:750–766 Koster, W.J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Kynard, B., E. Henyey and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior, migration, and social behavior of pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, and shovelnose sturgeon, S. platorynchus, with notes on the adaptive behavior of body color. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:389–403. Lambou, V.W. 1961. Utilization of macrocrustaceans for food by freshwater fishes in Louisiana and its effect on the determination of predator-prey relations. Progressive Fish-Culturist 23:18-25. Lee, D.S. 1980. Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Rafinesque), Shovelnose sturgeon. Page 44 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Lee, D.S. and E.O. Wiley. 1980. Atractosteus spatula (Lacépède), Alligator gar. Page 47 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Lozano-Vilano, M.L., M.E. García-Ramírez, J.M. Artigas-Azas, M. De la Maza-Benignos, M. Salazar-González and G. Ruiz-Campos. 2009. Los Peces del Río Conchos. M. De la Maza-Benignos (Ed.), Alianza WWF - FGRA y Gobierno del Estado de Chihuahua, Chihuahua. Lutz-Carrillo, D.J., C.C. Nice, T.H. Bonner, M.R.J. Forstner and L.T. Fries. 2006. Admixture analysis of Florida largemouth bass and northern largemouth bass using microsatellite loci. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:779–791. Mace, R. E. 2001. Aquifers of West Texas: an overview. Pages 1-16 in R. E. Mace, W. F. Mullican III and E. S. Angle, editors. Aquifers of West Texas. Texas Water Development Board Report 356. Matthews, W.J. 1980. Notropis proserpinus (Girard), Proserpine shiner. Page 299 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Miller, R.R. 1961. Man and the changing fish fauna of the American Southwest. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 46:365-404. Miller, R.R. 1976. Four new pupfishes of the genus Cyprinodon from Mexico, with a key to the C. eximius complex. Bulletin Southern California Academy of Science 75:68-75. Miller, R.R. 1981. Coevolution of deserts and pupfishes (genus Cyprinodon) in the American Southwest. Pages 39-94 in Fishes in North American deserts (Naiman and Soltz, editors). John Wiley and Sons, New York. Miller, R.R., W.L. Minckley and S.M. Norris. 2005. Freshwater fishes of Mexico. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Miller, R.R, J.D. Williams and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-38. Minckley, W.L. 1963. A new poeciliid fish (genus Gambusia) from the Rio Grande drainage of Coahuila, Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 8:154-161. Minckley, W.L. 1980. Cyprinodon eximius (Girard), Conchos pupfish. Page 496 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.

Page | 245 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Minckley, W.L., G.K. Meffe and D.L. Soltz. 1991. Conservation and management of short-lived fishes: the cyprinodontoids. Pages 247-282 in Battle Against Extinction, Native Fish Management in the American West (W.L. Minckley and J.E. Deacon, editors). The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Moss, R.E., J.W. Scanlan and C.S. Anderson. 1983. Observations on the natural history of the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus Le Sueur) in the Neosho River. American Midland Naturalist 109:15-22. Ohmart, R.D. and B.W. Anderson. 1982. North American desert riparian ecosystems. Pages 433-466 in Reference handbook on the deserts of North America (G.L. Bender, editor). Greenwood Press, Westport, Conn. Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1997. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Peden, A.E. 1970. Courtship behavior of Gambusia (Poeciliidae) with emphasis on isolating mechanisms. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Platania, S.P. 1990. The ichthyofauna of the Rio Grande drainage, Texas and Mexico, from Boquillas to San Ygnacio. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Platania, S.P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with preliminary comments on their longitudinal distribution. Southwestern Naturalist 36:186-193. Platania, S.P. 1995. Reproductive biology and early life-history of Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Platania, S.P. and C.S. Altenbach. 1998. Reproductive strategies and egg types of seven Rio Grande basin cyprinids. Copeia 1998:559-569. Platania, S.P. and R.K. Dudley. 2006. Spatial spawning periodicity of Rio Grande silvery minnow during 2006. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Pritchard, V.L. and D.E. Cowley. 2006. Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/riograndecutthroattrout.pdf Propst, D.L. 1999. Threatened and endangered fishes of New Mexico. Technical Report No. 1. New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish, Santa Fe. Propst, D.L., G.L. Burton and B.H. Pridgeon. 1987. Fishes of the Rio Grande between Elephant Butte and Caballo reservoirs, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 32:408-411. Raney, E.C. 1942. Alligator gar feeds upon birds in Texas. Copeia 1942:50. Rees, D.E., R.J. Carr and W.J. Miller. 2005. Rio Grande chub (Gila pandora): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/riograndechub.pdf Rinne, J.N. 1995. Reproductive biology of the Rio Grande chub, Gila pandora (Teleostomi: Cypriniformes), in a montane stream, New Mexico. Southwestern Naturalist 40:107-10. Sandoval-Solis, S., B. Reith and D.C. McKinney. 2010. Hydrologic analysis before and after reservoir alteration at the Big Bend reach, Rio Grande/Río Bravo. CRWR Online Report 10-06, University of Texas at Austin. www.crwr.utexas.edu/reports/2010/rpt10-6.shtml.

Page | 246 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Scharpf, C. 2005. Annotated checklist of North American freshwater fishes, including subspecies and undescribed forms, Part 1: Petromyzontidae through Cyprinidae. American Currents, Special Publication 31(4):1-44. Schmidt, J.C., B.L. Everitt and G.A. Richard. 2003. Hydrology and geomorphology of the Rio Grande and implications for river rehabilitation. Pages 25-45 in Aquatic Fauna of the Northern Chihuahuan Desert (G.P. Garrett and N.L. Allan, editors). Museum of Texas Tech University, Special Publications 46. Schönhuth, S., D.M. Hillis, D.A. Neely, L. Lozano-Vilano, A. Perdices and R.L. Mayden. 2012. Phylogeny, diversity, and species delimitation of the North American round-nosed minnows (Teleostei: Dionda), as inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62:427-446. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 184:1-966. Scudday, J.F. 2003. My favorite old fishing holes in West Texas: where did they go? Pages 135-140 in G. P. Garrett and N. L. Allan, editors. Aquatic Fauna of the Northern Chihuahuan Desert. Museum of Texas Tech University, Special Publications 46. Smith, M.L. and R.R. Miller. 1985. Conservation of desert spring habitats and their endemic fauna in northern Chihuahua, Mexico. Proceedings of the Desert Fishes Council 13:54-63. Strawn, K. 1956. A method of breeding and raising three Texas darters. Part 2. Aquarium Journal 27:11- 32. Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Suttkus, R.D. 1963. Order Lepisostei. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1(3):61-68. Treviño, D.B. 1955. The ichthyofauna of the lower Rio Grande River, from the mouth of the Pecos to the Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Treviño-Robinson, D. 1959. The ichthyofauna of the Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico. Copeia 1959:253-256. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Big Bend gambusia (Gambusia gaigei Hubbs, 1929) recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) recovery plan, first revision. Albuquerque, NM. Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) – American eel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Walburg, C.H., G.L. Kaiser and P.L. Hudson. 1971. Lewis and Clark Lake tailwater biota and some relations of the tailwater and reservoir fish populations. Pages 449-467 in Reservoir fisheries and limnology (G.E. Hall, editor) Special Publication no. 8, American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C. Warren, M.L., Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7- 29. Watson, J.M. 2006. Patterns and habitat association of a desert spring ﬁsh assemblage and responses to a largescale ﬂood. M.S. thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos.

Page | 247 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Watts, H.E., C.W. Hoagstrom and J.R. Smith. 2002. Observations on habitat associated with Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus (Girard). Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District and City of Albuquerque Water Resources Division, June 28, 2002. Wilcox, J.F. 1960. Experimental stockings of Rio Grande blue catfish, a subspecies of Ictalurus furcatus, in Lake J.B. Thomas, Colorado City Lake, Nasworthy Lake, Lake Abilene, and Lake Trammel. Texas Game and Fish Commission, Dingell-Johnson Project F-5-R-7, Job E-2, Job Completion Report, Austin. Winemiller, K.O. and A.A. Anderson. 1997. Response of endangered desert fish populations to a constructed refuge. Restoration Ecology 5:204-213. Woolman, A.J. 1894. Report on a collection of fishes from the rivers of central and northern Mexico. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission 14:55-66. Zuckerman, L.D. and D. Langlois. 1990. Status of the Rio Grande sucker and Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Montrose, CO.

Page | 248 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 10 – Activities & Guidelines: Tamaulipan, Texan, Austroriparian NFCAs CONSERVATION ACTIVITIES AND MONITORING GUIDELINES FOR THE NATIVE FISH CONSERVATION AREAS OF THE TAMAULIPAN, TEXAN AND AUSTRORIPARIAN BIOTIC PROVINCES

The ten NFCAs of the South Texas and Coastal Plain region fall within three biotic provinces characterized by Blair (1950). This early treatise on zoogeography in Texas has had no significant alterations since its publication and remains the most often cited reference in the zoogeographic literature of Texas. Hubbs (1957) noted that the distributional patterns of fishes closely resemble those derived from the terrestrial studies that provided the basis of Blair’s provinces. The subtropical Tamaulipan Province delineates the unique ecosystem of south Texas and northeastern Mexico where now more than 95% of native brushland has been cleared for agriculture, urban development, and recreation and 99% of the native vegetation in riparian areas has been destroyed. In addition, water use has substantially reduced river flow (Jahrsdoerfer and Leslie 1988). The intertwining of forest and grassland features and associated species makes up the most interesting biogeographic feature of the moist subhumid Texan Province. This is largely due to the drainage pattern which has the Red and Trinity Rivers and their tributaries draining the northern part of the area in Texas prior to entering the Austroriparian. The Brazos, Colorado, San Marcos and Guadalupe Rivers drain the southern part of the Texan (Blair 1950). The Austroriparian Province is characterized by pine and hardwood forests, swamps and marshes, and is limited on the west by available moisture. The coastal prairie, bordering the Gulf coast, provides an avenue for the exchange of species between the Austroriparian, Texan and Tamaulipan provinces (Blair 1950). A multi-species, ecosystem approach to species conservation provides an improved method for addressing the common nature and magnitude of threats facing ecosystems and their component species. It is also improves efficiency, cost effectiveness and is more likely to succeed. This plan is designed to coordinate projects to improve water quality, increase water quantity, restore natural habitats, reduce impacts of non-native species, diminish stream system fragmentation, and restore proper function of springs, creeks, rivers, and riparian areas. It will only be effective if it is able to inform and influence water management, land-use planning and zoning, and land-management decisions that will determine current and future conditions of rivers and streams and the associated habitat quality for native fishes. Additionally, to provide long-term benefits to focal species populations, conservation actions must be coordinated at sufficient scales to meet all life history stages of these species and must adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to develop a holistic, habitat-oriented approach to conservation of focal species, restore and protect habitat, restore habitat connectivity and reduce deleterious effects of non-native species. Threat factors need to be delineated and prioritized based on threat level and what can be managed. Currently known threats in the Chihuahuan Desert NFCAs are identified in the species accounts at the end of this document and include: a. habitat fragmentation b. barriers to migration c. loss of natural flow regime d. reduced stream flow e. spring flow declines

Page | 249 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

f. channel narrowing and sediment accumulation g. habitat loss h. non-native species – habitat modification, hybridization, competition and predation Objective 1: Protect and maintain intact, healthy habitats • Determine locations and extent of healthy habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in healthy habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for protection actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze current data, define challenges, determine conservation methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Maintain floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Maintain appropriate sediment transport and avoid channel narrowing. o Maintain native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to maintain appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor conservation efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations Objective 2: Restore impacted habitats • Determine locations, extent and type of impacted habitats. • Assess degree of threats and limiting factors present in impacted habitats. • Develop a priority list of stream segments for restoration actions. • Organize Technical Advisory Teams for individual stream segments to analyze data, define challenges, determine restoration methods and engage public support. • Develop action plans for addressing the objectives, select the best watershed management alternatives, list strategies for implementing alternatives and determine appropriate milestones for measuring progress. o Where feasible, restore floodplain functions such as aquifer recharge, natural flow regime, base flows, spring flows, water quality, soil moistening, habitat diversity and sediment transport. o Restore appropriate sediment transport and reduce channel narrowing. o Restore native vegetation throughout stream segments, including riparian corridors, floodplains and upland areas. o Develop voluntary, non-regulatory tools such as financial incentives, conservation easements, landowner agreements and targeted acquisition. o Seek appropriate easements, water rights acquisitions and flow agreements to improve appropriate hydrologic conditions. o Adopt conservation approaches that are cost-effective and sustainable over time. • Convene stakeholder groups to foster support of action plans. • Monitor restoration efforts and assess benefits to focal species populations.

Page | 250 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Objective 3: Restore stream and habitat connectivity • Inventory fish passage barriers and delineate impacts on ecology of focal species. • Where feasible, diminish or remove fish passage barriers and restore aquatic connectivity. Objective 4: Mitigate effects of invasive species • Assess current status of focal species affected by invasive species. • Develop methods for reducing non-native species in targeted areas. • Develop methods to prevent introductions of invasive species and minimize impacts of existing invasive species. • Restore or improve the ecological balance in habitats negatively affected by non-native, invasive or problem species. • Reestablish genetic integrity of hybridized populations in targeted areas. Objective 5: Organize networks of public and private landowners • Provide technical guidance workshops, newsletters, social media, etc. to facilitate development and expansion of local citizen-based partnerships. • Landowner networks should be committed to the cooperative conservation of land and water resources within the watershed. • Landowner networks should promote values of functional upland, riparian, and stream systems and emphasize the conservation of native fish communities and supporting habitats. • Landowner networks should work to reduce or eliminate activities on the landscape that degrade water quality, reduce water quantity, degrade riparian systems, favor non-native species, or fragment stream systems. • Landowner networks should encourage an array of sustainable land-use activities that are compatible with aquatic resource conservation. • Landowner networks promote collaboration across jurisdictional and land ownership boundaries. Objective 6: Develop conservation demonstration areas • Provide fishing, paddling, and hiking opportunities. • Promote sustainable public use of rivers. • Describe benefits to other native species. • Demonstrate best management practices. • Highlight restoration actions through educational kiosks. Objective 7: Conduct research to fill critical information gaps • Identify knowledge gaps critical to restoration and conservation of the focal species. • Design and conduct research as needed to enhance conservation efforts in Objectives 1-4. • Initial sampling at representative locations within each NFCA should be quarterly and include: o Biological characteristics of focal species: population size, population structure (genetics & demographics), fecundity, food habits, habitat selectivity, flow-ecology relationships, associated species o Habitat structure: flow and discharge rates, channel width, channel morphology, substrate types, depth, cover, trends in surrounding land use o Water quality: temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, hardness, chemical and biological oxygen demand • Threats and limiting factors for the focal species will determine the scale at which the monitoring is designed. As baseline data are developed, monitoring parameters can be modified and streamlined to address critical issues and needs for the focal species. Objective 8: Adaptive management and reporting • Develop annual and long-term reporting requirements to document acquired data, departures from plan and evaluations necessary for adaptive management.

Page | 251 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

• Determine research needs for refining restoration and management actions. • Periodically modify strategies based on monitoring, evaluation and research results. Share information with the public in an easy to use and understandable format.

