TPWD 1968 F-5-R-15 #1217: Region I-B Fisheries Studies, Job No. 4: Population Control Recommendations, Segment Completion Report

SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No} F-SHR-lS REGION I-B FISHERIES STUDIES Job No. 4 Population Control Recommendations Project Leader: Billy J. Follis J. R. Singleton Executive Director Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D-J Coordinator Director, Wildlife Services March 14, 1968 ABSTRACT During this segment, surveys were conducted on 4 public lakes and 2 public rivers in Region ImB to collect data in order to determine if chemical control of undesirable fish was needed, The main criterion for considering treatment procedures was that rough fish percentages exceed 80 per cent by either weight or number. Moss Creek Lake did not meet the criteria set forth for renovation but a chemical control of gizzard shad was justified by the extremely low harvest of the abundant game fish. This was effectuated under Job l6uaw55 of Project leAwalO. Mountain Creek Lake did notneet the criteria for chemical treatment, however, some control of the sunfish and golden shiner should be attempted. Valley Creek Lake did exceed the basic criteria for a chemical treatment and plans will be discussed with controlling authorities. Rough fish exceeded the basic criteria for renovation in Elm Creek, Main Concho River and San Saba River. However, other factors and conflicting interests do not warrant such controls in these waters at this time. SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT STATE OF Texas PROJECT N0a_i£:§:§;l2.__in NAME W.Re_isn_lfB Fisheries Studies Lh_ JOB N0.____e____i_______ii TITLE _Poysletissmgontrol,Recommendatisne 1967UFP.FstsaI_-29fipl968n_-i-.p.. PERIOD COVERED M___h.Mar9h_l; Objectives: To determine those waters which would benefit from pOpulation control. Procedures: During this segment, field trips were made to 4 reservoirs and 2 rivers in connection with this job. A list of the waters surveyed and the number of visits is given in Table l. The results of the 2 or more surveys made are combined for each lake or stream. Netting was done with standard lSwaoot gill nets composed of six 25-foot sections of mesh varying from 1 to 3% inches.. The number of nets set at each body of water is given in the survey results. The dimensions of the seines used are described along with their catches in the findings. A lwaoot, %~inch mesh sportsman trawl was used at Moss Creek Lake. All fish captured in nets were counted and weighed. A sample number of game fish was examined to determine sexual development and conditions (”K” factor). All fish taken with seines and trawl were separated according to Species, counted, and a length range was determined. A few specimens of each species were preserved in formalin and confirmed identification was made in the laboratory. Water temperature, turbidity, and other hydrological data were recorded but will be reported only when pertinent to the findings. Current data, along with that of past surveys for each lake or stream, were examined to detennine which waters cauld be considered for partial or complete renovation. The criteria for treatment specified that rough or undesirable fish percentages must surpass 80 per cent by either weight or number and that water levels permit economical chemical treatment. Other factors included water usage, interest of controlling agency ancipublic, and the estimated cost benefit ratio. Table 1 NAME COUNTY NUMBER OF VISITS Elm Creek Lake Runnels 2 Moss Creek Lake Howard 2 Mountain Creek Lake Coke 2 Valley Creek Lake Runnels 2 Main Concho River Concho & Tom Green 3 San Saba River Menard & Schleicher 2 A checklist of scientific names is presented so that common names may be used in this report. These names are specified in ”A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes From the United States and Canada”, Second Edition, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication Number 2, 1960. COMMON NAMES