TPWD 1974 F-2-R-21 #1598: Fisheries Studies, Region 5-B: Fisheries Management Recommendations, Project F-2-R-21

PERFORMANCE REPORT As required by 'EEOERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project F-2-R-21 Fisheries Studies, Region 5-B Objective B-26: Fisheries Management Recommendations Project Leader: D. Wade Butler Assistant Leader: James Lasswell ‘ Clayton T. Garrison Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Lonnie J. Peters Robert J. Kemp, Director Chief, Inland Fisheries Fish and Wildlife Division March 11, 1974 ABSTRACT Public hearings were held to discuss changes in fishing regulations in regulatory counties. No major changes were proposed. Surveys were conducted on four of the major reservoirs in Region 5-B: Lakes Canyon, Travis, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Inks. All lakes revealed little change in the fish popula— tions over the previous two years. Seining collections indicate poor large- mouth reproduction or survival in Lakes Lyndon B. Johnson and Inks. Striped bass were stocked in Lakes Canyon and Travis this segment. Surveys indicate survival of the stockings and good growth since stocking. Management recommendations include: 1. The stocking of threadfin Shad in all lakes for additional forage. 2. The continuing of surveys on Lakes Canyon, Travis, and Lyndon B. Johnson to evaluate the introduction of striped bass and walleye. 3. Investigation of methods to construct artificial cover in Lake Lyndon B. Johnson through the cooperation of area fishermen. 4. The stocking of smallmouth bass in Canyon Lake. 5. The development of standard management procedures and methods for collecting management data. 6. The stocking of walleye in Lake Inks. State: Project Title: Project Section: Research and Surveys Study Contract Period: Februa l 1973 to January 3L,_l22&fifl___________ PERFORMANCE REPORT Texas Project Number:* F-2-R-21 u—u—u—s—n—n— _——-—_——_ Fisheries Studies, Region 5—B -——_—--———-——n— “—m—I—I-I—m —_——m——ou_—————__——fl—n—————_———_—_——— “w Title: Fisheries Management Recommendations fl—fl— n—u—un—n— -—-—-———-———n.—— mm———————————_—————— H- —n—— n...— Program Narrative Objective Number: B-26 Objective: To situate fishery management practices in the public waters 1. II. of Region 5-B Segment Objectives: A. To propose fish harvest regulations for the waters of Region 5-B. B. To recommend renovation or population control for waters which do not provide adequate Sports fishing. C. To recommend supplemental stocking of hatchery reared fish in newly impounded reservoirs, renovated reservoirs, waters that have sustained major fish kills, and waters which have had negligible natural reproduction. D. To determine vegetation control needs. E. To determine public access needs. Summary of Progress: Proposed fishing regulations were presented to the public in those counties in Region 5-B under regulatory authority. No major changes in the regulations were proposed for the Edwards Plateau, Possum Kingdom, and Trinity-Brazos Regulatory Districts. Quarterly surveys were conducted on Lakes Canyon, Travis, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Inks. Experimental gill nets, 150 feet in length and 8 feet in depth, were utilized at stations located to uniformly cover the lakes. Gill net mesh sizes ranged from 1 inch to 3% inches increasing % inch every 25 feet of length. The number of nets set on a particular lake depended upon the size of the lake surveyed. Seine samples were collected at various times between June and October on each lake with a 20 foot by 4 foot common sense minnow seine having a mesh Size of 3/8—inch. Water samples were collected during surveys as well as information con- cerning needs for vegetation control and public access. Lake Canyon Lake Canyon is a 8,240 surface acre lake constructed in a limestone basin on the