Page | 252 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Lower Rio Grande NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Hypostomus sp. Armadillo Del Rio Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass Carp Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis orca Phantom Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace Micropterus salmoides floridanus Florida Largemouth Bass Scardinius erythrophthalmus Rudd Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker largemouth bass Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish

Page | 253 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Occurs in coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Campbell (1962) noted they were common, but not abundant as far upstream as Presidio. Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays, and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream

Page | 254 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Hybognathus amarus Rio Grande Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Back and upper sides silvery to olive with broad, greenish mid-dorsal stripe on lower sides and abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Subterminal mouth extends horizontally to almost the anterior margin of the orbit; snout is rounded and overhangs the upper lip when viewed ventrally; eye is small and orbit diameter is much less than gape width or snout length (Bestgen and Propst 1996). Range: Historically was one of the most abundant and widespread of the native fishes in the Rio Grande and Pecos River, from northern New Mexico to the Gulf of Mexico. More recently, until reintroductions began in the Big Bend region, the fish only occurred in New Mexico occupying about seven percent of its historical range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Habitat: During its various life stages, the Rio Grande silvery minnow uses relatively shallow, low velocity habitats with sandy and silty substrates, historically inhabiting a meandering river that included a diversity of aquatic habitats including side channels, oxbows, and backwaters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Most often found in areas of low or moderate water velocity (e.g., eddies formed by debris piles, pools, backwaters and embayments) and is rarely found in habitats with high water velocities, such as main channel runs (Dudley and Platania 1997, Watts et al. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). Biology: Important food components include macroinvertebrates, aufwuch and epipsammic algae on benthic substrates (Cowley et al. 2006; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010). The Rio Grande Silvery Minnow is a pelagic spawner (Platania 1995) that produces thousands of semibuoyant, non-adhesive eggs that passively drift while developing (Platania and Altenbach 1998). Spawning is associated with high and/or increased flow events such as spring runoff or summer rainstorms, and typically occurs over a relatively brief period in May or June (Platania and Dudley 2006).

Page | 255 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis aestivalis Speckled Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides covered in fine speckles; the mouth is ventral with a pair of barbels on the upper jaw (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to streams of the Rio Grande and Río San Fernando (Eisenhour 2004). Found throughout the Rio Grande and lower Pecos (FoTX database) but occurs most frequently between the Río Conchos confluence and the Pecos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically in flowing water over small-gravel riffles or coarse sands (Miller et al. 2005; Eisenhour 2004; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Diet consists of small insects, crustaceans and plant material; sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005). Pelagic, broadcast spawner producing semibuoyant eggs that develop as they drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Notropis braytoni Tamaulipas Shiner (Image Credit: Megan Bean) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Distinct lateral stripe terminates in a basicaudal spot (Miller et al. 2005). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande (including the Devils River and lower Pecos River) in Texas and Río Conchos in Mexico (Edwards et al. 2004). Habitat: Rocky and sandy channels of large creeks and small to medium rivers over substrates of rock and gravel to silt and mud (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Typically does not exhibit narrow ecological limitations (Treviño 1955).

Page | 256 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Biology: Diet consists primarily of aquatic insects (Contreras-Balderas 1977). Spawns December to July (Miller et al. 2005). Population abundance in Texas has declined in recent decades (Hubbs et al. 2008), with collections during the 1990s yielding no Tamaulipas Shiners below Amistad Reservoir to the mouth of the river. The decline in abundance is likely due to reservoir construction, dewatering of stream courses, and decreases in water quantity and quality (Edwards et al. 2004). Conversely, collections in the Big Bend region of the Rio Grande from 1977–2006 indicated that relative abundance had increased (Hubbs et al. 1977; Garrett and Edwards 2014).

Notropis jemezanus Rio Grande Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mostly plain silvery, except for a faint dusky band; eye diameter equal to length of snout (Koster 1957) Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin, including the Rio Grande, Pecos River (New Mexico and Texas), and the Río Conchos, San Juan and Salado drainages of Mexico. Although once abundant throughout the basin (Treviño 1955; Treviño-Robinson 1959), it is now sparsely distributed in Texas in the Rio Grande downstream from the Río Conchos confluence to Amistad Reservoir and in Independence Creek in the lower Pecos River (Edwards et al. 2002). None have been taken below Amistad Reservoir since the mid- 1990s (Edwards et al. 2004) or in New Mexico since 1949 (Platania 1991). This species has not been collected in Independence Creek since 1991 or in the lower Pecos River since 1987 (Hoagstrom 2003; Bonner et al. 2005). Habitat: Main channel of rivers and streams over sand and small-gravel riffles with sparse vegetation (Miller et al. 2005; Garrett and Edwards 2014). Biology: Primarily carnivorous-omnivorous (Sublette et al. 1990). Pelagic spawner with eggs and larvae that drift considerable distances downstream (Platania and Altenbach 1998).

Page | 257 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis orca Phantom Shiner (Image © W. H. Brandenburg) Status: likely extinct Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; interactions with non-native species Description: Pallid with little pigmentation. Posterior edge of jaw does not reach pupil. Eye small, slightly shorter than snout; dorsal fin insertion well behind insertion of pelvic fin, nearer base of caudal than snout; depth at occiput more than width at occiput (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande and widely distributed from the mouth of the river to central New Mexico, including the lower Pecos River (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al.1989). Notropis orca was last seen in 1975 when a single adult was collected from the Mexican side of the lower Rio Grande (Chernoff et al. 1982; Miller et al. 1989). Habitat: Uncertain but was collected from shallow riffles over rocky streambed (Woolman 1894). Biology: Biological requirements are not known as only one specimen has been collected in the last 50 years (Edwards et al. 2004).

Rhinichthys cataractae Longnose Dace (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Upper sides are dark or coarsely mottled; the mouth is ventral with a small barbel on the upper jaw (Hubbs 1958). Range: Inhabits a widespread area of north-central North America south to throughout the Rio Grande in Texas downstream to about Laredo (Hubbs et al. 2008) and the Río Conchos basin in Mexico (Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 258 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cycleptus sp. Rio Grande Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: habitat loss; fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Morphologically similar to C. elongatus, but lip papillae are longer, extending forward onto end of snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body color of Cycleptus sp. tends to be more golden or brassy than C. elongatus (Burr and Mayden 1999). Range: Endemic to the Rio Grande basin (Bessert 2006). Habitat: Requirements are likely very similar to C. elongatus. Typically found over cobble and bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow; juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Rio Grande Blue Sucker probably spawns in March and April (Miller et al. 2005). Likely similar to C. elongatus by spawning in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983). As with C. elongatus, adults probably winter in deep pools and move upstream in spring to spawn in riffles (Cross and Collins 1995). Males likely migrate into spawning area before females (Moss et al. 1983).

Page | 259 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Moxostoma austrinum Mexican Redhorse (Image Credit: Miller et al. 2005) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: Pectoral fin length less than head length; width of eye goes nearly 5.5 times into head length; 47 - 50 scales along the lateral line; closely related, and similar, to the Gray Redhorse (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Pacific coast drainages and Río Conchos system in Mexico to the mid-Rio Grande in Texas (Garrett and Edwards 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). FoTX data shows distribution extends downstream through Maverick County. Habitat: Rocky runs and riffles of creeks and small to medium rivers; often near boulders in swift water (Page and Burr 1997; Miller et al. 2005). Biology: Nuptial tuberculation and capture of young suggests spring spawning period (Jenkins 1980; Miller et al. 2005).

Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; competition and hybridization with Channel Catfish Description: Yellowish-green back and sides with a few scattered, diffuse black spots on the sides; silvery abdomen (Sublette et al. 1990). Range in Texas: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance

Page | 260 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

(Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. They are likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Agonostomus monticola is similar in general appearance to the White Mullet (Mugil curema) and Striped Mullet (M. cephalus), but can be distinguished from Mugil by lacking an axillary process (Marcy et al. 2005); lacking an adipose eyelid; fewer gill rakers (17-20 on the lower limb of the first arch vs. 25 or more in Mugil) and having a rounded lower jaw, without a symphyseal knob; considerable brown pigmentation on the body (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the Caribbean to Colombia and Venezuela in South America; has been found great distances upstream in various streams from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Adults typically inhabit high-gradient freshwater streams (Erdman 1972; Cruz 1987), but may also occur in lentic waters (Loftus et al. 1984). Biology: Primary prey items include aquatic insects and algae (Torres-Navarro and Lyons 1999). Adults are oviparous, spawning offshore (Anderson 1957) with pelagic and non-adhesive eggs (Breder and Rosen 1966).

Page | 261 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus salmoides nuecensis Rio Grande Largemouth Bass (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: habitat loss; hybridization with Florida Largemouth Bass; competition with Smallmouth Bass Description: Glossohyal tooth patch (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980). Genetically distinct based on nuclear microsatellite markers (Lutz-Carrillo et al. 2006). Range: Original distribution thought to be from the Nueces River in Texas to the Río Soto La Marina, Mexico (Bailey and Hubbs 1949, Edwards 1980), currently in the upper Devils River. Habitat: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides. Biology: unknown, but likely similar to M. salmoides salmoides.

Etheostoma grahami Rio Grande Darter (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Lower Rio Grande NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Throat red in males; 10-12 body bars (Hubbs et al. 2008). Many small red (on male) or black (on female) spots on side; red 1st dorsal fin (faint on female); male has red 2nd dorsal, anal, and pelvic fins, also yellow caudal and pectoral fins; olive above (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Endemic to the lower Pecos River and the mainstem and spring-fed tributaries of the Rio Grande from the Pecos River confluence downstream to the Devils River and Dolan, San Felipe and Sycamore creeks (Hubbs et al. 2008). Occasionally found in the Rio Grande as far downstream as Maverick and Webb counties (FoTX database; Platania 1990). Habitat: Runs, riffles, and shorelines with clean cobble substrate having a small amount of attached macrophytes (Platania 1990). Biology: Invertivore; spawns late March to early June; eggs laid on vegetation and on the tops or undersides of rocks (Strawn 1956; Harrell 1980; Page 1983).

Page | 262 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Page | 263 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 264 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cyprinella sp. Nueces River Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 265 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Head blunt and rounded, upper jaw length greater than snout length; black median chin stripe extends no farther posteriorly than below eye; interradial membranes of dorsal fin have melanophores (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Nueces River (Richardson and Gold 1995; Edwards et al. 2004, Carson et al. 2014). Habitat: Found over gravel and limestone substrates (Page and Burr 1997; Edwards et al. 2004) in clear, cool, spring-fed headwater creeks (Hubbs 1954b; Edwards et al. 2004). Biology: Unknown, but likely similar to the Plateau Shiner (C. lepida), Proserpine Shiner (C. proserpina) and Red Shiner (C. lutrensis).

Page | 266 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Dionda serena Frio Roundnose Minnow (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Cross-hatched scale markings and double dashes along the lateral line; rounded caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Edwards 1999). Black band through eye to snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Frio and Sabinal rivers (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012; Carson et al. 2014) Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters (Edwards 1997; Edwards et al. 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Biology: Spawns in the spring with non-adhesive and demersal eggs (Hubbs 1951).

Dionda texensis Nueces Roundnose Minnow (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reduced spring flows; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Cross-hatched scale markings and double dashes along the lateral line; rounded caudal spot (Hubbs and Brown 1956; Edwards 1999). Black band through eye to snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the headwaters of the Nueces River (Schӧnhuth et al. 2012; Carson et al. 2014) Habitat: Unknown, but likely similar to D. serena and D. diaboli. Biology: Spawns in spring when water temperatures reach about 17-18°C; eggs heavy and non-adhesive (Hubbs 1951).

Page | 267 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Lateral stripe distinct along the side of the body; one pair of maxillary barbels; pale olive dorsally and silvery white ventrally with broad silver lateral stripe; small melanophores on posterior dorsolateral scales concentrated to form submarginal band on scales appearing as vague diamond pattern (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers; remnant populations may exist in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in medium to large streams; found to be most abundant in riffles over large gravel and cobble (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Likely similar to M. aestivalis with a diet consisting of small insects, crustaceans and plant material, sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005).

Page | 268 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Originally occurred in Gulf slope streams of northeastern Mexico, the Rio Grande and the headwaters of the Nueces, San Antonio, Guadalupe, and Colorado basins, but appears to be extirpated from most of this range (Kelsch and Hendricks 1990). Currently found in the Rio Grande below the Río Conchos confluence downstream through the lower canyons of the Big Bend region, but in low abundance (Edwards et al. 2002). It also occurs in Sycamore, Pinto and Las Moras creeks (Garrett et al. 1992; Garrett et al. 2004) as well as Independence Creek in the Pecos River, Devils River and upper Frio River (Bean et al. 2011). Habitat: Spring-fed headwaters in swift-flowing riffles and chutes (Miller et al. 2005) and is most abundant in deep, run habitats (Bonner et al. 2005). Biology: There are no definitive studies of spawning behavior and ecological requirements for Headwater Catfish. It is likely similar to Channel Catfish in most respects.

Page | 269 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat (Image © Garold Sneegas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: aquifer depletion; pollution Description: Eyeless; body is white or pink in color (Page and Burr 1997). Small body with toothless suckermouth (Langecker and Longley 1993). Range: San Antonio Pool of the Edwards Aquifer (Cooper and Longley 1980b; Page and Burr 1997; Warren et al. 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Subterranean waters (Page and Burr 1997) at depths of 300 - 600 m (Cooper and Longley 1980b; Hubbs et al. 2008); Biology: Thought to be a detritivore (Langecker and Longley 1993) feeding on dead or dying invertebrates and a fungus commonly found in the Edwards Aquifer (Sneegas and Hendrickson 2004).

Page | 270 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN; State Fish of Texas Threats in Southern Edwards Plateau Rivers NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; fragmentation; hybridization with Smallmouth Bass Description: Distinctive black, diamond-shaped pattern along sides and rows of spots that form stripes on its belly; jaw does not extend beyond eye; glossohyal teeth present on tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1942; Garrett 1991). Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1999), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Page | 271 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Belonesox belizanus Pike Killifish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Gambusia geiseri Largespring Gambusia Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Gambusia georgei San Marcos Gambusia Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Poecilia reticulata Guppy Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Xiphophorus hellerii Green Swordtail Dionda flavipinnis Guadalupe Roundnose Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Etheostoma fonticola Fountain Darter Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Etheostoma lepidum Greenthroat Darter Ictalurus lupus Headwater Catfish Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Percina shumardi River Darter Satan eurystomus Widemouth Blindcat Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Trogloglanis pattersoni Toothless Blindcat Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Pterygoplichthys disjunctivus Vermiculated Sailfin Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Catfish Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique Tilapia Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Tilapia zillii Redbelly Tilapia

Page | 272 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 273 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic. Sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000); Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Page | 274 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 275 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 276 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 277 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 278 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Percina apristis Guadalupe Darter (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss

Page | 279 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Page | 280 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Amia calva Bowfin Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom Elops saurus Ladyfish Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ariopsis felis Hardhead Catfish Anchoa hepsetus Striped Anchovy Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish Anchoa mitchilli Bay Anchovy Pterygoplichthys anisitsi Southern Sailfin Catfish Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring Pterygoplichthys multiradiatus Orinoco Sailfin Catfish Brevoortia gunteri Finescale Menhaden Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel Brevoortia patronus Gulf Menhaden Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Harengula jaguana Scaled Sardine Mugil curema White Mullet Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Membras martinica Rough Silverside Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass Carp Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Menidia peninsulae Tidewater Silverside Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Strongylura marina Atlantic Needlefish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Adinia xenica Diamond Killifish Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Fundulus blairae Western Starhead Topminnow Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Fundulus olivaceous Blackspotted Topminnow Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Fundulus pulvereus Bayou Killifish Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner Fundulus similis Longnose Killifish Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Lucania goodie Bluefin Killifish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Syngnathus floridae Dusky Pipefish Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Syngnathus louisianae Chain Pipefish Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker Syngnathus scovelli Gulf Pipefish Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Morone mississippiensis Yellow Bass Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Centrarchus macropterus Flier Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Lepomis gulosus Warmouth

Page | 281 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Cynoscion arenarius Sand Seatrout Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted Seatrout Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish Leiostomus xanthurus Spot Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic Croaker Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Pogonias cromis Black Drum Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Sciaenops ocellatus Red Drum Lepomis symmetricus Bantam Sunfish Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Herichthys steindachneri Slender Cichlid Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Dormitator maculatus Fat Sleeper Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Ctenogobius boleosoma Darter Goby Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Ctenogobius shufeldti Freshwater Goby Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter Gobionellus oceanicus Highfin Goby Etheostoma proeliare Cypress Darter Gobiosoma bosc Naked Goby Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Gobiosoma robustum Code Goby Percina maculata Blackside Darter Microgobius gulosus Clown Goby Percina sciera Dusky Darter Citharichthys spilopterus Bay Whiff Eucinostomus harengulus Tidewater Mojarra Paralichthys lethostigma Southern Flounder Eucinostomus melanopterus Flagfin Mojarra Achirus lineatus Lined Sole Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker Bairdiella chrysoura Silver Perch

Page | 282 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede upstream migration and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Occurs in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984; Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984).