SCIENTIFI§_NAMES Longnose gar _ Lepisosteus osseus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Carp giggiggg carpio Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Red shiner NotroEi§)lgtrensis Sand shiner Nggropis stramineus Blacktail shiner Notropis venustus Fathead minnow ‘ Pimephales promelas Bullhead minnow Pimephales Vigilax River carpsucker. Carpiodgi carpio Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobggfibgbalus Spotted sucker MinytrgggamelanoBs Gray redhorse Moxostgggpcongestum Black bullhead - ngalurus melee Channel catfish Ictalugggflppnctatug Flathead catfish Eydodictis gliyaris Mosquitofish _ Gambusiglgffinis White bass Roccus ghrysops Warmouth ' Chaenobryttugjgulosus Redbreast sunfish Lepomigaigritus Green sunfish LEEEE$§,CXanellus Orangespotted sunfish H Lgppmis humilis Bluegill Lgppmis macrochirus Longear sunfish Lepomislmggalotig Redear sunfish Lepomis miggglgphgi Spotted bass Mégroptgrus pynctulatus Largemouth bass fligroEterus salmoideg White crappie Pomoxis annularis Logperch Egrcina gapggggg Freshwater drum Aplgginotus grunniens aim-.2929“! ma-;m:mfifl' Findings: Elm Creek Lake Elm Creek Lake is located adjacent to Ballinger City Park, Runnels County. This Zieacre reservoir was built several years ago on Elm Creek as a municipal water supply. Presently, it is used only for recreation which is limited to bank and small boat fishing. As in the past, undesirable fish continue to dominate both weight and number of the netting sample as shown in Table 2. Longnose gar, gizzard shad, river carpsucker and smallmouth buffalo accounted for about 88 per cent by weight of the 1966 and 1967 netting collections. Only 4 utilizable game fish were taken. However, several small largemouth bass were collected with seines. Conclusions and Recommendations: Renovation procedures are not immediately justifiable. As reported last segment under this job, preliminary plans are under way by the cities of Winters and Ballinger to construct a larger reservoir on Elm Creek for municipal water supply. If these plans materialize, a pre— impoundment treatment of the watershed would be of great benefit. Surveys should be continued on this small lake to have current data available if_a watershed treatment becomes feasible. Moss Creek Lake This 145macre impoundment, located in Howard County, is owned by the city of Big Spring. The Colorado River Municipal Water District has complete control of the water rights and uses it as a reserve water supply, The city of Big Spring controls only the recreation. The game fish population of this clear, deep reservoir has been very desirable in the past few years. However, the harvest of these abundant game fish has steadily decreased. From the data collected under the past 2 segments of this job and that of Job 8, FmSmelB, a partial rotenone treatment was recommended, This treatment was effectuated the first week of November 1967. A complete description of the treatment, as well as the premtreatment and posts treatment surveys, is presented in the report for Job l6eaw55 of the Statewide Rough Fish Control Project, leamOwlO. To prevent duplication, the survey data will not be presented in this report. Conclusions and Recommendations: Although an excellent reduction of gizzard shad was achieved, reintroduction is expected from Powell Lake on the watershed or through water pumped from J. B. Thomas Reservoir. However, the harvest of game fish is also eXpected to be greatly improved. This lake should be included in the new management job to be initiated during the next segment in order to determine the benefits received from this partial treatment, and to provide additional management recommendations. Table 2 Survey Results, Elm Creek Reservoir, May 23, 1967 and January 17, 1968. Results of 6 gill nets. Longnose gar 59 21.22 121.63 2.06 32.62 Gizzard shad 130 46.76 69.49 .53 18.64 Carp l .36 5.61 5.61 1.50 River carpsucker 43 15.47 100.93 2.35 27.08 Smallmouth buffalo 8 2 88 38.05 4 76 10 20 Black bullhead 9 3.23 6.00 .67 1.61 Channel catfish?