eastern reaches of the Edwards Plateau in Comal County. The lake impounds waters of the Guadalupe River drainage basin com- posed primarily of Spring waters and runoff from the Edwards Plateau. Lake Canyon is a relatively deep lake with a maximum depth of 125 feet and an average depth of 47 feet. Constructed and controlled by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the impounded waters are discharged from a depth of 125 feet and provide a cold water fishery in the tailrace. Lake use is primarily for water conservation, flood control, irrigation, and recreation. Lake Canyon exhibits a monolithic pattern, stratifying in normal years by June and destratifying by October. Lake Canyon was surveyed quarterly during 1973 with a total of 1,225 fish collected weighing 2,030.12 pounds. A total of 60 experimental gill nets were set in the four surveys. Rough fish represented 60.90 percent by number and 60.19 percent by weight of the total fish collect- ed with the remainder game fish and sunfish (Table 1). The data in- dicates very little change in the overall population during the past three years when expressed in catch per unit effort (Figure 1). White bass (Morone chrysogs) were collected in regular quarterly surveys for the first time although anglers have reported catches during the past two years. A limited number of mature white bass were collected in the surveys, but larger numbers of young individuals were collected in monofilament gill nets during striped bass surveys conducted in October, November, and December. It appears that there is a strong first year age class of this species present in Lake Canyon and it is expected that an excellent white bass fishery will develop by next year. The data also reflects good populations of channel catfish, flathead catfish, white crappie, and largemouth bass. The gray redhorse sucker (Moxostoma COHEEEEBE) and gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) remain the dominant rough fish in Lake Canyon. These two species contributed over 50 percent of the total number of fish collected and over 30 percent of the biomass. However, Canyon A total of 20,000 striped bass fingerling were stocked in Lake Canyon during July. Survival was documented two weeks later when seven stripers were collected in routine seining collections. Striped bass surveys produced a total of 47 stripers during the three months of surveys with the stripers averaging eight ounces in the December collections. Present plans call for the stocking of striped bass in Lake Canyon for two additional years at a rate of 10 per surface acre. Approximately 625,000 walleye fingerling were also stocked in Lake Canyon during April. No walleye were collected until October at which time a nine ounce walleye was collected in a monofilament gill net used in the striped bass surveys. No walleye have appeared as of yet in regular quarterly surveys, but a total of 27 walleye were collected in the three months of striper surveys. The largest walleye collected to Table 1 Results of Canyon Lake Gill Netting for 1973 60 Nets Set Percent Percent of Weight of Average Species Number Number_______ Pounds! Weight _fl'WeighE_ Longnose gar 42 3.43 102.70 5.06 2.45 Gizzard Shad 314 25.63 156.89 7.73 0.50 Golden Shiner 5 0.41 1.59 0.08 0.32 Carp 69 5.63 416.26 20.50 6.03 River carpsucker 9 0.73 37.08 1.83 4.12 Gray redhorse sucker 305 24.90 506.80 24.96 1.66 Channel catfish* 117 9.55 261.74 12.89 2.24 Flathead catfish* 62 5.06 409.76 20.18 6.61 White bassr 12 0.98 16.88 0.83 1.41 Largemouth black bass* 45 3.68 42.56 2.10 0.95 Warmouth sunfish* 7 0.57 2.59 0.13 0.37 Green sunfish* 17 1.39 2.51 0.12 0.15 Redbreast sunfish* 5 0.41 0.94 0.05 0.19 Bluegill sunfish* 47 3.84 7.13 0.35 0.15 Redear sunfish* 140 11.43 58.63 2.89 0.42 Longear sunfish* 2 0.16 0.38 0.02 0.19 White crappie* 25 2.04 5.12 0.25 0.20 “Rio Grande perch 2 0.16_______ 0.56 0:03 0.28 Total 1,225 100.00 2,030.12 100.00 .3 d" Percent of catch by: Number Weight Rough fish = 60.90 60.19 Game fish = 21.31 36.26 Sunfish = 19.29 3.55 Catch per 100 feet of net: Number Weight Rough fish = 8.29 13.58 Game fish = 2.90 8.18 Sunfish =-2.42 0.80 c Designates Game F1811 328C163 __________________________ III-ILII III-III. III-III. III-III. lIIIIIII III-III. III-IIII III-[III .