Page | 283 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Biology: Carnivorous, main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout, stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe Basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004).

Page | 284 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Widely distributed in the Mississippi River basin and the West Gulf Slope, west to the Lavaca River drainage (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars; considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950a). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: The back and upper sides are pale greenish yellow with lower sides and venter silvery or silvery white. The suborbital area may be darkly pigmented (Page and Burr 1997). Anterior lateral line

Page | 285 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need pores may be outlined dorsally and ventrally by dark pigment; most individuals have darkly pigmented cleithral bar; middorsal stripe is often faint and fins are plain; small eyes placed high on the head (Ross 2001). Range: Along the Gulf Coast from San Jacinto River drainage, east to the Calcasieu River and a small section of the Red River drainage in Louisiana. Semi-disjunct population in White and Black river systems of northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri and St. Francis River of extreme northeastern Arkansas (Gilbert 1980b). In Texas, inhabits small Austroriparian streams of eastern Texas from San Jacinto drainage northward along the Gulf Coast to the Sabine River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Habitat generalist with affinities for shallow, moving water and rarely found in pools and backwater areas; closely restricted to substrate of fine, silt free sand in small creeks and rivers having slight to moderate current (Gilbert 1980b). Biology: Generalist, feeding primarily on invertebrates and detritus (Williams and Bonner 2006). Probably spawns midstream and employs downstream drift for egg and larval development (Carlander 1969; Williams and Bonner 2006).

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime Description: Straw color with broad silvery lateral band; dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Mississippi River drainage from South Dakota to Louisiana; in Texas, found from Red River to Lavaca River (Gilbert and Bailey 1962; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand, and gravel (Gilbert 1980c, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Spawns in main channel over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Page | 286 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: The back and upper sides are bluish-green to brown, becoming more yellow or gold on the sides, with narrow vertical bars; undersides are white to yellow; scale margins are dark, giving the upper sides a cross-hatched appearance (Ross 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Atlantic slope streams from Maine to Georgia; Gulf Slope streams east to Alabama and west to San Jacinto system; in Texas, occurs in eastern streams from the Red River southward to the San Jacinto drainage; an early record exists from the Devils River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found in small rivers and creeks with a variety of gradients, bottom types and vegetation; populations apparently declining in streams subject to siltation (Wall and Gilbert 1980). Biology: Invertivore; major food items include copepods, cladocerans, chironomid larvae and other bottom organisms (Goldstein and Simon 1999). An upstream migration often precedes spawning (Breder and Rosen 1966). Prior to spawning, males defend territories in moderately swift water over beds of gravel or near pits constructed by stonerollers or creek chubs (Curry and Spacie 1984).

Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Agonostomus monticola is similar in general appearance to the White Mullet and Striped Mullet but can be distinguished by lack of an axillary process (Marcy et al. 2005). It can also be

Page | 287 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need distinguished by lack of an adipose eyelid; fewer gill rakers and having a rounded lower jaw, without a symphyseal knob and considerable brown pigmentation on the body (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the Caribbean to Colombia and Venezuela in South America; has been found great distances upstream in various streams from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Adults typically inhabit high-gradient freshwater streams (Erdman 1972; Cruz 1987), but may also occur in lentic waters (Loftus et al. 1984). Biology: Primary prey items include aquatic insects and algae (Torres-Navarro and Lyons 1999). Adults are oviparous, spawning offshore (Anderson 1957) with pelagic and non-adhesive eggs (Breder and Rosen 1966).

Percina maculata Blackside Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Upper jaw reaches to pupil of eye; snout less conical, not extending beyond upper lip; body depth contained in standard length less than 7 times (Hubbs et al. 2008). Discrete medial black caudal spot; prominent teardrop; olive above, 8-9 dark saddles; 6-9 large oval black blotches along side (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Wide ranging species from the Great Lakes southwards through the Mississippi basin; in Texas, primarily in the Red River basin in the northeast part of the state (Hubbs et al. 2008) although specimens have been taken in the lower Trinity and San Jacinto rivers (FoTX database). Habitat: Often found in clear, gravelly streams, but also taken in turbid streams (Beckham and Platania 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Fish migrate upstream to breeding grounds (Winn 1958) and enter riffles for spawning in the spring (Thomas 1970). Nonguarding, rock and gravel spawner (Simon 1999).

Page | 288 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Paralichthys lethostigma Southern Flounder (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Central Coast Rivers and Streams NFCA: habitat loss Description: Large, left-eyed flounder with symmetrical pelvic bases; eyed side may be variable, but is often brown with darker mottling and sometimes has four to five rows of diffuse spots on the sides, none of which are oscillated; blind side is usually white, although it is sometimes dusky (Ross 2001). Lateral line highly arched over the pectoral fin on the ocular side (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Ranges in coastal habitats from North Carolina south through Florida and west along the Gulf Coast to northern Mexico also occurring in the lower reaches of coastal streams (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically occurs in estuaries, but may also enter brackish or even fresh water, especially in winter and spring (Guntherz 1967). Adults can survive indefinitely in freshwater reservoirs if water temperatures remain above 9°C (Prentice 1989). Biology: Fishes, and to a lesser extent, crustaceans make up most of the diet; spawns in higher salinity Gulf waters, with the young fish moving into estuaries to grow (Enge and Mulholland 1985).

Page | 289 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Lower Colorado River NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet Anguilla rostrata American Eel Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Carassius auratus Goldfish Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass Carp Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Etheostoma proeliare Cypress Darter Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Percina sciera Dusky Darter Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish

Page | 290 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays, and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 291 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout; stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with

Page | 292 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range: Widely distributed in the Mississippi River basin and the West Gulf Slope, west to the Lavaca River drainage (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars; considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950a). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Macrhybopsis marconis Burrhead Chub (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Lateral stripe distinct along the side of the body; one pair of maxillary barbels; pale olive dorsally and silvery-white ventrally with broad silver lateral stripe; small melanophores on posterior dorsolateral scales concentrated to form submarginal band on scales appearing as vague diamond pattern (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to San Antonio and Guadalupe rivers; remnant populations may exist in the Edwards Plateau portion of the Colorado River (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water over coarse sand and fine gravel substrates in medium to large streams; Found to be most abundant in riffles over large gravel and cobble (Eisenhour 2004). Biology: Likely similar to M. aestivalis with a diet consisting of small insects, crustaceans and plant material, sedentary when not seeking food (Miller et al. 2005).

Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 293 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Black pigments outlining dorsal scales, especially posterior to dorsal fin; dorsal stripe conspicuously interrupted in base of dorsal fin, producing a dark dash at base of dorsal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to the Brazos River drainage; presumed to have been introduced into the Colorado River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Common in river channels or periphery of channels in water with moderate depth and current velocities; substrate usually sand or silt (Moss and Mayes 1993). Biology: Opportunistic invertivore consuming aquatic insects, primarily dipterans, terrestrial insects, detritus, and plant material (Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks et al. 2001). Batch spawner, producing multiple cohorts of semi-buoyant eggs within a spawning season; may spawn synchronously during pulse flows (Durham 2007).

Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Slightly falcate anal fin, dorsal fin begins well behind insertion of the pelvic fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to Brazos River drainage; also found in the Red River drainage due to stream capture (Conner and Suttkus 1986, Cross et al. 1986). Thought to be introduced in the Colorado River drainage (Conner and Suttkus 1986). Habitat: Usually found over sand substrate in moderate current velocities and depths (Ostrand and Wilde 2002; Durham 2007). Biology: Generalist drift invertivore, consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, detritus, plant material and sand (Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks 1999; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner during mid-May through September with multiple peaks (Durham 2007, Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Page | 294 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime Description: Straw color with broad silvery lateral band; dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Mississippi River drainage from South Dakota to Louisiana; in Texas, found from Red River to Lavaca River (Gilbert and Bailey 1962; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand, and gravel (Gilbert 1980c, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Spawns in main channel over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Throughout central United States; rare in Gulf Slope drainages of New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 295 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren 1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950b; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950a). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Agonostomus monticola is similar in general appearance to the White Mullet and Striped Mullet but can be distinguished by lack of an axillary process (Marcy et al. 2005). It can also be

Page | 296 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need distinguished by lack of an adipose eyelid; fewer gill rakers and having a rounded lower jaw, without a symphyseal knob and considerable brown pigmentation on the body (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the Caribbean to Colombia and Venezuela in South America; has been found great distances upstream in various streams from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Adults typically inhabit high-gradient freshwater streams (Erdman 1972; Cruz 1987), but may also occur in lentic waters (Loftus et al. 1984). Biology: Primary prey items include aquatic insects and algae (Torres-Navarro and Lyons 1999). Adults are oviparous, spawning offshore (Anderson 1957) with pelagic and non-adhesive eggs (Breder and Rosen 1966).

Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN; State Fish of Texas Threats in Lower Colorado River NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; hybridization with Smallmouth Bass Description: Distinctive black, diamond-shaped pattern along sides and rows of spots that form stripes on its belly; jaw does not extend beyond eye; glossohyal teeth present on tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1942; Garrett 1991). Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Page | 297 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River, San Gabriel River NFCAs Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Moxostoma congestum Gray Redhorse Amia calva Bowfin Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Anchoa mitchilli Bay Anchovy Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Brevoortia patronus Gulf Menhaden Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Carassius auratus Goldfish Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow Membras martinica Rough Silverside Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Strongylura marina Atlantic Needlefish Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Fundulus blairae Western Starhead Topminnow Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Notropis amabilis Texas Shiner Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted Topminnow Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Poecilia formosa Amazon Molly Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Lepomis symmetricus Bantam Sunfish

Page | 298 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Etheostoma pulchellum Plains Orangethroat Darter Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass Percina sciera Dusky Darter Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Herichthys cyanoguttatus Rio Grande Cichlid Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter Dormitator maculatus Fat Sleeper

Page | 299 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays, and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 300 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Belly and sides silvery; iridescent, broad green-gold mid-dorsal stripe (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). Distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained 2.5 or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Mississippi basin from Minnesota south to eastern Texas streams, from the Red River westward and south to the Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers moderate current; silty, muddy, or rocky substrate (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). In Texas, adults likely to inhabit smaller tributary streams (Winemiller et al. 2004). Biology: Feeds in large schools near bottom, ingesting mud and bottom ooze from which it digests algae and other organic matter (Forbes and Richardson 1920). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Simon 1999).

Page | 301 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hybognathus placitus Plains Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Mid-dorsal stripe broad and solid; first obvious dorsal fin ray a thin splint, closely attached to the following well developed but unbranched ray; distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained two and one-half or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Central Texas from the Colorado and Brazos basins to the Red River and northward to North Dakota and Montana (Hubbs et al 2008). Habitat: Commonly in turbid rivers having exposed, shallow, sand-filled channels (Cross et al. 1985) where sediments accumulate in shallow backwaters, gentle eddies, and along the deeper edges of sand “waves” that are formed on shifting substrate by actions of the current (Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Herbivore, primarily feeding on algae and other organic bottom material (Pflieger 1997; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Miller and Robison 2004; Lehtinen and Leyzer 1988; Cross and Collins 1995).

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Brazos River, San Gabriel River NFCAs: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout, stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 302 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range: Widely distributed in the Mississippi River basin and the West Gulf Slope, west to the Lavaca River drainage (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars; considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 303 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Faint, dusky lateral stripe usually present; caudal fin lightly pigmented, except the lower 3-4 rays, which are completely unpigmented (Becker 1983). Range in Texas: Red River (Warren et al. 2000) and the lower Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Ranges over gravel to silt substrates but found more commonly over silt or mud bottom (Kinney 1954; Linam et al. 1994). Biology: Planktivore/invertivore; rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Brazos River NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Thin and distinct dark mid-lateral stripe extending from snout to caudal fin; caudal spot is rectangular and separate from mid-lateral stripe (Miller and Robison 2004). Scales above mid-lateral stripe outlined in dark pigments, forming faint horizontal dorsal stripes; scales below mid-lateral stripe and abdomen usually without pigments (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Red River drainage in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas; Gulf Slope drainages from Calcasieu River in Louisiana to Brazos River in Texas (Gilbert 1980d). Habitat: Small to moderate-size tributary streams; in runs and pools over all types of substrates (Gilbert 1980d). Biology: Primarily invertivore, consuming aquatic insects; large amounts of substrate in stomach suggest benthic feeding at times (Bean et al., unpublished data). Likely broadcast spawner; batch spawning throughout the spawning season (Bean et al., unpublished data).

Notropis buccula Smalleye Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss

Page | 304 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis oxyrhynchus Sharpnose Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: federally endangered; state endangered; SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Slightly falcate anal fin, dorsal fin begins well behind insertion of the pelvic fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Endemic to Brazos River drainage; also found in the Red River drainage due to stream capture (Conner and Suttkus 1986, Cross et al. 1986). Thought to be introduced in the Colorado River drainage (Conner and Suttkus 1986). Habitat: Usually found over sand substrate in moderate current velocities and depths (Ostrand and Wilde 2002; Durham 2007). Biology: Generalist drift invertivore, consuming aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, detritus, plant material and sand (Marks 1999, Moss and Mayes 1993; Marks et al. 2001). Pelagic, broadcast spawner during mid-May through September with multiple peaks (Durham 2007, Wilde and Urbanczyk 2013).

Page | 305 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River, San Gabriel River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Gilbert 1980e; Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Straw color with broad silvery lateral band; dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Mississippi River drainage from South Dakota to Louisiana; in Texas, found from Red River to Lavaca River (Gilbert and Bailey 1962; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand and gravel (Gilbert 1980c, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Pelagic spawner over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Page | 306 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Middle Brazos River, Lower Brazos River NFCAs: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body, in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Lower Brazos River NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: The back and upper sides are bluish-green to brown, becoming more yellow or gold on the sides, with narrow vertical bars; undersides are white to yellow; scale margins are dark giving the upper sides a cross-hatched appearance (Ross 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 307 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Atlantic slope streams from Maine to Georgia; Gulf Slope streams east to Alabama and west to San Jacinto system; in Texas, occurs in eastern streams from the Red River southward to the San Jacinto drainage; an early record exists from the Devils River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found in small rivers and creeks with a variety of gradients, bottom types, and vegetation; populations apparently declining in streams subject to siltation (Wall and Gilbert 1980). Biology: Invertivore; major food items include copepods, cladocerans, chironomid larvae and other bottom organisms (Goldstein and Simon 1999). An upstream migration often precedes spawning (Breder and Rosen 1966). Prior to spawning, males defend territories in moderately swift water over beds of gravel or near pits constructed by stonerollers or creek chubs (Curry and Spacie 1984).

Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Lower Brazos River NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Agonostomus monticola is similar in general appearance to the White Mullet and Striped Mullet but can be distinguished by lack of an axillary process (Marcy et al. 2005). It can also be distinguished by lack of an adipose eyelid; fewer gill rakers and having a rounded lower jaw, without a symphyseal knob and considerable brown pigmentation on the body (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the Caribbean to Colombia and Venezuela in South America; has been found great distances upstream in various streams from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Adults typically inhabit high-gradient freshwater streams (Erdman 1972; Cruz 1987), but may also occur in lentic waters (Loftus et al. 1984). Biology: Primary prey items include aquatic insects and algae (Torres-Navarro and Lyons 1999). Adults are oviparous, spawning offshore (Anderson 1957) with pelagic and non-adhesive eggs (Breder and Rosen 1966).

Page | 308 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Micropterus treculii Guadalupe Bass (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN; State Fish of Texas Threats in San Gabriel River NFCA: reductions in stream flow; habitat loss; fragmentation; hybridization with Smallmouth Bass Description: Distinctive black, diamond-shaped pattern along sides and rows of spots that form stripes on its belly; jaw does not extend beyond eye; glossohyal teeth present on tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1942; Garrett 1991). Range: Endemic to the streams of the northern and eastern Edwards Plateau including portions of the Brazos, Colorado, Guadalupe, and San Antonio basins; species also found outside of the Edwards Plateau streams in decreased abundance, primarily in the lower Colorado River; two introduced populations have been established in the Nueces River system (Garrett 1991; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers small, lotic environments; absent from extreme headwaters; smaller fish occur in rapids, many times near eddies; large individuals found mainly in riffle tail races; uses large rocks, cypress knees, stumps and similar types of cover for refuge (Hubbs et al. 1953; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997). Biology: Food preferences include larval ephemeropterans, fishes, aquatic dipteran larvae and terrestrial hymenopterans (Hurst et al. 1975; Edwards 1980). Males tend to build nests near a source of slow to moderately moving water from early March through May or June (Hurst et al 1975; Edwards 1980; Garrett 1991; Edwards 1997), with an apparent secondary spawning period in the late summer and fall (Edwards 1980; Edwards 1997).

Page | 309 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut Lamprey Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Polyodon spathula Paddlefish Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker Amia calva Bowfin Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Elops saurus Ladyfish Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Anguilla rostrata American Eel Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth Buffalo Myrophis punctatus Speckled Worm Eel Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Anchoa hepsetus Striped Anchovy Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse Anchoa mitchilli Bay Anchovy Astyanax mexicanus Mexican Tetra Alosa chrysochloris Skipjack Herring Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Brevoortia gunteri Finescale Menhaden Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Brevoortia patronus Gulf Menhaden Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom Carassius auratus Goldfish Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Ariopsis felis Hardhead Catfish Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Bagre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow Trout Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin Shiner Mugil cephalus Striped Mullet Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Mugil curema White Mullet Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Membras martinica Rough Silverside Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Menidia peninsulae Tidewater Silverside Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Strongylura marina Atlantic Needlefish Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Adinia xenica Diamond Killifish Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner Fundulus blairae Western Starhead Topminnow Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Fundulus olivaceus Blackspotted Topminnow Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Fundulus pulvereus Bayou Killifish Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Fundulus zebrinus Plains Killifish

Page | 310 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Lucania parva Rainwater Killifish Percina carbonaria Texas Logperch Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Heterandria formosa Least Killifish Percina sciera Dusky Darter Poecilia latipinna Sailfin Molly Percina shumardi River Darter Cyprinodon variegatus Sheepshead Minnow Caranx hippos Crevalle Jack Syngnathus louisianae Chain Pipefish Eucinostomus argenteus Spotfin Mojarra Syngnathus scovelli Gulf Pipefish Eucinostomus gula Silver Jenny Morone chrysops White Bass Eucinostomus melanopterus Flagfin Mojarra Morone mississippiensis Yellow Bass Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish Centrarchus macropterus Flier Polydactylus octonemus Atlantic Threadfin Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Cynoscion arenarius Sand Seatrout Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted Seatrout Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Cynoscion nothus Silver Seatrout Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Leiostomus xanthurus Spot Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic Croaker Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Pogonias cromis Black Drum Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Sciaenops ocellatus Red Drum Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Stellifer lanceolatus Star Drum Lepomis symmetricus Bantam Sunfish Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth Bass Oreochromis aureus Blue Tilapia Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Dormitator maculatus Fat Sleeper Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Ctenogobius boleosoma Darter Goby Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Ctenogobius shufeldti Freshwater Goby Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Evorthodus lyricus Lyre Goby Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter Gobionellus oceanicus Highfin Goby Ammocrypta vivax Scaly Sand Darter Gobiosoma bosc Naked Goby Etheostoma artesiae Redspot Darter Gobiosoma robustum Code Goby Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Microgobius gulosus Clown Goby Etheostoma fusiforme Swamp Darter Citharichthys macrops Spotted Whiff Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Citharichthys spilopterus Bay Whiff Etheostoma histrio Harlequin Darter Paralichthys lethostigma Southern Flounder Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter Achirus lineatus Lined Sole Etheostoma proeliare Cypress Darter Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker Etheostoma thompsoni Gumbo Darter Sphoeroides parvus Least Puffer

Page | 311 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Polyodon spathula Paddlefish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime Description: Body shark-like with prominent paddle-shaped snout, subterminal mouth and heterocercal tail (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Skeleton primarily cartilaginous, with bone limited to the jaws (Ross 2001). Range: Originally ranged throughout much of the Mississippi River drainage and eastward of the Appalachian Mountain range and the Great Lakes (Hubbs et al. 2008). In Texas, species occurred in every major river drainage from the Trinity Basin eastward, but its numbers and range had been substantially reduced by the 1950’s (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Paddlefish prefer large, free-flowing rivers rich in zooplankton, but will occupy impoundments with access to spawning sites (Burr 1980). In altered reaches of large rivers, Paddlefish occur in areas where they may find protection from strong currents, such as near dikes, revetments or bridges (Southall and Hubert 1984; Russell 1986). Biology: Filter feeding, invertivore/planktivore, straining food with large mouth (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Open substrate (gravel and cobble) spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999). Mature Paddlefish spawn every four to seven years (Ross 2001). Even at optimum temperatures (10-17°C), only a period (10-14 days) of increased and prolonged river flow will attract fish to the preferred spawning habitat (Russell 1986; Pitman 1992).

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a

Page | 312 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream migrations of the species and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Page | 313 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Belly and sides silvery; iridescent, broad green-gold mid-dorsal stripe (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). Distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained 2.5 or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Mississippi basin from Minnesota south to eastern Texas streams, from the Red River westward and south to the Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers moderate current; silty, muddy, or rocky substrate (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). In Texas, adults likely to inhabit smaller tributary streams (Winemiller et al. 2004). Biology: Feeds in large schools near bottom, ingesting mud and bottom ooze from which it digests algae and other organic matter (Forbes and Richardson 1920). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Simon 1999).

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout, stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Page | 314 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range: Widely distributed in the Mississippi River basin and the West Gulf Slope, west to the Lavaca River drainage (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars; considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950a). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Thin and distinct dark mid-lateral stripe extending from snout to caudal fin; caudal spot is rectangular and separate from mid-lateral stripe (Miller and Robison 2004). Scales above mid-lateral stripe

Page | 315 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need outlined in dark pigments, forming faint horizontal dorsal stripes; scales below mid-lateral stripe and abdomen usually without pigments (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Red River drainage in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas; Gulf Slope drainages from Calcasieu River in Louisiana to Brazos River in Texas (Gilbert 1980d). Habitat: Small to moderate-size tributary streams; in runs and pools over all types of substrates (Gilbert 1980d). Biology: Primarily invertivore, consuming aquatic insects; large amounts of substrate in stomach suggest benthic feeding at times (Bean et al., unpublished data). Likely broadcast spawner; batch spawning throughout the spawning season (Bean et al., unpublished data).

Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Caudal spot attached to midlateral stripe; midlateral stripe distinct; paired dots along lateral line (Hubbs et al 2008). Large eye, longer than snout (Page and Burr 1997). Dorsal fin more triangular, last fin ray less than one-half length of the longest; (Hubbs et al. 2008). Belly scaled; breast naked or partially scaled (Ross 2001). Range: Found in coastal streams from New York to Texas, and in the southern Great Lakes through parts of the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico; in Texas, found only in northeastern streams from the Sabine to the Red River with the exception of an isolated population found in the San Marcos River headwaters (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found primarily in acidic, tannin-stained, non-turbid, sluggish Coastal Plain streams and rivers of low to moderate gradient (Robison 1977). Occurs in aggregation, often at the upstream ends of pools, with a moderate to sluggish current and sand, mud, silt or detritus substrates (Robison 1977; Ross 2001). Usually associated with aquatic vegetation (Hellier 1967; Robison 1977). Biology: Invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Page | 316 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Gilbert 1980e; Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; Pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: The back and upper sides are pale greenish yellow with lower sides and venter silvery or silvery white; suborbital area may be darkly pigmented (Page and Burr 1997). Anterior lateral line pores may be outlined dorsally and ventrally by dark pigment; most individuals have darkly pigmented cleithral bar; middorsal stripe is often faint and fins are plain; small eyes placed high on the head (Ross 2001). Range: Along the Gulf Coast from San Jacinto River drainage, east to the Calcasieu River and a small section of the Red River drainage in Louisiana; semi-disjunct population in White and Black river systems of northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri and St. Francis River of extreme northeastern Arkansas (Gilbert 1980b). In Texas, inhabits small Austroriparian streams of eastern Texas from San Jacinto drainage northward along the Gulf Coast to the Sabine River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 317 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Habitat generalist with affinities for shallow, moving water and rarely found in pools and backwater areas; closely restricted to substrate of fine, silt-free sand in small creeks and rivers having slight to moderate current (Gilbert 1980b). Biology: Generalist, feeding primarily on invertebrates and detritus (Williams and Bonner 2006). Early maturing species that releases multiple cohorts of eggs over a protracted spawning period; dispersal strategy employs downstream drift for egg and larval development (Williams and Bonner 2006).

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Straw color with broad silvery lateral band; dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Mississippi River drainage from South Dakota to Louisiana; in Texas, found from Red River to Lavaca River (Gilbert and Bailey 1962; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand and gravel (Gilbert 1980c, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Pelagic spawner over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 318 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Throughout central United States; rare in Gulf Slope drainages of New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren 1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950b; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950a). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body, in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Page | 319 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: The back and upper sides are bluish-green to brown, becoming more yellow or gold on the sides, with narrow vertical bars; undersides are white to yellow; scale margins are dark, giving the upper sides a cross-hatched appearance (Ross 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Atlantic slope streams from Maine to Georgia; Gulf Slope streams east to Alabama and west to San Jacinto system; in Texas, occurs in eastern streams from the Red River southward to the San Jacinto drainage; an early record exists from the Devils River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found in small rivers and creeks with a variety of gradients, bottom types and vegetation; populations apparently declining in streams subject to siltation (Wall and Gilbert 1980). Biology: Invertivore; major food items include copepods, cladocerans, chironomid larvae and other bottom organisms (Goldstein and Simon 1999). An upstream migration often precedes spawning (Breder and Rosen 1966). Prior to spawning, males defend territories in moderately swift water over beds of gravel or near pits constructed by stonerollers or creek chubs (Curry and Spacie 1984).

Agonostomus monticola Mountain Mullet (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Agonostomus monticola is similar in general appearance to the White Mullet and Striped Mullet but can be distinguished by lack of an axillary process (Marcy et al. 2005). It can also be

Page | 320 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need distinguished by lack of an adipose eyelid; fewer gill rakers and having a rounded lower jaw, without a symphyseal knob and considerable brown pigmentation on the body (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Found along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts through the Caribbean to Colombia and Venezuela in South America; has been found great distances upstream in various streams from the Trinity River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Adults typically inhabit high-gradient freshwater streams (Erdman 1972; Cruz 1987), but may also occur in lentic waters (Loftus et al. 1984). Biology: Primary prey items include aquatic insects and algae (Torres-Navarro and Lyons 1999). Adults are oviparous, spawning offshore (Anderson 1957) with pelagic and non-adhesive eggs (Breder and Rosen 1966).

Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter (Image Credit: North American Native Fishes Association) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Pale yellow, cylindrical body with 12-18 dark, narrow dorsal blotches and narrow horizontal “dashes” along the lateral line (Williams 1975). Lateral scale margins are outlined in black; undersides of the head and body are unpigmented except for a narrow midventral black stripe that extends from the anal base to the caudal fin (Ross 2001). Range: Mainstream Mississippi River and its larger tributaries; in Texas occurs in the Neches, Sabine, and Red rivers (Williams 1975; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Associated with substrates of course sand and fine gravels in moderate current in medium to large streams (Robison and Buchanan 1988; Etnier and Starnes 1993; Pflieger 1997). Biology: Benthic invertivore feeding on aquatic insects (Forbes and Richardson 1920; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Spawns over sand with adhesive eggs (Simon 1999).

Etheostoma thompsoni Gumbo Darter (Image Credit: Suttkus et al. 2012) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss

Page | 321 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Description: Similar to E. asprigene in physical features and body pigmentation, but has a longer spinous dorsal fin base and a narrower transpelvic width; nuptial males differ from E. asprigene in breeding coloration and have significantly shorter snouts and caudal peduncles, and narrower bodies (Suttkus et al. 2012). Range: Endemic to the Neches, Sabine and Calcasieu river systems of east Texas and western Louisiana (Suttkus et al. 2012). Habitat: Tends to congregate near shore, sometimes under cuts among exposed roots with accumulated vegetational debris over a sand and gravel substrate with very little silt (Suttkus et al. 2012). Biology: Likely a benthic invertivore, as is typical of the genus (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Congregates and apparently spawns in vegetation along drop-off areas close to shore (Suttkus et al. 2012).

Percina shumardi River Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Brown or olive dorsally and white or yellow ventrally, with 5-9 dusky, obscure dorsal blotches and 8-15 black, vertically elongate lateral blotches; black suborbital bar and small black basicaudal spot (Page 1983). Upper lip connected to snout by a narrow frenum; belly scaled; upper jaw not extending as far as to below the middle of the eye (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Broadly distributed from Canada, south in the Mississippi River basin to Mississippi and Louisiana; also occurs in Gulf of Mexico drainages from the Mobile Basin west to the Coastal Plain of Texas (Page 1983). In Texas limited to eastern streams including Red southward to the Neches, and a disjunct population in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems east of the Balcones Escarpment (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Confined to large rivers and lower parts of major tributaries (Gilbert 1980a); found in lower reaches of medium-size lowland rivers throughout their range (Edwards 1997). Usually found in deep chutes and riffles where current is swift and bottom composed of coarse gravel or rock (Gilbert 1980a). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Non-guarding, rock and gravel spawner; eggs are buried in gravel depressions or in rock interstitial spaces (Balon 1975; Simon 1999).

Page | 322 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Paralichthys lethostigma Southern Flounder (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Southeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat loss Description: Large, left-eyed flounder with symmetrical pelvic bases; eyed side may be variable, but is often brown with darker mottling and sometimes has four to five rows of diffuse spots on the sides, none of which are oscillated; blind side is usually white, although it is sometimes dusky (Ross 2001). Lateral line highly arched over the pectoral fin on the ocular side (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Ranges in coastal habitats from North Carolina south through Florida and west along the Gulf Coast to northern Mexico also occurring in the lower reaches of coastal streams (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Typically occurs in estuaries, but may also enter brackish or even fresh water, especially in winter and spring (Guntherz 1967). Adults can survive indefinitely in freshwater reservoirs if water temperatures remain above 9°C (Prentice 1989). Biology: Fishes, and to a lesser extent, crustaceans make up most of the diet; spawns in higher salinity Gulf waters, with the young fish moving into estuaries to grow (Enge and Mulholland 1985).