“c 3 1.08 11.46 3.82 3-08 1.88 Flathead catfish* 1 .36 8.14 8.14 2.18 1.95 Warmouth* 1 .36w .09 .09 .02 3.80 Bluegill* 4 1.44 ' .32 .08 .09 3.53 Largemouth bass* 1 .36 3.74 3.74 1.00 3.50 White crappie* 14 5.04 3.61 .26 .98 3.03 Freshwater drum 4 1 44 3.74 93 1 00 Total 278 100.00 372.81 100.00 Game Fish * 24 8.64 27.36 7.35 Rough Fish 254 91.36 345.45 92.65 Species " Number Size Range in Inches W Gizzard shad 800 1e3 Mosquitofish 50 1e2% Orangespotted sunfish 20 2m3 Bluegill 50 1%m3 Longear sunfish 20 2w4 Largemouth bass 150 1~2 White crappie 300 112% Logperch 5 3-4 wfl____m_M_nmfl_flfl__fl________fl__flfl_fl__flm__fl___u______mm____fl__m___m_______m____ml_w_ Total 1,395 wm—' MOuntain Creek Lake Mountain Creek Lake was constructed in 1950 by the city of Robert Lee, Coke County, as a city water supply. This 77macre impoundment is located on Mountain Creek in the northern limits of Robert Lee. It was chemically renovated in 1961 because of a very high river carpe sucker population which exceeded 85 per cent of both number and weight of the 1960 netting sample. Since that time, only one river carpsucker has been collected in the annual surveys. During this period of study, game fish surpassed rough fish in both number and weight of the netting samples (Table 3).The main problem; however, is the overabundance of stunted sunfish and large golden shiners. Conclusions and Recommendations: Mountain Creek Lake does not meet the criteria for renovation; however, an attempt should be made to control the sunfish and golden Shiner populations. This could possibly be achieved by additional stocking of fingerling largemouth bass, channel catfish, or some other predator species. Adult flathead catfish were released in this reservoir in January 1967, but no benefits from this stocking have been evident. This reservoir should be included in the new mangement job next segment. Valley Creek Lake Valley Creek Lake is the water supply for the city of Ballinger in Runnels County. It is greatly utilized for fishing, skiing, boating, and camping. in the past, the water level fluctuated regularly with the heavy withdrawal of water for municipal use during the summer. During the past 2 years, the Soil Conservation Service has completed about 20 retention dams on the immediate watershed. These impoundments have revived springs which have maintained valley Creek Lake at maximum capacity through most of the year. Suryey results during the past 2 years have indicated an increase in the rough fish populations and a similar decrease in game fish. in 1966, game iish accounted for 27 per cent by number and 32 per cent by weight of fish netted. During this period of study, game fish comprised only 13 per cent by number and ll per cent by weight (Table 4). Seining collections (Table 4} revealed an abundance of small forage fishes. Conclusions and Recommendations: Valley Creek Lake meets the criteria for population control consideration. Treatment proceedings will be discussed with city officials and sportsmen of Ballinger. Also, further investigation of the watershed will be needed before definite recommendations can be made. This work should be continued under the new management job of this project during the next segment. Table 3 Survey Results, Mountain Creek Reservoir, May 17, 1967 and January 25, 1968. Results of 6 gill nets. Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Stacies . . _ Number...._b_ N0. __ .Pounds. .PoundS.