-.---.. II 'I II II II II I. II I. II II IHIIIIII fill-III. IIIIIIII III-III. III-III- Cotch per 100 Feet of Net 1972 Years CANYON LAKE Figure 1. Comparison of the average catch (weight and number) of rough fish, game fish, and sunfish per 100 feet of gill net during the years 1971, 1972, and 1973 in Canyon Lake. There were three or more gill netting surveys conducted each year. m Pounds Rough Fish .-..---- , pounds Game Fish I: Pounds Sunfish - Numbers III-Illa III-III. III-IIII III-III. .IIIIIIL IIIIIIII III-III III-III ’IIIIIII IIUIIIOI' IIIIIIIU. III-III- III-III- I:IIIIII l I ll. III III III II. III 15 l0 III-III- III-III- ..r' I... II II II .I II II II II II II II II II II Catch per 100 Feet of Net 1972 Years LAKE TRAVIS Tigure 2. Comparison of the average catch (weight and number) 01 rough fish, game fish, and sunfish per 100 feet of gill not during the years 1971, 1972, and 1973 in Lake Travis. There were three or more gill netting surveys conducted each year. date measured 14.5 inches and weighed 1 pound and 2 ounces. Sexual development was observed in a few male and female individuals and the possibility of limited reproduction occurring this season is being investigated. Seining data reflects acceptable largemouth bass reproduction and survival in 1973 (Table 2). Good numbers of Small forage species were also collected, with red shiners, blacktail shiners, mosquitofish, and silversides the dominant Species. Additional forage, small shad and sunfish, should be available during the spring and early summer, but with the introduction of striped bass and walleye, other forage Species are being considered. Lake Canyon has not experienced vegetation problems since impoundment. Although the water is generally very clear, there are few shallow areas that could present vegetation problems to fishermen. Public access will probably never be a problem on Lake Canyon. Numerous concrete launching facilities are available throughout the lake at the various public parks constructed and maintained by the U.S. Corps of Engineers. Camping, swimming, and bank fishing areas are also available within these parks. Lake Travis Lake Travis is a large, meandering lake with a normal pool of 18,930 surface acres, impounding waters of the Colorado River in Travis County. Lake Travis is a deep lake with a maximum depth of 192 feet and a mean depth of 62 feet. Constructed in 1940 by the Lower Colorado River Authority, the impoundment is used for flood control, irrigation, hydroelectric power, recreation, and municipal and industrial water supply. Lake Travis was also surveyed quarterly during this segment. Due to the large size of the lake, additional netting stations were established. A total of 95 gill nets yielded 1,695 fish weighing 3,763.72 pounds. Gizzard Shad contributed the greatest number and smallmouth buffalo the greatest biomass. Game species made up 28.97 percent by number and 30.69 percent by weight of the total fish collected with white bass account- ing for 11.8 percent of the total fish (Table 3). Catch per unit effort calculations indicate an increase in rough fish over 1972, but approxi- mately the same as 1971 (Figure 2). Since the average weights remained relatively the same throughout this period, it is doubtful that an in" crease in 1973 or a decrease in 1972 actually occurred. It is more likely that this was a result of the sampling techniques and collection times . Seining collections were made on Lake Travis from June through September. It appears that largemouth bass reproduction was success- ful and survival was good through September (Table 4). A total of 155 young-of-the—year largemouth bass were collected in the June samples with an average of 2.98 per seine haul decreasing to .25 per Table 2 Seining Results - lake Canyon 1 June July _ October (28 hauls) (l8 hauls); (22 hauls) ! S-z.