Page | 323 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Fishes of the Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA Focal species are highlighted in blue and non-native species are in red.

Ichthyomyzon castaneus Chestnut Lamprey Notropis texanus Weed Shiner Ichthyomyzon gagei Southern Brook Lamprey Notropis volucellus Mimic Shiner Polyodon spathula Paddlefish Opsopoeodus emiliae Pugnose Minnow Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar Pimephales promelas Fathead Minnow Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted Gar Pimephales vigilax Bullhead Minnow Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar Pteronotropis hubbsi Bluehead Shiner Lepisosteus platostomus Shortnose Gar Semotilus atromaculatus Creek Chub Amia calva Bowfin Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker Hiodon alosoides Goldeye Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback Anguilla rostrata American Eel Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard Shad Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad Erimyzon sucetta Lake Chubsucker Campostoma anomalum Central Stoneroller Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth Buffalo Campostoma spadiceum Highland Stoneroller Ictiobus cyprinellus Bigmouth Buffalo Carassius auratus Goldfish Minytrema melanops Spotted Sucker Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass Carp Moxostoma poecilurum Blacktail Redhorse Cyprinella lutrensis Red Shiner Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead Cyprinella venusta Blacktail Shiner Ameiurus natalis Yellow Bullhead Cyprinus carpio Common Carp Ictalurus furcatus Blue Catfish Hybognathus hayi Cypress Minnow Ictalurus punctatus Channel Catfish Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow Noturus gyrinus Tadpole Madtom Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner Noturus nocturnus Freckled Madtom Luxilus chrysocephalus Striped Shiner Pylodictis olivaris Flathead Catfish Lythrurus fumeus Ribbon Shiner Esox americanus Redfin Pickerel Lythrurus umbratilis Redfin Shiner Esox niger Chain Pickerel Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate Perch Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub Labidesthes sicculus Brook Silverside Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Menidia beryllina Inland Silverside Notropis atherinoides Emerald Shiner Fundulus blairae Western Starhead Topminnow Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner Fundulus chrysotus Golden Topminnow Notropis blennius River Shiner Fundulus notatus Blackstripe Topminnow Notropis buchanani Ghost Shiner Fundulus olivaceous Blackspotted Topminnow Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner Gambusia affinis Western Mosquitofish Notropis maculatus Taillight Shiner Morone chrysops White Bass Notropis potteri Chub Shiner Morone mississippiensis Yellow Bass Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner Morone saxatilis Striped Bass Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner Centrarchus macropterus Flier

Page | 324 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Lepomis auritus Redbreast Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Green Sunfish Lepomis gulosus Warmouth Lepomis humilis Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Lepomis marginatus Dollar Sunfish Lepomis megalotis Longear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus Redear Sunfish Lepomis miniatus Redspotted Sunfish Lepomis symmetricus Bantam Sunfish Micropterus punctulatus Spotted Bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Bass Pomoxis annularis White Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black Crappie Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter Ammocrypta vivax Scaly Sand Darter Etheostoma artesiae Redspot Darter Etheostoma asprigene Mud Darter Etheostoma chlorosoma Bluntnose Darter Etheostoma gracile Slough Darter Etheostoma histrio Harlequin Darter Etheostoma parvipinne Goldstripe Darter Etheostoma proeliare Cypress Darter Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly Darter Etheostoma thompsoni Gumbo Darter Percina caprodes Logperch Percina macrolepida Bigscale Logperch Percina maculata Blackside Darter Percina sciera Dusky Darter Percina shumardi River Darter Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater Drum Elassoma zonatum Banded Pygmy Sunfish

Page | 325 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Polyodon spathula Paddlefish (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime Description: Body shark-like with prominent paddle-shaped snout, subterminal mouth and heterocercal tail (Boschung and Mayden 2004). Skeleton primarily cartilaginous, with bone limited to the jaws (Ross 2001). Range: Originally ranged throughout much of the Mississippi River drainage and eastward of the Appalachian Mountain range and the Great Lakes (Hubbs et al. 2008). In Texas, species occurred in every major river drainage from the Trinity Basin eastward, but its numbers and range had been substantially reduced by the 1950’s (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Paddlefish prefer large, free-flowing rivers rich in zooplankton, but will occupy impoundments with access to spawning sites (Burr 1980). In altered reaches of large rivers, Paddlefish occur in areas where they may find protection from strong currents, such as near dikes, revetments, or bridges (Southall and Hubert 1984; Russell 1986). Biology: Filter feeding, invertivore/planktivore, straining food with large mouth (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Open substrate (gravel and cobble) spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999). Mature Paddlefish spawn every four to seven years (Ross 2001). Even at optimum temperatures (10-17°C), only a period (10-14 days) of increased and prolonged river flow will attract fish to the preferred spawning habitat (Russell 1986; Pitman 1992).

Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; sedimentation; loss of spawning habitat Description: Flat, shovel-shaped snout surrounded by barbels; long, slender caudal peduncle flat in cross section and covered with bony scutes; upper lobe of caudal fin is greatly elongated (Hubbs 1958; Pflieger 1997; Page and Burr 1997). Range in Texas: Currently found in the Red River below Lake Texoma Reservoir (Hubbs et al. 2008). Evidence of the presence of this species in the lower Pecos River during prehistoric times, strongly suggests that it likely occurred in many Texas rivers (Jurgens 2005; Hubbs et al. 2008). Cope and Yarrow (1875) reported Shovelnose Sturgeon in the Rio Grande near Albuquerque. Hubbs et al. (1977) obtained

Page | 326 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need hearsay reports of sturgeon from near Dryden Crossing (Terrell County) and from Mexican tributaries in Coahuila. It is assumed to now be rare or extirpated in the Rio Grande and Pecos basins. Habitat: Frequently inhabits flowing water over sandy bottoms or near rocky points or bars (Bailey and Cross 1954; Page and Burr 1997; Pflieger 1997; Keenlyne 1997). Biology: Shovelnose Sturgeon feed by raking the bottom with sensitive barbels; bulk of the diet made up of aquatic insect larvae (Lee 1980). Spawning normally occurs from April through early July with mature Shovelnose Sturgeon migrating upriver to spawn over rocky substrates in flowing water. Larval fish drift in the water column for up to 12 days after hatching before settling out of the water column to begin the benthic phase of life (Kynard et al. 2002; Braaten and Fuller 2007). Adults do not spawn every year; frequency of spawning is influenced by food supply and ability to store adequate fat to produce gametes (Keenlyne 1997).

Atractosteus spatula Alligator Gar (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of spawning habitat; over-harvest Description: Body long and cylindrical; snout short and broad; large teeth in upper jaw in two rows on each side; ganoid scales (Hubbs et al. 2008). Young have a light mid-dorsal stripe which is bordered by a dark brown area, extending from tip of snout to origin of dorsal fin, and from posterior insertion of dorsal fin to upper base of caudal fin (Suttkus 1963). Range in Texas: Coastal streams from the Red River to the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Generally associated with near surface habitats in slack water and backwater habitats in large rivers, bays and coastal marine waters (Suttkus 1963; Lee and Wiley 1980). Coastal river populations of Alligator Gar use both freshwater and saltwater habitats (Goodyear 1967). Biology: Ambush, opportunistic predator (Goldstein and Simon 1999), consuming a variety of food items; primarily fishes (Bonham 1941) and crabs (Darnell 1958, 1961; Lambou 1961; Suttkus 1963); also birds (Raney 1942) and refuse (Goodyear 1967). Individual females tend to spawn with a group of males in shallow, tributary backwaters in coordination with periodic flood events, laying adhesive eggs attached to vegetation (Inebnit 2009).

Page | 327 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hiodon alosoides Goldeye (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; loss of habitat Description: Deep, compressed body; dorsal fin origin opposite or behind anal fin origin; large mouth; maxillary extends behind pupil of eye; blunt, round snout; silver body, blue-green above with silver reflections, silver-white below; clear to dusky fins; gold iris (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges from the Northwest Territories, Canada, southward along the Mississippi basin to Louisiana; restricted to the Red River basin in Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Occurs in areas of moderate to fast current, as well as quiet pools; tolerant of highly turbid conditions (Gilbert 1980f; Wallus et al. 1990). In Lake Texoma, species occurs in open water in the clearer parts of the lake and tailwaters; usually taken near the surface; young-of-year are rare (Riggs and Bonn 1959). Biology: Drift invertivore; feeds at the surface (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Nonguarding, open substrate spawner with pelagic free embryos (Balon 1981; Simon 1999).

Anguilla rostrata American Eel (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: barriers to migration; habitat loss Description: Body snakelike, lacking pelvic fins and dorsal fin is continuous with caudal and anal (Page and Burr 1997). Mouth large, slightly oblique; gape extended to posterior margin of eye; teeth in bands on jaws and vomer; scales small, cycloid and embedded (Hardy 1978). Range: This species is known from most of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, including the Caribbean coasts of Central and South America to Brazil. Texas records include specimens from the Red River to the Rio Grande in most of the large river systems of the state. Dams impede the upstream

Page | 328 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

migrations and have effectively eradicated the species in the western part of the state (Koster 1957; Hubbs and Echelle 1973; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: The species is found in a wide range of habitats (Helfman et al. 1984, Warren et al. 2000). Postlarval eels tend to be bottom-dwellers, hiding in burrows, tubes, snags, plant masses, other types of shelter, or the substrate itself (Fahay 1978; Van Den Avyle 1984). Biology: American Eel is carnivorous; the main food items are fishes and invertebrates (Goldstein and Simon 1999). American Eel exhibits facultative catadromy, has multiple life stages, is semelparous and panmictic; sexual maturity is not reached until at least 5 years, and often 20+ years for females (Hardy 1978; Haro et al. 2000). Males reported to mature at about 280 mm, and females at about 460 mm; however females may mature at smaller sizes (Hardy 1978).

Campostoma spadiceum Highland Stoneroller (Image Credit: Cashner et al. 2010) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; rare, restricted range in US & Texas Description: Bright red or red-orange coloration in median and paired fins; distinct tubercle pattern on the nape of nuptial males, a unique pattern of dark pigment on the caudal fin of nuptial adults; minor row of teeth on the pharyngeal arch (Cashner et al. 2010) Range: Portions of the Red, Ouachita and lower Arkansas river basins from eastern Oklahoma to central Arkansas (Cashner et al. 2010) and NE Texas (Aiken Creek, Sulphur River tributary). Habitat: Small, stony-bottomed upland headwaters to small rivers with relatively clear water and substantial base flow (Cashner et al. 2010). Biology: Algivorous; large males in peak nuptial coloration are most often found in swift water in large riffles or chutes, females may use slightly less swift habitats (Cashner et al. 2010).

Page | 329 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hybognathus nuchalis Mississippi Silvery Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Belly and sides silvery; iridescent, broad green-gold mid-dorsal stripe (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). Distance from origin of anal fin to end of caudal peduncle contained 2.5 or fewer times in distance from tip of snout to origin of anal fin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Mississippi basin from Minnesota south to eastern Texas streams, from the Red River westward and south to the Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers moderate current; silty, muddy, or rocky substrate (Fingerman and Suttkus 1961). In Texas, adults likely to inhabit smaller tributary streams (Winemiller et al. 2004). Biology: Feeds in large schools near bottom, ingesting mud and bottom ooze from which it digests algae and other organic matter (Forbes and Richardson 1920). Flood-pulse, broadcast spawner (Simon 1999).

Hybopsis amnis Pallid Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat fragmentation; habitat loss; loss of natural flow regime Description: Depressed dorsal fin longer than head; eye equal to or longer than snout (Hubbs et al. 2008). Scales usually dark-edged; black stripe along silver side and around snout, stripe darkest at rear, sometimes a black caudal spot (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Ranges widely throughout the Mississippi River basin southward along the Gulf Coastal Plain in Texas to the Guadalupe River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet waters over sand/silt bottoms, often at the end of sand and gravel bars; intolerant of heavy siltation and pollutants (Clemmer 1980). Biology: Nothing is known about the spawning or food habits of this species (Kwak 1991).

Page | 330 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Macrhybopsis hyostoma Shoal Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Relatively large, oval eyes set high on head, cross-eyed appearance when viewed from above; one or two pairs of maxillary barbels; translucent pale green or gray dorsally, silvery white ventrally, with broad silver lateral stripe; small to large pigmentations on dorsal and lateral regions; pigmentation on fins variable, usually along rays of pectoral, pelvic, dorsal, anal and caudal fins (Eisenhour 2004). Range: Widely distributed in the Mississippi River basin and the West Gulf Slope, west to the Lavaca River drainage (Eisenhour 2004; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Prefers streams with well-defined pools and riffles/runs, braided channels, and shifting sand/gravel bars; considered a habitat specialist in habitats with clean sand or pea-size gravel substrates and moderate current velocities (Luttrell et al. 2002). Biology: Feeds on aquatic insects, small crustaceans, and plant material (Starrett 1950a). Likely similar to Peppered Chub (Macrhybopsis tetranema), which is a flood-pulse spawner (Bottrell et al. 1964; Miller and Robison 2004).

Macrhybopsis storeriana Silver Chub (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Faint, dusky lateral stripe usually present; caudal fin lightly pigmented, except the lower 3-4 rays, which are completely unpigmented (Becker 1983).

Page | 331 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range in Texas: Red River (Warren et al. 2000) and the lower Brazos River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Ranges over gravel to silt substrates, but found more commonly over silt or mud bottom (Kinney 1954; Linam et al. 1994). Biology: Planktivore/invertivore; rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Notropis atrocaudalis Blackspot Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Thin and distinct dark mid-lateral stripe extending from snout to caudal fin; caudal spot is rectangular and separate from mid-lateral stripe (Miller and Robison 2004). Scales above mid-lateral stripe outlined in dark pigments, forming faint horizontal dorsal stripes, scales below mid-lateral stripe and abdomen usually without pigments (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Red River drainage in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas; Gulf Slope drainages from Calcasieu River in Louisiana to Brazos River in Texas (Gilbert 1980d). Habitat: Small to moderate-size tributary streams; in runs and pools over all types of substrates (Gilbert 1980d). Biology: Primarily invertivore, consuming aquatic insects; large amounts of substrate in stomach suggest benthic feeding at times (Bean et al., unpublished data). Likely broadcast spawner; batch spawning throughout the spawning season (Bean et al., unpublished data).

Notropis blennius River Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately deep-bodied, slightly compressed (Miller and Robison 2004). Snout not definitely overhanging mouth (Hubbs et al. 2008). Pale-colored; tan above and whitish below with a silvery midlateral stripe (Miller and Robison 2004). Range: Range extends from Hudson Bay south through the Mississippi Basin to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi; restricted to the Red River in Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 332 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Habitat: Primarily a mainstream inhabitant (Hubbs et al. 2008). Found in water of varying clarity (usually turbid) over substrate of silt sand, and gravel (Gilbert 1980g). Biology: Benthic and drift invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Multiple clutch spawner (Hatch and Elias 2002) over sand and gravel (Trautman 1981).

Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Caudal spot attached to midlateral stripe; midlateral stripe distinct; paired dots along lateral line (Hubbs et al 2008). Large eye, longer than snout (Page and Burr 1997). Dorsal fin more triangular, last fin ray less than one-half length of the longest; (Hubbs et al. 2008). Belly scaled; breast naked or partially scaled (Ross 2001). Range: Found in coastal streams from New York to Texas, and in the southern Great Lakes through parts of the Mississippi River to the Gulf of Mexico; in Texas, found only in northeastern streams from the Sabine to the Red River with the exception of an isolated population found in the San Marcos River headwaters (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found primarily in acidic, tannin-stained, non-turbid, sluggish Coastal Plain streams and rivers of low to moderate gradient (Robison 1977). Occurs in aggregation, often at the upstream ends of pools, with a moderate to sluggish current and sand, mud, silt or detritus substrates (Robison 1977; Ross 2001). Usually associated with aquatic vegetation (Hellier 1967; Robison 1977). Biology: Invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Rock and gravel spawner with pelagic free embryos (Simon 1999).

