TPWD 1963 F-9-R-11 #866: Fisheries Reconnaissance of the Waters of Region F-9, Texas: Project F-9-R-11

ABSTRACT With certain exceptions, fisheries reconnaissance work on the Nneces River and its channel impoundments in 1963 indicated that the channel catfish is present in relative abundance. Fishing pressure on these waters is comparatively light and heavier pressure could he supported. Where channel catfish are not abundantfl restocking would be beneficial. Dn Pinto and Les Morse Creeks, tributaries to the Rio Grande River, pnhlic access is restricted. and as a result the streams are of little hu— portance as a sport fishery. Although the Leona River previously contained a good game fish popum lation and supported a much needed fishery for this arean the stream was very low and of little consequence during 1953. Medina Lahe nec collections show a continuing increase in gissard shad which comprised 62 per cent of the netted fish in 1963. Channel and flathead catfish accounted for £2 per cent of the total weight of all netted specimens. This lahe supports a good population of these catfish and sport fishermen have heen taking them in good numbers. Gill netting data for Diversion Lake fails to indicate appreciable benefits from the selective removal of gissard shad in February 1962 and subsequent planting of young game fish. Survey data for the Medina River and the small impoundment at Gastroville show gissard shad as the dominant single species. Fair nnmhers of channel and flathead catfish. largemouth bass and white crappie were present in Castroville City Lake. Howeverfl few fish of any species were taken in the river and this is attributed to periodic dienoffs of fish due to agricultural insecticides and other pollutants. The three lakes in the San Antonio area, namely Woodlawn1 Elmendorf and Davis {Esquivel} Lakes. support a heavy fishing pressure and supply a much needed fishery. Insecticide pollution removed most of the game fish population frnm.Davis Lake during 1963. Gill netting data for Falcon Lake indicates that this lake has the most dense fish population of any of the waters covered by this reconnaissance. An average of over 50 fish were taken by each gill net set. White crappie. averaging more than %wpound each5 were the most numerous game fish taken. flther game fish present in relative abundance were channel catfish, white bass. blue catfish: and largemouth bass. Gissard shad were the most abundant of the rough fish species. SEGMENT CUMPLETICN REPCRT State of Texas Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region fi-a Project No. F-Q-R-ll Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance Job No. E-ZZ Period Covered: Decemheg l, 1962 through November 30, 1963 ijectives: To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. Introduction: During the project segment, reconnaissance surveys were conducted on the Mueces River and its lakes in Uvalde, Zavala, Dimmit, and La Salle Counties; Las Moras and PinmoCreeksin Kinney County; Leona River in Uvalde and Zavala Counties; Medina Lake in Benders and Medina Counties; Diversion Lake in Medina County; Castroville City Lake in Medina County; Medina River in Medina and Bewar Counties; the San Antonio River as well as Woodlawn, Elmendorf, and Esquivel Lakes in Eesar County. a checklist of all fish species collected is presented in Table 1. Techniques Used: Specimens in netting samples were collected with standard gill nets composed of 25—foot sections of varying mesh sises from 1- to 3-inch square mesh. Lengths, weights, and numbers of netted fish were recorded in the field. Fish collected by seining were taken in 12— by é-foot commonesense minnow seines or with 20- by 6-foot, hninch mesh, straight seines, and were preserved in 10 per cent formalin solution for later identification and tabu- lation in the laboratory. Since fish populations in more than one body of water were sampled, techniques used andfor findings will be taken up separately for these waters in subsequent segments of this rcport. NUECES RIVER Techniques Used and Findings: One gill net and sin seine samples of fish were taken from the Nueces River and its major tributary, the West Mueces River (Figures 1, 2, and 3 and Tables 2 and 3). Fish samples were also taken from sin channel impoundments Table 1. Checklist of fish species used in report. Common Names Scientific Names l. Alligator gar Lspisostsus spatula 2. Spotted gar Ly oculatus 3. Longnoss gar L. osseus 4. Threadfin shad Dorosoma pstsnsnse 5. Gissard shad Q. cepedianum 6. 'Msnican tetra Astyanan menicanus ?. Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 8. River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio 9. Gray redhorse Mbsostoma congestum 10. Carp Cyprinus carpio ll. Goldfish Carassius auratus 12. Golden shiner Motemigonus crysolsucas 13. Speckled chub Hybopsis aestivalis 14. Rio Grande shiner Notropis jemesanus 15. Teens shiner E; amabilis l6. Weed shiner .fl. tsnanus 1?. Blacktail shiner E. venustus 13. Red shiner dfl. lutrensis _ _ 19. Hybrid shiner fl; venustus s_fl. lutrsnsis 20. Sand shiner g; stramineus 21. Ghost shiner My buchanani 22. Roundnoss minnow Dionda episcopa 23. Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilas 24. Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 25. Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus 26. Blue catfish l} furcatus 2?. Black bullhead 1. males 23. Yellow bullhead Ty natalis 29. Flathead catfish Eylodictis olivaris 30. Blackstripe topminnow Fundulus notatus 31. Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon varisgstus 32. Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis 33. Sailfin molly Mollienesia latipinna 34. Tidewater silverside Menidia beryllina 35. White bass Roccus chrysops 36. Largemouth bass 'Micropterus salmoides 3?. Warmouth Chaenobryttus gulosus 33. Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 39. Spotted sunfish L, punctatus 40. desar sunfish Ly microlophus #1. Bluegill L. macrochirus 42. debrsast sunfish L. auritus 43. Longear sunfish IL.'megalotis as. White crappie Fomonis annularis d5. ngpernh Psrcina caprodss 46. Crangsthroat dartsr Etheostoma spectabile 4?. Greenthroat darter E. lepidum d3. Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens as. Rio Grande perch Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum FIGURE 1 NUECES RIVER 19°46" REAL Eowsaos CDUNTY ' Ar" COUNTY l LAKE 9A. l-—| ‘L E l’ c O I“ U n S “I 2 b E at A9 SILVER LAKE i ' \A'l A! cow” "' L ROADS ' \ 334- cotETY -‘ G) GILL NET CGLLECTI-‘ON .mrss lNSET _::—:1 “a a 1 g 3 4 Milli S II: c FIGURE 2 NUECES RIVER 1§kfl 0 a zgfig' . - G- cevamt CITY V» $426.4 LEGEND v 9‘ Roms ‘ A SEINING SITES \9 @ GILL NET ceLLECTlDN SITES C ESPAIITOSR INSET D 1 .7- 3 4 ”I!!! LAKE FIGURE 3 ' NUECES RIVER \ LASALLE v . COUNTY -_,_..__ Table 2. Gissard shad3 Smallmouth buffalo3 River carpsucksrt Channel catfish Largemouth bass Redear sunfish Bluegill Totals Gill netting results, Nueces River, 1963. Fish Collections 13 40.63 12.14 5 15.03 23.01 4 12.30 4.07 1 3.12 0.15 1 21.33 3.94 1 3.12 0.09 1 3.12 l 0.11 I 32 100.00 ’ 50.3? 5 23,114 31ndicates rough fish species. Table 3. Species Gissard shad Mexican tetra Tessa shiner Weed shiner Blacktail shiner Red shiner Ghost shiner Roundnoss'minnow Bullhead minnow Stoneroller Channel catfish Yellow bullhead Mosquitofish Largemouth bass Green sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Orangethroat dartsr Greenthroat darter Rio Grands perch Totals Seining results, Nuecss River, 1963. Stations 106 12 4 1 24 13 11 g 10 1 i 1 11 r l 0 1 33. l 14 19 | 1 2 3 1 1 3 20 2 24 3 1 1 3 l 2 1 04 l 140 g 14 23.31 53.63 ?.93 1.46 2.?2 0.13 0.22 100.00 13 12 : Numbers Wei;hts . Fish Per Cent .. 1_.-_-r- .—-.—.r .-| _-__—---I—-n.--l-l-l- -r— 1.34 3.29 1.96 1.?1 2.09 4.10 3.36 107 531 on the river including Lakes Nueces, Silver, North Dam, Espantosa, Harris and Holland. Results of these surveys are discussed separately in the text below. The fish samples from the Nueces River were, with exception of the gill net sample, collected up—stream from the Balcones Escarpment. Below the escarpment the river is intermittent and, except for some deep pools, the river dries up during the summer. The results of the single gill net collection are shown in Table 2 and seining results are shown in Table 3. In seining, the Texas shiner (Notropis amabilis) was the single most numerous species collected, with the blacktail shiner {Motropis venustus) a close second. Bluegills {Lepomis macrochirusl were collected at all seine stations. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoidesl'were observed though not collected at all stations. LAKE NUECES Techniques Used and Findings: Completed in 1963, Lake Mueces is a constant-level, 19 surface acre, clearwater impoundment. It is located in Uvalde County on the upper reaches of the Mueces River (Figure 1) immediately downstream from Camp Wood. At the time of the reconnaissance survey, the fish in the lake represented only these fish that were in the impoundment area prior to inundation. No fish were stocked before the netting and seining collections were made. Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus} followed by river carpsuckers (Carpiodes carpio} were the most abundant species taken in nets (Table 4). It is probable that the river carpsucker will become a problem.speciss in the future after they have had an opportunity to spawn and establish themselves in this new reservoir. In seining, it was apparent that a good minnow population dominated by the Texas shiner is present (Table 5). SILVER LAKE Findings: Silver Lake, approximately 10 acres in area, is a large, deep pool with an almost constant water level, located on the West Nueces River (Figure l). The river in this area is intermittent and normally flows for only a relatively short period after a rain on the watershed. Considering the total number of fish collected (Table 6), netting samples from this lake produced an unusually large number of channel catfish. Spotted gars (Lepisosteus oculatus) were the next most abundant rough fish species taken in nets. Table 4. Gill netting results, Lake Nueces, 1963. Fish Collections Spotted gar3 Gissard shad3 River carpsuckerv Channel catfish Flathead catfish Spotted sunfish Redbrsast sunfish Longear sunfish Totals 43 100.00 37.10 11.153 100.00 31ndicates rough fish species. Table 5. Seining results, Lake Mueces, 1963. Texas shiner Blacktail shiner Red shiner Ghost shiner Mosquitofish Bluegill