___b “Wt . _”K?. Gizzard shad 7 2.10 9.03 1.29 5.95 Golden Shiner 145 43.54 28.79 .20 18.99 Black bullhead 3 .90 2.97 .99 1.96 Channel catfish * l .30 1.60 1.60 1.05 2.17 Flathead catfish* 9 2.70 76.20 8.47 50.27 2.14 Warmouth * 2 .61 ' .23 .11 .15 3.47 Bluegill* 135 40.55 15.34 .11 10.12 4.07 Redear sunfish * 6 1.80 1.14 .19 .75 3.69 Largemouth bass* 13 3.90 10.83 .83 7.14 2.49 Total 333 100.00 151.61 100.00 Game Fish* 178 53.46 110.82 73.10 Rough Fish 155 46.54 40.79 26.90 Seining Results Mountain Creek Reservoir (30 x 6 x k-inch mesh seine and 20 x 6 x 1/8winch mesh seine). Species Number Size Range in Inches Golden Shiner 24 1%-5 Mosquitofish l 2% Green sunfish _ 1 4 Bluegill 10 2,3 Redear sunfish 8 2m3 Total 44 Table 4 Survey Results, Valley Creek LakeS March 29 and May 24, 19670 Results of 8 gill nets, __m 1 Per Cent Total Wto Avg” Wt” Per Cent Average fisssissmmmr_=wwm_thumber __m_;b€;fisa-hmnufiossds_smwmfiosadshna meEEJ _PK” Longnose gar 14 2088 65°24 4066 15085 Gizzard shad 272 55.96 37044 914 9009 Carp 21 4u32 96914 4058 23036 River carpsucker 102 20099 146036 1043' 35056 Black bullhead 1 .21 .80 .80 020 Channel catfish* 16 3°29 22934 1340 5¢43 1u83 Bluegill“?c .9 1085 093 ,10 C22 4020 Redear sunfish* 1 021 026 ”26 307 6006 Largemouth bass* 5 1&03 16016 3023 3092 2n66 White crappie* 30 6°17 5081 019 1041 2076 Freshwater drum 15 3009 20009 1034 4089 Tbtal 486 100 00 411 57 lOOoOO - Game Fish* 61 12055 44050 11a05 Rough Fish 425 87045 366007 88995 ”mm”. Seining Results Valley Creek Lake (100 x 10 X mm inch mesh seine and 20 X 6 x l/8minch mesh seine30 (“fizz-1.3;; Species c; :2. -._..._- —mm:..—.—Wm:m ~- mmmmfinxm' Number - tam-P” * mmflm.mm m.=— aw. .fl.mm winch mesh seine? 30 x 6 X as I .__._:.._.___._l_... "#2:: 1 summmznz 3 Size Range in Inches u—- "*'-:=..—._:;IJ=;J_-_':_T.T_——._:.-.__ar_-- ”mm-m: Gizzard shad 327 3&8 Red shiner 37' 1w3 Blacktail shiner 64 115 Mosquitofish 6 leZ Redbreast sunfish 1 2 Green sunfish lO 1w3 Bluegill 54 115 Longear sunfish 86 2w5 Redear sunfish 30 1w6 Largemouth bass 7 1%96 White crappie 242 2~5 logperch 2 3ms Tonal 866 Main Concho River The main Concho River begins in San Angelo and travels about 56 miles through Tom Green and Concho Counties before it empties in the Colorado River. Many small dams, which impound water for irrigation, are found along its route. Three large reservoirs on the main tributaries collect all the runoff from the upper watershed. Therefore, the flow is limited to periods of heavy runoff and the water level fluctuates drastically. This year the Main Concho River was sampled at 3 locations. The netting results (Table 5) were very similar to that of previous years with rough fish accounting for 89 per cent by number and 92 per cent by weight. Although surplus largemouth bass fry have been stocked almost annually for several years at various locations in Tom Green County, no largemouth bass were taken in gill nets. Seining collections (Table 5) produced a large number of forage species along with 17 bass fingerlings. Conclusions and Recommendations: Chemical control of the abundant rough fish in this public water cannot be justified at this time. Reinfestation of undesirable fish would occur almost immediately, even if the majority of this water could be renovated. The only management effort that is considered to be feasible, at this time, would be the stocking of advanced largemouth bass fingerlings at l or 2 locations in the city limits of San Angelo. San Saba River About 46 miles of the San Saba River is located in Region I-B from its origin in eastern Schleicher County until it leaves through Menard County. Its flow is maintained through the fall, winter and spring by many clear springs. Irrigation withdrawals during the dry months reduce or terminate the flow. Two collections were made on the San Saba River this segment. Netting results (Table 6) continue to reflect domination by rough fish. River carpsucker and gizzard shad alone accounted for almost 70 per cent of the number of fish netted. Seining samples produced many forage fish, the majority of which were blacktail shiners. Several small centrarchids, including large» mouth and spotted bass, were collected. Conclusions and Recommendations: Even with the large rough fish pOpulations, the San Saba River provides a fair fishery for interested sportsmen. Good catches of channel catfish, largemouth bass, spotted bass, and sunfish are quite common. Chemical removal of rough fish would be almost impossible and very impractical at this time. _.._._‘