Page | 333 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis maculatus Taillight Shiner (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: The back is straw colored or light olive with a thin middorsal stripe running from the head to tail; tip of the lower jaw is densely covered with melanophores; narrow but prominent mid-lateral band (1.0-1.5 scales wide) starts on the snout just above the corner of the mouth and extends posteriorly to the caudal fin base, fading slightly before approaching a distinct basicaudal spot about the size of the pupil; above and below the basicaudal spot are wedge-shaped spots; thin postanal stripe; dorsal fin also a black band through rays 1-3 (Ross 2001). Range: Restricted to lower Mississippi Valley, Gulf Slope and southern Atlantic Slope, below the Fall Line (Gilbert 1980h). In Texas, restricted to the Sulphur and Cypress drainages in the extreme northeast (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet, usually vegetated oxbow lakes, ponds, or backwaters (Burr and Page 1975; Ross 2001). Biology: Planktivore, feeding on microcrustaceans, rotifers, unicellular algae, and small dipteran larvae (Beach 1974; Cowell and Barnett 1974). Spawning occurs along the shoreline as large schools of gravid females and ripe males congregate in shallow areas during periods of major reproductive activity (Cowell and Barnett 1974). Eggs may be deposited over nests of other fishes such as Largemouth Bass (Chew 1974).

Notropis potteri Chub Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Moderately dusky above and silvery below, with little pigment below the region of the lateral line; melanophores scattered evenly on upper parts of the head and body; dark lateral band moderately

Page | 334 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need developed on the caudal peduncle, ending just before the weak and diffuse basicaudal spot (Hubbs and Bonham 1951). Range: Red, lower Trinity, San Jacinto and Brazos rivers (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Flowing water with silt or sand substrate (Gilbert 1980e; Perkin et al. 2009). Biology: Invertivore and piscivore; pelagic, broadcast spawner (Perkin et al. 2009).

Notropis sabinae Sabine Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: The back and upper sides are pale greenish yellow with lower sides and venter silvery or silvery white; suborbital area may be darkly pigmented (Page and Burr 1997). Anterior lateral line pores may be outlined dorsally and ventrally by dark pigment; most individuals have darkly pigmented cleithral bar; middorsal stripe is often faint and fins are plain; small eyes placed high on the head (Ross 2001). Range: Along the Gulf Coast from San Jacinto River drainage, east to the Calcasieu River and a small section of the Red River drainage in Louisiana; semi-disjunct population in White and Black river systems of northeastern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri and St. Francis River of extreme northeastern Arkansas (Gilbert 1980b). In Texas, inhabits small Austroriparian streams of eastern Texas from San Jacinto drainage northward along the Gulf Coast to the Sabine River basin (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Habitat generalist with affinities for shallow, moving water and rarely found in pools and backwater areas; closely restricted to substrate of fine, silt-free sand in small creeks and rivers having slight to moderate current (Gilbert 1980b). Biology: Generalist, feeding primarily on invertebrates and detritus (Williams and Bonner 2006). Early maturing species that releases multiple cohorts of eggs over a protracted spawning period; dispersal strategy employs downstream drift for egg and larval development (Williams and Bonner 2006).

Page | 335 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Notropis shumardi Silverband Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Straw color with broad silvery lateral band; dorsal scales lightly outlined with black pigments; upper and lower lips with dark pigment (Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Mississippi River drainage from South Dakota to Louisiana; in Texas, found from Red River to Lavaca River (Gilbert and Bailey 1962; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Main channel with moderate to swift current velocities and moderate to deep depths; associated with turbid water over silt, sand and gravel (Gilbert 1980c, Robison and Buchanan 1988, Cross and Collins 1995). Biology: Pelagic spawner over hard sand to fine gravel substrates in water 1-2 m deep in strong current (Conner 1977).

Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat fragmentation; habitat loss Description: Dark lateral stripe ending in a spot at base of caudal fin (Sublette et al. 1990). Lower lip thick with fleshy lobe on each side that is partially separated from mandible by a groove (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Throughout central United States; rare in Gulf Slope drainages of New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers in Canadian, Red, Sabine, Trinity and Colorado drainages (Wilde and Bonner 2000; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Predominates in riffles and shallow race ways (Burr and Warren 1986) and may move into shallow gravel riffles at night (Starrett 1950b; Deacon 1961). Biology: Benthic grazing invertivore; feeds by probing the substrate with its sensitive snout and lips (Starrett 1950a). Spawns in late spring or early summer (Hubbs and Ortenburger 1929; Starrett 1951; Pflieger 1997) in gravelly riffles (Becker 1983).

Page | 336 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Pteronotropis hubbsi Bluehead Shiner (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: limited range; habitat loss Description: Distinctive, broad black midlateral stripe extending from chin through eye across the opercle backward to the caudal base where it terminates in a deep, darker basicaudal spot extending a short distance onto the caudal rays; body dusky above; lower surface of head and belly white; chin distinctly black (Bailey and Robison 1978; Robison and Buchanan 1988). Range: Found sporadically in Arkansas, Louisiana and mainstem and tributaries of Big Cypress Bayou and Caddo Lake in Texas (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Quiet backwater areas of small to medium-sized, sluggish streams and oxbow lakes having mud or mud-sand substrate; water typically tannin-stained; heavy growth of submergent or semi-emergent vegetation often present (Bailey and Robison 1978; Gilbert 1980i; Robison and Buchanan 1988). Biology: Feeds primarily in the water column, but individuals also pick items off of vegetation and the water surface; diverse diet dominated by microcrustaceans (Fletcher and Burr 1992; Ranvestel and Burr 2004). Nest associate (Mayden and Simons 2002); known to spawn over centrarchid nests (Fletcher and Burr 1992).

Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced stream flow Description: Elongate body, oval in cross section (Burr and Mayden 1999). Eye closer to back of head than to tip of snout; head abruptly more slender than body, in adults; dorsal fin base more than one-third of standard length (Hubbs et al. 2008).

Page | 337 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Range: Found in large rivers throughout the Mississippi Basin; in Texas, occurs in limited numbers throughout the major streams of the state, except the Rio Grande (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found over cobble and/or bedrock substrates; adults occupy deep riffles in areas of very swift flow, juveniles occupy shallower, less swift water (Moss et al. 1983). Biology: Invertivore; spawns in deep riffles with cobble and bedrock substrates (Moss et al. 1983).

Erimyzon claviformis Western Creek Chubsucker (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: habitat loss; habitat fragmentation; loss of natural flow regime; reduced water quality Description: The back and upper sides are bluish-green to brown, becoming more yellow or gold on the sides, with narrow vertical bars; undersides are white to yellow; scale margins are dark, giving the upper sides a cross-hatched appearance (Ross 2001; Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Atlantic slope streams from Maine to Georgia; Gulf Slope streams east to Alabama and west to San Jacinto system; in Texas, occurs in eastern streams from the Red River southward to the San Jacinto drainage; an early record exists from the Devils River (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Found in small rivers and creeks with a variety of gradients, bottom types and vegetation; populations apparently declining in streams subject to siltation (Wall and Gilbert 1980). Biology: Invertivore; major food items include copepods, cladocerans, chironomid larvae and other bottom organisms (Goldstein and Simon 1999). An upstream migration often precedes spawning (Breder and Rosen 1966). Prior to spawning, males defend territories in moderately swift water over beds of gravel or near pits constructed by stonerollers or creek chubs (Curry and Spacie 1984).

Page | 338 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Ammocrypta clara Western Sand Darter (Image Credit: North American Native Fishes Association) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Pale yellow, cylindrical body with 12-18 dark, narrow dorsal blotches and narrow horizontal “dashes” along the lateral line (Williams 1975). Lateral scale margins are outlined in black; undersides of the head and body are unpigmented except for a narrow midventral black stripe that extends from the anal base to the caudal fin (Ross 2001). Range: Mainstream Mississippi River and its larger tributaries; in Texas occurs in the Neches, Sabine, and Red rivers (Williams 1975; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Associated with substrates of course sand and fine gravels in moderate current in medium to large streams (Robison and Buchanan 1988; Etnier and Starnes 1993; Pflieger 1997). Biology: Benthic invertivore feeding on aquatic insects (Forbes and Richardson 1920; Goldstein and Simon 1999). Spawns over sand with adhesive eggs (Simon 1999).

Etheostoma radiosum Orangebelly Darter (Image Credit: Chad Thomas) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Vertical blotches on sides of body most distinct posteriorly; a black spot at upper margin of pectoral fins (Hubbs et al. 2008). Body olive to tan above, white to orange below; black teardrop; branchiostegal membranes orange and pelvic fins blue (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Occurs primarily in Red River tributaries in Oklahoma, Arkansas and Texas (Hubbs and Black 1941; Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Inhabits a variety of habitats ranging from high gradient streams to more sluggish lowland streams; apparently preferring riffle areas of gravel-bottom streams with moderate to high currents (Scalet and Platania 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Spawns in areas of small diameter gravel in moderate current portions of the stream (Scalet 1973).

Page | 339 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Etheostoma thompsoni Gumbo Darter (Image Credit: Suttkus et al. 2012) Status: SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Similar to E. asprigene in physical features and body pigmentation, but has a longer spinous dorsal fin base and a narrower transpelvic width; nuptial males differ from E. asprigene in breeding coloration and have significantly shorter snouts and caudal peduncles, and narrower bodies (Suttkus et al. 2012). Range: Endemic to the Neches, Sabine and Calcasieu river systems of east Texas and western Louisiana (Suttkus et al. 2012). Habitat: Tends to congregate near shore, sometimes under cuts among exposed roots with accumulated vegetational debris over a sand and gravel substrate with very little silt (Suttkus et al. 2012). Biology: Likely a benthic invertivore, as is typical of the genus (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Congregates and apparently spawns in vegetation along drop-off areas close to shore (Suttkus et al. 2012).

Percina maculata Blackside Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Upper jaw reaches to pupil of eye; snout less conical, not extending beyond upper lip; body depth contained in standard length less than 7 times (Hubbs et al. 2008). Discrete medial black caudal

Page | 340 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need spot; prominent teardrop; olive above, 8-9 dark saddles; 6-9 large oval black blotches along side (Page and Burr 1997). Range: Wide ranging species from the Great Lakes southwards through the Mississippi basin; in Texas, primarily in the Red River basin in the northeast part of the state (Hubbs et al. 2008) although specimens have been taken in the lower Trinity and San Jacinto rivers (FoTX database). Habitat: Often found in clear, gravelly streams, but also taken in turbid streams (Beckham and Platania 1980). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Fish migrate upstream to breeding grounds (Winn 1958) and enter riffles for spawning in the spring (Thomas 1970). Nonguarding, rock and gravel spawner (Simon 1999).

Percina shumardi River Darter (Image © Joseph R. Tomelleri) Status: state threatened; SGCN Threats in Northeast Texas Rivers NFCA: loss of natural flow regime; habitat loss Description: Brown or olive dorsally and white or yellow ventrally, with 5-9 dusky, obscure dorsal blotches and 8-15 black, vertically elongate lateral blotches; black suborbital bar and small black basicaudal spot (Page 1983). Upper lip connected to snout by a narrow frenum; belly scaled; upper jaw not extending as far as to below the middle of the eye (Hubbs et al. 2008). Range: Broadly distributed from Canada, south in the Mississippi River basin to Mississippi and Louisiana; also occurs in Gulf of Mexico drainages from the Mobile Basin west to the Coastal Plain of Texas (Page 1983). In Texas limited to eastern streams including Red southward to the Neches, and a disjunct population in the Guadalupe and San Antonio river systems east of the Balcones Escarpment (Hubbs et al. 2008). Habitat: Confined to large rivers and lower parts of major tributaries (Gilbert 1980a); found in lower reaches of medium-size lowland rivers throughout their range (Edwards 1997). Usually found in deep chutes and riffles where current is swift and bottom composed of coarse gravel or rock (Gilbert 1980a). Biology: Benthic invertivore (Goldstein and Simon 1999). Non-guarding, rock and gravel spawner; eggs are buried in gravel depressions or in rock interstitial spaces (Balon 1975; Simon 1999).

Page | 341 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Literature Cited

Anderson, W.W. 1957. Larval forms of the freshwater mullet (Agonostomus monticola) from the open ocean off the Bahamas and South Atlantic Coast of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries Bulletin 120. 57:415-425. Bailey, R.M. and F.B. Cross. 1954. River sturgeons of the American genus Scaphirhynchus: characters, distribution, and synonymy. Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 39:169- 208. Bailey, R.M. and C.L. Hubbs. 1949. The black basses (Micropterus) of Florida with description of a new species. Occasional Papers Museum of Zoology University of Michigan 516:1-43. Bailey, R.M. and H.W. Robison. 1978. Notropis hubbsi, a new cyprinid fish from the Mississippi River basin with comments on Notropis welaka. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 683:1-21. Balon, E.K. 1975. Reproductive guilds of fishes: a proposal and definition. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 32:821-864. Balon, E.K. 1981. Additions and amendments to the classification of reproductive styles in fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 6:377-389. Balon, E.K. 1990. Epigenesis of an epigeneticist: the development of some alternative concepts on the early ontogeny and evolution of fishes. Guelph Ichthyology Reviews 1:1-48. Beach, M.L. 1974. Food habits and reproduction of the taillight shiner, Notropis maculatus (Hay), in central Florida. Florida Science 37:5-16. Bean, P.T., J.T. Jackson, D.J. McHenry, T.H. Bonner and M.R.J. Forstner. 2011. Rediscovery of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Ictaluridae) in a western Gulf-Slope drainage. Southwestern Naturalist 56:287–291. Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Beckham, E.C. and S.P. Platania. 1980. Percina maculata (Girard), Blackside darter. Page 728 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Bessert, M.L. 2006. Molecular systematics and population structure in the North American endemic fish genus Cycleptus (Teleostei: Catostomidae). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Bestgen, K.R. and D.L. Propst. 1996. Redescription, geographic variation, and taxonomic status of the Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus (Girard 1856). Copeia 1996:41-55. Blair, W.F. 1950. The Biotic Provinces of Texas. Texas Journal of Science 2:93-117. Bonham, K. 1941. Food of gars in Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 70:356-362. Bonner, T.H., C. Thomas, C.S. Williams and J.P. Karges. 2005. Temporal assessment of a west Texas stream fish assemblage. Southwestern Naturalist 50:74-106. Boschung, H.T., Jr. and R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. Bottrell, C.E., R.H. Ingersol and R.W. Jones. 1964. Notes on the embryology, early development, and behavior of Hybopsis aestivalis tetranemus (Gilbert). Transactions of the Microscopial Society 83:391- 399.