—I 3141—: {Ln—a 1 (1):} 0):} (DD 1 {Ltd CLCU 1 0.0:}. i n 9'5 n u'fl a n H's 9 ESBE’BBEiBSSETH ° 1 E E-H E E.H é a E-H I o a S 4—4 ___ ___l_ Notropis texanus 3 .12 — 1 . 3 Notropis venustus . 189 6. 75; 378 21.00 140 $6 .36 I 707 Notropis lutrensis 1 10 36 1.33; 62 12 .82 1 96 Campostoma anomalum 1 6 .21: - 3 - 1 ~ : 6 Gambusia affinis 1 3 11 124 6.89; - 1 - ; 127 Menidia beryllina ' 74 2. 64f 109 .06: 11 1.501 194 Notemigonus crysoleucas 7 .251 - 1 7 1.32 j 14 Dorosoma cepedianum l 190 6. 78? - ‘ 7 1.32; 197 Percina caprodes 16 .57; 11 1 - l - ' l8 Pimephalesvigilax 18 64; - 1 E 0.4 19 *Lepomis auritus 67 2. 391 .ll ; 17 1. 86 *Lepomis macrochirus 69 2.461 .17 18 i .82' 90 fiLepomis_microlophus 14 f .505 - l 1.04 15 *Chaengbgyttus cyanellus l 1- .041 - -1- l .Qarpiodes carpio 2 1.071 — 1 2 *MicroBterus salmoides 64 2 291 4 .41 90 7r‘~‘Pomoxis annularis 2 . .07 — 91- 2 *Morone saxatilis - 1 - .39 - 1— 7 *Ictalurus punctatus — é - — 2 10 . 2 I 1 i l * Denotes game species Table 3 Results of Lake Travis Gill Netting for 1973 95 Nets Set Percent Percent of Weight of Average Species Number Number _fl__ 1Pound31 Weight_‘__fl_Weightafl Longnose gar 64 3.78 206.00 5.47 3.22 Gizzard shad 488 28.79 296.91 7.89 0.61 Carp 78 4.60 234.41 6.23 3.01 River carpsucker 275 16.22 744.76 19.79 2.71 Gray redhorse sucker 47 2.77 79.05 2.10 1.68 Smallmouth buffalo 78 4.60 967.67 25.70 12.41 Channel catfish* 47 2.77 107.74 2.86 2.29 Blue catfish* 18 1.06 50.04 1.33 2.78 Flathead catfish* 69 4.08 529.01 14.06 7.67 White bass* 200 11.80 295.3 7.05 1.33 Largemouth black bass* 82 4.84 71 73 1.91 0.87 Spotted black bass* 53 3.13 112.86 3.00 2.13 Warmouth sunfish* 5 0.29 1.13 0.03 0.23 Green sunfish* 21 1.24 3.33 0.09 0.16 Redbreast sunfish* 13 0.77 3.99 0.11 0.31 B1uegill sunfish* 76 4.48 17.12 0.45 0.23 Longear sunfish* 19 1.12 2.05 0.05 0.11 White crappie* 22 1.30 18.32 0.49 0.83 Rio Grande perch 16 0.94 3.70 0.10 0.23 Ereshwater drum 24 1.42 48.57 LL29 2.02 _ lotal 1,095 100 00 3,703 72 100 00 * Designates Game Fish Species _fl________________ ___ Percent of catch by: Number Weight Rough fish : 63.13 68.58 Game fish = 28.97 30.69 Sunfish = 7.90 1 0.73 Catch per 100 feet of net: Number Weight Rough fish = 7.51 18.11 Game fish = 3.45 8.11 Sunfish = 0.94 0.19 “MMWWM — mmwm me mH qu mHMHQH ea. 4 mm. N Na. H H mm. m m mN.m N am mm. H - W - em.mH m mob mm.N W as mm.m W mm NH. _ H S N .3 mm m uq 0.. a a 8 1 1 u. B.d n a T11 Hmfisma we HoQEouaom . wH.N m cm. Hm 0H. W m mm. mm - m - Go. .. m .. m .. u .: qo.N m N m¢.H “mom qH.m . «om mw.H .wm m©.N mMH MN. .q I a I am. mH ow. _NH do.m mmH ON. a m u I n I n M 11181111111111 3 N N s N N u - _ e n n a n n .u Im m 1m m u Q. G. u G. o. H a a a a a a h 1 1 1 1 _ u. u. _ B_d 9.0 d n a n a . 1.1 TLJ W a , Amasma may HmHsas Hmv umswnd zHah H mH>mHH wxmq : muHDmom wchHmm q oHan No. mH. mm.N .mmH co. mH. NH. mH. N4. H4_4mHN No. mm. SN N 3 m u 4. MW 9 9 B 1 1 U... . E.d n B T.1 Hanna; va 655% H Illltlllii .._._.—_.__._._ _. mmHowmm oEmw m .cmm a Enummmmwmmmwm MacmmHgoHo mmmmwmmmmmm.msmwmmmMMMfl¥ mowHoEHmm mNMMMNdMMMflR mmmmmU mmmflmmww mmmmflmw.m:uuwmmmmwmmmr msHHoIINI mmmmwmmmmmmmme mmmmmflmhofig mwmmmmmw mDHHLUOHomE mmmmmmma msuHqu mHEomoHe .mm mEouwmmmmm. Hammmmmmmmm mammmuom mmoJMAmmwmm.mmmmwmmmmmmm mmmmawmmm.mmwmmmm. chHme.mmmmmmmm. mmflmmmmm.mmmmmmmmmm. mmmmmmmmw.mwmmmmmm msummco>.mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm-mmmmmmmm moHoomm