Page | 342 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Braaten, P.J. and D.B. Fuller. 2007. Growth rates of young-of-year shovelnose sturgeon in the upper Missouri River. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 23:506-515. Breder, C.M. and D.E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes. American Museum of Natural History. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y. Brown, W.H. 1953. Introduced fish species of the Guadalupe River Basin. Texas Journal of Science 5:245- 251. Brown, W.H. 1955. Egg production of the fish Hadropterus scierus apristis in San Marcos River, Texas. Copeia 1955:149-150. Burr, B.M. 1980. Polyodon spathula (Walbaum), Paddlefish. Page 45 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Burr, B.M. and R.L. Mayden. 1999. A new species of Cycleptus (Cypriniformes: Catostomidae) from Gulf Slope drainages of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, with a review of the distribution, biology, and conservation status of the genus. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 20:19-57. Burr, B.M. and L.M. Page. 1975. Distribution and life history notes on the taillight shiner Notropis maculatus in Kentucky. Transactions of the Kentucky Academy of Science 36:71-74. Burr, B.M. and M.L. Warren. 1986. A distributional atlas of Kentucky fishes. Scientific and Technical Series No. 4. Kentucky Nature Preserves Commission. Campbell, L.S. 1962. Basic survey and inventory of species in the Rio Grande River of Texas in Region 3-B. Job No. B-15. Job Completion Report. Federal Aid Project F-5-R-8. Carlander, K.D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Volume 1. Life history data on freshwater fishes of the United States and Canada, exclusive of the Perciformes. Iowa State University Press. Carson, E.W., A.H. Hanna, G.P. Garrett, R.J. Edwards and J.R. Gold. 2014. Conservation genetics of cyprinid fishes in the upper Nueces River basin in Central Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 59:1–8. Cashner, R.C., W.J. Matthews, E. Marsh-Matthews, P.J. Unmack and F.M. Cashner. 2010. Recognition and redescription of a distinctive stoneroller from the Southern Interior Highlands. Copeia 2010:300-311. Chernoff, B., R.R. Miller and C.R. Gilbert. 1982. Notropis orca and Notropis simus, cyprinid fishes from the American Southwest, with description of a new subspecies. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 698:1-49. Chew, R.L. 1974. Early life history of Florida largemouth bass. Fisheries Bulletin Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission 7:1-76. Clemmer, G.H. 1980. Notropis amnis (Hubbs and Greene), Pallid shiner. Page 224 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Conner, J.V. 1977. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes in western Gulf Slope drainages between the Mississippi and the Rio Grande. Ph.D. dissertation. Tulane University. Conner, J.V. and R.D. Suttkus. 1986. Zoogeography of freshwater fishes of the western Gulf Slope of North America. Pages 413-456 in The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes (C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors). Wiley, New York. Contreras-Balderas, S. 1977. Speciation aspects and man-made community composition changes in Chihuahuan Desert fishes. Pages 405-431 in Transactions of the Symposium on the Biological Resources of the Chihuahuan Desert Region United States and Mexico (R.H. Wauer and D.H. Riskind, editors). National Park Service Transactions and Proceedings Series 3.

Page | 343 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Cooper, J.E. and G. Longley. 1980a. Satan eurystomus (Hubbs and Bailey), Widemouth blindcat. Page 473 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Cooper, J.E. and G. Longley. 1980b. Trogloglanis pattersoni (Eigenmann), Toothless blindcat. Page 474 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Cope, E.D. 1880. On the zoological position of Texas. Bulletin of the United States National Museum 17:1- 51. Cope, E.D. and H.C. Yarrow. 1875. Report upon the collection of fishes made in portions of Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona during the years 1871-1874. Chapter 6, pages 645- 703 in United States Army Engineers Department Report, in charge of George M. Wheeler. Geography and Geology of the Explorations and Surveys West of the 100th meridian 5:1-1021. Cowell, B.C. and B.S. Barnett. 1974. Life history of the taillight shiner, Notropis maculatus, in Central Florida. American Midland Naturalist 91:282-293. Cowley, D.E., P.D. Shirey and M.D. Hatch. 2006. Ecology of the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Cyprinidae: Hybognathus amarus) inferred from specimens collected in 1874. Reviews in Fisheries Science 14:111–125. Cross, F.B. and J.T. Collins. 1995. Fishes in Kansas. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence. Cross, F.B., R.L. Mayden and J.D. Stewart. 1986. Fishes in the Western Mississippi drainage. Pages 363- 412 in The Zoogeography of North American Freshwater Fishes (C.H. Hocutt and E.O. Wiley, editors). Wiley, New York. Cross, F.B., R.E. Moss and O.T. Collins. 1985. Assessment of dewatering impact on stream fisheries in the Arkansas and Cimarron Rivers. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Cruz, G.A. 1987. Reproductive biology and feeding habits of cuyamel, Joturus pichardi and tepemechin, Agonostomus monticola (Pisces; Mugilidae) from Rio Platano, Mosquitia, Honduras. Bulletin of Marine Science 40:63-72. Curry, K.D. and A. Spacie. 1984. Differential use of stream habitat by spawning catostomids. American Midland Naturalist 111:267-279. Darnell, R.M. 1958. Food habits of fishes and larger invertebrates of Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, an estuarine community. Institute of Marine Science 5:353-406. Darnell, R.M. 1961. Trophic spectrum of an estuarine community, based on studies of Lake Pontchartrain. Ecology 42:553-568. Deacon, J.E. 1961. Fish populations, following a drought, in the Neosho and Marais des Cygnes Rivers of Kansas. University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History 13:359-427. Dudley, R.K. and S.P. Platania. 1997. Habitat use of Rio Grande silvery minnow. Report to the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Durham, B.W. 2007. Reproductive ecology, habitat associations, and population dynamics of two imperiled cyprinids in a Great Plains river. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Edwards, R.J. 1980. The ecology and geographic variation of the Guadalupe bass, Micropterus treculi. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Edwards, R.J. 1997. Ecological profiles for selected stream-dwelling Texas freshwater fishes. Report to the Texas Water Development Board.

Page | 344 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Edwards, R.J. 1999. Ecological profiles for selected stream-dwelling Texas freshwater fishes II. Report to the Texas Water Development Board. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and N.L. Allan. 2004. Aquifer-dependent fishes of the Edwards Plateau region. Pages 253-268 in Aquifers of the Edwards Plateau (R.E. Mace, E.S. Angle and W.F. Mullican, III, editors). Report 360, Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. Edwards, R.J., G.P. Garrett and E. Marsh-Matthews. 2002. Conservation and status of the fish communities inhabiting the Río Conchos basin and middle Rio Grande, Mexico and U.S.A. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:119-132. Eisenhour, D.J. 2004. Systematics, variation, and speciation of the Macrhybopsis aestivalis complex west of the Mississippi River. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 23:9-48. Enge, K.M. and R. Mulholland. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: southern and gulf flounders. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Coastal Ecosystems Team, Biological Report 82(10.92). Erdman, D.S. 1972. Inland game fishes of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico Federal Aid project F-1-20. Job 7, 4(2)1- 96. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Etnier, D.A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. Univ. Tennessee Press, Knoxville Fahay, M.P. 1978. Biological and fisheries data on American eel, Anguilla rostrata (LeSueur). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Northeast Fisheries Center Sandy Hook Laboratory Technical Series Report 17. Fingerman, S.W. and R.D. Suttkus. 1961. Comparison of Hybognathus hayi Jordan and Hybognathus nuchalis Agassiz. Copeia 1961:462-467. Fletcher, D.E. and B.M. Burr. 1992. Reproductive biology, larval description, and diet of the North American bluehead shiner, Pteronotropis hubbsi (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae), with comments on conservation status. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 3:193-218. Forbes, S.A. and R.E. Richardson. 1920. The fishes of Illinois. State of Illinois Natural History Survey Division, Urbana. Garrett, G.P. 1991. Guidelines for the Management of the Guadalupe Bass. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. PWD-RP-N3200-367. Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards. 2001. Regional ecology and environmental issues. Aquifers of West Texas, Report 356. Texas Water Development Board. Garrett, G.P. and R.J. Edwards. 2014. Changes in fish populations in the Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande. Pages 396–408 in Proceedings of the sixth symposium on the natural resources of the Chihuahuan Desert region (C.A. Hoyt and J. Karges, editors). Chihuahuan Desert Research Institute, Fort Davis, TX. http://hdl.handle.net/2152/62996 Garrett, G.P., R.J. Edwards and C. Hubbs. 2004. Discovery of a new population of Devils River minnow (Dionda diaboli), with implications for conservations of the species. Southwestern Naturalist 49:435- 441. Gerald, J.W. 1966 Food habits of the longnose dace, Rhinichthys cataractae. Copeia 1966:478-485. Gilbert, C.R. 1980a. Percina shumardi (Girard), Dusky darter. Page 741 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980b. Notropis sabinae (Jordan and Gilbert), Sabine shiner. Page 304 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.

Page | 345 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Gilbert, C.R. 1980c. Notropis shumardi (Girard), silverband shiner. Page 308 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980d. Notropis atrocaudalis (Evermann), Blackspot shiner. Page 234 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980e. Notropis potteri (Hubbs and Bonham), Chub shiner. Page 297 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980f. Hiodon alosoides (Rafinesque), Goldeye. Page 74 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980g. Notropis blennius (Girard), River shiner. Page 239 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980h. Notropis maculatus (Hay), Taillight shiner. Page 286 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. 1980i. Notropis hubbsi (Bailey and Robison), Bluehead shiner. Page 273 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Gilbert, C.R. and R.M. Bailey. 1962. Synonymy, characters, and distribution of the American cyprinid fish Notropis shumardi. Copeia 1962:807-819. Goldstein, R.M. and T.P. Simon. 1999. Toward a united definition of guild structure for feeding ecology of North American freshwater fishes. Pages 123-202 in Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities (T.P. Simon, editor). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Goodyear, C.P. 1967. Feeding habits of three species of gars, Lepisosteus, along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Transaction of the American Fisheries Society 96:297-300. Guntherz, E.L. 1967. Field guide to the flatfishes of the family Bothidae in the western North Atlantic. Circular 263, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Hardy, J.D., Jr. 1978. Development of fishes of the Mid-Atlantic Bight: An atlas of egg, larval, and juvenile stages. Volume II – Anguillidae thorough Syngnathidae. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. Haro, A., W. Richkus, K. Whalen, A. Hoar, W. Dieter Busch, S. Lary, T. Brush and D. Dixon. 2000. Population decline of the American eel: implications for research and management. Fisheries 25(9):7-16. Harrell, H.L. 1980. Etheostoma grahami (Girard), Rio Grande darter. Page 652 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Hatch, J.T. and E.E. Elias. 2002. Ovarian cycling, clutch characteristics and oocyte size of the river shiner Notropis blennius (Girard) in the upper Mississippi River. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 17:85-92. Helfman, G.S., E.L. Bozeman and E.B. Brothers. 1984. Size, age, and sex of American eels in a Georgia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:132-141. Hellier, T.R., Jr. 1967. The fishes of the Santa Fe River system. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum of Biology 2:1-46.

Page | 346 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Hoagstrom, C.W. 2003. Historical and recent fish fauna of the lower Pecos River. Pages 91-109 in Aquatic fauna of the northern Chihuahuan Desert (G.P. Garrett and N.L. Allen, editors). Special Publications Number 46, Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Hubbs, C.L. 1951. Notropis amnis, a new cyprinid fish of the Mississippi fauna, with two subspecies. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan 530:1-30. Hubbs, C.L. and R.M. Bailey. 1942. Subspecies of spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus) in Texas. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 457:1-11 Hubbs, C.L. and R.M. Bailey. 1947. Blind catfishes from artesian waters of Texas. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 499:1-17. Hubbs, C.L. and J.D. Black. 1941. The subspecies of the American percid fish, Poecilichthys whipplii. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 429:1-29. Hubbs, C.L. and K. Bonham. 1951. New cyprinid fishes of the genus Notropis from Texas. Texas Journal of Science 3:91-110. Hubbs, C.L. and A.I. Ortenburger. 1929. Further notes on the fishes of Oklahoma, with descriptions of new species of Cyprinidae. Publications of the University of Oklahoma Biological Survey 1:15-43. Hubbs, C. 1951. Observations on the breeding of Dionda episcopa serena in the Nueces River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 3:490-492. Hubbs, C. 1954a. Corrected distributional records for Texas fresh-water fishes. Texas Journal of Science 1954:277-291. Hubbs, C. 1954b. A new Texas subspecies, apristis, of the darter Hadropterus scierus, with a discussion of variation within the species. American Midland Naturalist 52:211-220. Hubbs, C. 1958. List of fishes known or expected to belong to the fauna of the Big Bend National Park. Report to Big Bend National History Association. Hubbs, C. 1985. Darter reproductive seasons. Copeia 1985:56-68. Hubbs, C. and W.H. Brown. 1956. Dionda diaboli (Cyprinidae), a new minnow from Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 1:69-77. Hubbs, C. and A.A. Echelle. 1973. Endangered non-game fishes in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. Pages 147- 167 in Endangered Vertebrates in the Southwest (W.C. Huey, editor). New Mexico Game and Fish. Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Journal of Science. Available from: http://www.texasacademyofscience.org/ Hubbs, C., R.A. Kuehne and J.C. Ball. 1953. The fishes of the upper Guadalupe River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 5:216-244. Hubbs, C., R.R. Miller, R.J. Edwards, K.W. Thompson, E. Marsh, G.P. Garrett, G.L. Powell, D.J. Morris and R.W. Zerr. 1977. Fishes inhabiting the Rio Grande, Texas-Mexico, between El Paso and the Pecos confluence. Pages 91-97 in Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat: A symposium (R.R. Johnson and D.A. Jones, editors). USDA Forest Service, General Tech. Report, RM- 43. Hurst, H., G. Bass and C. Hubbs. 1975. The biology of the Guadalupe, Suwanee, and redeye basses. Pages 47-53 in Black Bass Biology and Management (R. Stroud and H. Clepper, editors). Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC.

Page | 347 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Inebnit, T.E., III. 2009. Aspects of the reproductive and juvenile ecology of alligator gar in the Fourche LaFave River, Arkansas. M.S. thesis. University of Central Arkansas, Conway. Jahrsdoerfer, S.E. and D.M. Leslie, Jr. 1988. Tamaulipan brushland of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of south Texas: description, human impacts, and management options. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(36). Jenkins, R.E. 1980. Moxostoma austrinum (Bean), West Mexican redhorse. Page 413 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Jurgens, C.J. 2005. Zooarcheology and bone technology from Arenosa Shelter (41VV99), Lower Pecos Region, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Jurgens, K.C. 1951. The distribution and ecology of the fishes of the San Marcos River. M.A. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Keenlyne, K.D. 1997. Life history and status of the shovelnose sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus platorynchus. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48:291-298. Kelsch, S.W. and F.S. Hendricks. 1990. Distribution of the headwater catfish Ictalurus lupus (Osteichthyes: Ictaluridae). Southwestern Naturalist 35:292-297. Kinney, E.C. 1954. A life history of the silver chub, Hybopsis storeriana (Kirtland), in western Lake Erie with notes on associated species. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University. Koster, W.J. 1957. Guide to the fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. Kuehne, R.A. 1955. Stream surveys of the Guadalupe and San Antonio Rivers. Texas Game and Fish Commission, IF Report Ser. 1:1-56. Kwak, T.J. 1991. Ecological characteristics of a northern population of the pallid shiner. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 120:106-115. Kynard, B., E. Henyey and M. Horgan. 2002. Ontogenetic behavior, migration, and social behavior of pallid sturgeon, Scaphirhynchus albus, and shovelnose sturgeon, S. platorynchus, with notes on the adaptive behavior of body color. Environmental Biology of Fishes 63:389–403. Lambou, V.W. 1961. Utilization of macrocrustaceans for food by freshwater fishes in Louisiana and its effect on the determination of predator-prey relations. Progressive Fish-Culturist 23:18-25. Langecker, T. G., and G. Longley. 1993. Morphological adaptations of the Texas Blind Catfishes Trogloglanis pattersoni and Satan eurystomus (Siluriformes: Ictaluridae) to their underground environment. Copeia 1993:976-986. Lee, D.S. 1980. Scaphirhynchus platorynchus (Rafinesque), Shovelnose sturgeon. Page 44 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Lee, D.S. and E.O. Wiley. 1980. Atractosteus spatula (Lacépède), Alligator gar. Page 47 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Lehtinen, S.F. and J.B. Leyzer. 1988. Reproductive cycle of the plains minnow, Hybognathus placitus (Cyprinidae), in the Cimarron River, Oklahoma. Southwestern Naturalist 33:27-33. Linam, G.W., J.C. Henson and M.A. Webb. 1994. A fisheries inventory and assessment of Allens Creek and the Brazos River, Austin County, Texas. Report to the Texas Water Development Board. Texas Parks and Wildlife, Austin.

Page | 348 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Loftus, W.F., J. A. Kushlan and S.A. Voorhees. 1984. Status of the mountain mullet in southern Florida. Florida Scientist 47:256-263. Longley, G. and H. Karnei. 1979. Status of Trogloglanis pattersoni Eigenmann, the toothless blindcat, and status of Satan eurystomus Hubbs and Bailey, the widemouth blindcat. Endangered Species Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, NM. Luttrell, G.R., A.A. Echelle and W.L. Fisher. 2002. Habitat correlates of the distribution of Macrhybopsis hyostoma (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) in western reaches of the Arkansas River Basin. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 105:153-161. Lutz-Carrillo, D.J., C.C. Nice, T.H. Bonner, M.R.J. Forstner and L.T. Fries. 2006. Admixture analysis of Florida largemouth bass and northern largemouth bass using microsatellite loci. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:779–791. Marcy, B.C., Jr., D.E. Fletcher, F.D. Martin, M.H. Paller and M.J.M. Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the middle Savannah River Basin: with emphasis on the Savannah River Site. University of Georgia Press. Marks, D.E. 1999. Life history characteristics of the sharpnose shiner (Notropis oxyrhynchus) and the smalleye shiner (Notropis buccula) in the Brazos River, Texas. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Tech University, Lubbock. Marks, D.E., G.R. Wilde, K.G. Ostrand and P.J. Zwank. 2001. Foods of the smalleye shiner and sharpnose shiner in the upper Brazos River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 53:327-334. Mayden, R.L. 1989. Phylogenetic studies of North American minnows, with emphasis on the genus Cyprinella (Teleostei: Cypriniformes). University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Miscellaneous Publication 80:1-189. Mayden, R.L. and A.M. Simons. 2002. Crevice spawning behavior in Dionda dichroma, with comments on the evolution of spawning modes in North American shiners (Teleostei: Cyprinidae). Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 12:327-337. Miller, R.J. and H.W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Miller, R.R., W.L. Minckley and S.M. Norris. 2005. Freshwater fishes of Mexico. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Miller, R.R, J.D. Williams and J.E. Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North American fishes during the past century. Fisheries 14(6):22-38. Moss, R.E. and K.B. Mayes. 1993. Current status of Notropis buccula and Notropis oxyrhynchus in Texas. Final report, project number E-1-4. Resource Protection Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin. Moss, R.E., J.W. Scanlan and C.S. Anderson. 1983. Observations on the natural history of the blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus Le Sueur) in the Neosho River. American Midland Naturalist 109:15-22. Ostrand, K.G. and G.R. Wilde. 2002. Seasonal and spatial variation in a prairie stream-fish assemblage. Ecology of Freshwater Fishes 11:137-149. Page, L.M. 1983. Handbook of darters. TFH Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Page, L.M. and B.M. Burr. 1997. A field guide to freshwater fishes: North America north of Mexico. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Perkin, J.S., C.S. Williams and T.H. Bonner. 2009. Aspects of chub shiner Notropis potteri life history with comments on native distribution and conservation status. American Midland Naturalist 162:276– 288.

Page | 349 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Pflieger, W.L. 1997. The Fishes of Missouri. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City. Pitman, V.M. 1992. Texas paddlefish recovery plan. Special report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept., Fisheries and Wildlife Division, Inland Fisheries Branch. Austin Texas. Platania, S.P. 1990. The ichthyofauna of the Rio Grande drainage, Texas and Mexico, from Boquillas to San Ygnacio. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Platania, S.P. 1991. Fishes of the Rio Chama and upper Rio Grande, New Mexico, with preliminary comments on their longitudinal distribution. Southwestern Naturalist 36:186-193. Platania, S.P. 1995. Reproductive biology and early life-history of Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus. Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Platania, S.P. and C.S. Altenbach. 1998. Reproductive strategies and egg types of seven Rio Grande basin cyprinids. Copeia 1998:559-569. Platania, S.P. and R.K. Dudley. 2006. Spatial spawning periodicity of Rio Grande silvery minnow during 2006. Report to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Prentice, J.A. 1989. Low-temperature tolerance of southern flounder in Texas. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 118:30-35. Raney, E.C. 1942. Alligator gar feeds upon birds in Texas. Copeia 1942:50. Ranvestel, A.W. and B.M. Burr. 2004. Conservation assessment for bluehead shiner (Pteronotropis hubbsi). American Currents 30(4):17-25. Richardson, L.R. and J.R. Gold. 1995. Evolution of the Cyprinella lutrensis species-complex. II. Systematics and biogeography of the Edwards Plateau shiner, Cyprinella lepida. Copeia 1995:28-37. Riggs, C.D. and E.W. Bonn. 1959. An annotated list of the fishes of Lake Texoma, Oklahoma and Texas. Southwestern Naturalist 4:157-168. Robins, R.H. and L.M. Page. 2007. Taxonomic status of the Guadalupe darter, Percina apristis (Teleostei: Percidae). Zootaxa 1618:51-60. Robison, H.W. 1977. Distribution, habitat notes and status of the ironcolor shiner, Notropis chalybaeus Cope in Arkansas. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science 31:92-94. Robison, H.W. and T.N. Buchanan. 1988. Fishes of Arkansas. The University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville. Ross, S.T. 2001. Inland fishes of Mississippi. University Press of Mississippi, Jackson Russell, T.R. 1986. Biology and life history of the paddlefish - a review. Pages 2-20 in The paddlefish: status, management and propagation (J. G. Dillard, L. K. Graham, and T. R. Russell, editors) Special Publication, no. 7, North Central Division, American Fisheries Society, Columbia, Missouri. Scalet, C.G. 1973. Reproduction of the orangebelly darter, Etheostoma radiosum cyanorum (Osteichthyes: Percidae). American Midland Naturalist 89:156-165. Scalet, C.G. and S.P. Platania. 1980. Etheostoma radiosum (Hubbs and Black), Orangebelly darter. Page 685 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Schönhuth, S., D.M. Hillis, D.A. Neely, L. Lozano-Vilano, A. Perdices and R.L. Mayden. 2012. Phylogeny, diversity, and species delimitation of the North American round-nosed minnows (Teleostei: Dionda), as inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62:427-446. Scott, W.B. and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 184:1-966.

Page | 350 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Simon, T. 1999. Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton; London; New York; Washington. Sneegas, G.W. and D.A. Hendrickson. 2004. Extreme catfish. http://www.nanfa.org/akiweb/blindcats.html Southall, P.D. and W.A. Hubert. 1984. Habitat use by adult paddlefish in the upper Mississippi River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:125-131. Starrett, W.C. 1950a. Food relationships of the minnows of the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 31:216- 233. Starrett, W.C. 1950b. Distribution of the fishes of Boone County, Iowa, with special reference to the minnows and darters. American Midland Naturalist 43:112-127. Starrett, W.C. 1951. Some factors affecting the abundance of minnows in the Des Moines River, Iowa. Ecology 32:13-27. Strawn, K. 1956. A method of breeding and raising three Texas darters. Part 2. Aquarium Journal 27:11- 32. Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch and M. Sublette. 1990. The fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Suttkus, R.D. 1963. Order Lepisostei. Fishes of the Western North Atlantic. Memoir Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1(3):61-68. Suttkus, R.D., H.L. Bart Jr. and D.A. Etnier. 2012. A new darter of subgenus Oligocephalus, genus Etheostoma, from southeastern Texas and southwestern Louisiana. Studies in Zoology and Botany 32:6-30. Thomas, D.L. 1970. An ecological study of four darter species of the genus Percina (Percidae) in the Kaskaskia River, Illinois. Illinois Natural History Survey, Biological Notes 70:1-18. Tilton, J.E. 1961. Ichthyological survey of the Colorado River of Texas. M.S. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Torres-Navarro, C.I. and J. Lyons. 1999. Diet of Agonostomus monticola (Pisces: Mugilidae) in the Rio Ayuquila, Sierra de Manantlan Reserve, Mexico. Revista de Biología Tropical 47:1087-1092 Trautman, M.B. 1981. The Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press. Treviño, D.B. 1955. The ichthyofauna of the lower Rio Grande River, from the mouth of the Pecos to the Gulf of Mexico. M.S. thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Treviño-Robinson, D. 1959. The ichthyofauna of the Rio Grande, Texas and Mexico. Copeia 1959:253-256. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) recovery plan, first revision. Albuquerque, NM. Van Den Avyle, M.J. 1984. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (South Atlantic) – American eel. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-82/11.24. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4. Wall, B.R., Jr. and C.R. Gilbert. 1980. Erimyzon oblongus (Mitchill), Creek chubsucker. Page 397 in Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes (D.S. Lee, et al., editors). North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Wallus, R., T.P. Simon and B.L. Yeager. 1990. Reproductive biology and early life history of fishes in the Ohio River drainage. Vol. 1. Acipenseridae through Esocidae. Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, Tennessee.

Page | 351 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Warren, M.L., Jr., B.M. Burr, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart Jr., R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman, B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross and W.C. Starnes. 2000. Diversity, distribution and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-29. Watts, H.E., C.W. Hoagstrom and J.R. Smith. 2002. Observations on habitat associated with Rio Grande silvery minnow, Hybognathus amarus (Girard). Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District and City of Albuquerque Water Resources Division, June 28, 2002. Wayne, L.M. 1979. Ecology of the roundnose minnow, Dionda episcopa (Osteichthyes: Cyprinidae) from three central Texas springs. M.S. Thesis, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos. Wayne, L.M. and B.G. Whiteside. 1985. Reproduction data on Dionda episcopa from Fessenden Spring, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 37:321-328. Wilde, G.R. and T.H. Bonner. 2000. First records of the suckermouth minnow Phenacobius mirabilis from the Canadian River, Texas. Texas Journal of Science 52:71-74. Wilde, G.R. and A.C. Urbanczyk. 2013. Relationship between river fragment length and persistence of two imperiled Great Plains cyprinids. Journal of Freshwater Ecology 28:445-451. Williams, C.S. and T.H. Bonner. 2006. Habitat associations, life history and diet of the Sabine shiner Notropis sabinae in an East Texas drainage. American Midland Naturalist 155:84-102. Williams, J.D. 1975. Systematics of the percid fishes of the subgenus Ammocrypta, with descriptions of two new species. Bulletin of the Alabama Museum of Natural History 1:1-56. Winemiller, K.O., F.P. Gelwick, T. Bonner, S. Zueg and C. Williams. 2004. Response of oxbow lake biota to hydrologic exchanges with the Brazos River channel. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Winn, H.E. 1958. Observation on the reproductive habits of darters (Pisces: Percidae). American Midland Naturalist 59:190-212. Woolman, A.J. 1894. Report on a collection of fishes from the rivers of central and northern Mexico. Bulletin U.S. Fish Commission 14:55-66.

Page | 352 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Appendix 11 – NFCA Advisory Councils Advisory Councils for Native Fish Conservation Areas in the Balconian, Kansan and Chihuahuan biotic provinces

Balconian Native Fish Conservation Network Acre Matthew Texas Tech Univ Arsuffi Tom Texas Tech Univ Barron Bradsby Colette Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bean Megan Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bean Preston Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Birdsong Tim Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bixler Patrick Univ of Texas Broad Tyson Llano River Watershed Alliance Cummings Greg Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept DeJesus Marcos Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Farooqi Mukhtar Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Garrett Gary Univ of Texas Geeslin Dakus Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept German Duane Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Gluesenkamp Andy San Antonio Zoo Grabowski Tim Texas Tech Univ Harper Chris US Fish & Wildlife Service Kalmbach Arlene Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Labay Ben Siglo Group Ludeke Kim Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Magnelia Stephan Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Montagne Mike US Fish & Wildlife Service Parker Melissa Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Ranft Rachael The Nature Conservancy Romans Katherine Hill Country Alliance Scott Mandy Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Singhurst Jason Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Smith Ryan The Nature Conservancy Treuer-Kuehn Amie Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept

Kansan Native Fish Conservation Network Arey Steve US Fish & Wildlife Service Bean Preston Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Birdsong Tim Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bocanegra Omar US Fish & Wildlife Service Bolton Barry Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation Brewer Shannon Oklahoma State Univ Bristow Brent US Fish & Wildlife Service Burroughs Jim Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation Fenner Daniel US Fish & Wildlife Service Garrett Gary Univ of Texas Gluesenkamp Andy San Antonio Zoo Hoagstrom Christopher Weber State Univ

Page | 353 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Homer Michael Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Howery Mark Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation Kelkin Kimberly The Nature Conservancy Labay Ben Siglo Group Lewis Jacob US Fish & Wildlife Service Lucia Duane US Fish & Wildlife Service Marsh-Matthews Edie Univ of Oklahoma Matthews Bill Univ of Oklahoma Mayes Kevin Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept McGarrity Monica Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Montagne Mike US Fish & Wildlife Service Munger Charlie Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Orsak Erik US Fish & Wildlife Service Pease Allison Texas Tech Univ Polk Jonna US Fish & Wildlife Service Robertson Sarah Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Rodger Anthony Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation Singhurst Jason Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Small Brian US Fish & Wildlife Service Smith Ryan The Nature Conservancy Smithee Derek Oklahoma Water Resources Board Tackett Curtis Oklahoma Dept of Wildlife Conservation Urbanczyk Aaron Texas Tech Univ Wilde Gene Texas Tech Univ

Chihuahuan Native Fish Conservation Network Bean Megan Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bean Preston Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Bennett Jeff National Park Service Birdsong Tim Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Briggs Mark World Wildlife Fund Chapa Chris US Fish & Wildlife Service Conway Kevin Texas A&M Univ Dean David Utah State Univ Diaz Pete US Fish & Wildlife Service Doege Robyn Ft Worth Zoo Edwards Bob Univ of Texas - Rio Grande Valley Garrett Gary Univ of Texas Gluesenkamp Andy San Antonio Zoo Harper Chris US Fish & Wildlife Service Harveson Louis Sul Ross State Univ Harveson Patricia Sul Ross State Univ Havlik Nicolas Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Hendrickson Dean Univ of Texas Hutchins Ben Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Karges John The Nature Conservancy Labay Ben Siglo Group Larson David National Park Service Lewey Julie Devils River Conservancy

Page | 354 Final Report - Conserving Texas Biodiversity: Status, Trends, and Conservation Planning for Fishes of Greatest Conservation Need

Lockwood Mark Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Magnelia Stephan Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Martin Russell Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept McGarrity Monica Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Miyazono Seiji Texas Tech Univ Montagne Mike US Fish & Wildlife Service Nowlin Weston Texas State Univ Parker Melissa Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Pease Allison Texas Tech Univ Phillips Douglas US Fish & Wildlife Service Potts Robert Dixon Water Foundation Randklev Charles Texas A&M Univ Roberson Aimee American Bird Conservancy Robertson Clint Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Robertson Sarah Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Schmidt Jack Utah State Univ Schwartz Benjamin Texas State Univ Singhurst Jason Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept Smith Ryan The Nature Conservancy Taylor Chris Univ of Texas - Rio Grande Valley Tuck Marci private Urbanczyk Kevin Sul Ross State Univ Vail-Muse Stephanie US Fish & Wildlife Service Warnock Bonnie Sul Ross State Univ Witt Brendan US Fish & Wildlife Service Wright Lynn Texas Parks & Wildlife Dept

Page | 355