TPWD 1956 F-4-R-3 #257: Inventory of the Species in Mountain Creek Lake

JOB COMPLETION REPORT c'ATEOFTEXAS EHILE Projeot1m3.FhB3.Ikmnzfiisheries Investigations and Surveys of Waters of Region h-B. Job No. ' ”n16 Title Inventory of the Species in Mountain Creek Lake. Period covered: November 12 1955 to October 312 1956 ABSTRACT mountain Creek Lake is a murky, shallow lake located on mountain Creek near the junction with the Trinity River 512 miles above the Gulf of Nexico. The reservoir im— pounds 3,000 acres and was built by the Dallas Power and Light Company to provide cool— ant water for a steam turbine power plant. Thirty-six net sets were made at six net stations. A total of 785 fish weigh— ing £89.58 pounds was taken.' Fourteen species were taken by seining and netting. Rough fish constituted 6h% of the catch by number and 56% by weight. River carpsucker was the most numerous species making up 30.1% of the total net catch. Two seine stations were established and a total of 218 specimens was taken. The catch of freshwater shrimp was reduced by the l/h-inch mesh of the seine used, as many were small enough to escape. _The comparatively large numbers of small gizzard shad indicates that forage is not lacking, despite the heavy winter kill in December. The Brazos River Shiner (Notropis brazosensis) was prObably introduced into the lake by fishermen and is not present in sufficient quantities to indicate that it has become established. The need for rough fish control appears to be centered on the river carpsucker since the shad make up only 9.h% of the net catch. OBJECTIVES To determine the species present and their relative abundance as well as to determine the ecological factors influencing their distribution. HISTORY OF LAKE Mountain Creek Lake is located on Mountain Creek at a point some three miles above the juncture with the Trinity River. This juncture is about 512 miles above the mouth cf the Trinity. The Dallas Power and Light Company constructed this lake to prO~ vide an adequate supply of coolant water for the boilers of a steam turbine power plant. The dam was completed in 1937 and the lake was closed to fishing until 1939. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS mountain Creek is a shallow lake with a maximum depth of 18 to 20 feet and an average depth of 9 feet. The lake bottom is rather regular forming a shallow flat basin "ith the channel of Mbuntain Creek forming the only major depression. .At spillway vel the area is 3,000 acres and the maximum volume is 27,000 acre feet. The terrestrial vegetation is largely prairie grasses and weeds while the aquatic vegetaion is almost entirely cattail (Typha latifolia). The watershed is a mixture of grassland and cultivated crOps, largely cotton. The runoff carries a large amount of silt and the lake is murky at all times. Mbuntain Creek Lake is not subject to rapid fluctuations but because of the small watershed and infrequent rains the fluctuations are rather severe. TECHNIQUES USED The fish pOpulation of this lake was sampled by means of gill nets and seines. Net sets were made at six stations (map 1). These stations were sampled when weather and water Conditions would permit but were selected so that some stations would be access- ible regardless of weather conditions. The nets used were generally 1% inch square mesh gill nets, 100 feet long and 8 feet deep, but occasionally experimental nets 125 feet long were used. These nets were of variable mesh ranging from 1 inch to 3 inches square mesh in size. Seine samples were taken by means of a 30 foot bag seine of % inch mesh. Two seine stations were used since they represented the two bottom types offered by the lake. FINDINGS A checklist of the Species taken (Table 1) includes fourteen Species of which one, the Brazos River Shiner (Notropis brasosensis), was probably introduced by minnow fishermen. No collections of sunfish were made and none were observed in the catches of the fishermen. ” Table 2 gives the results of the seining collections. Station 1 was located off a point projecting out into the lake (Map ld and was in very shallow water. The bottom was smooth and clean. It was of firm clay with no cover or vegetation. Station 2 was located near the mouth of the canal that discharges coolant water from the power plant. The bottom was of clay and mud and was much less firm than.that of Station 1. Some grasses and other terrestrial vegetationwere present and the water was about 2 feet deep. The presence of freshwater shrimp {Palaemonetes spi) of rather large size and in comparatively large numbers indicates that the forage chain is not completely broken when the shad have grown to a size that eliminates them from the diet of the crappie. These shrimp attain a length of 38 millimetersand are present in sufficient quantity to provide a considerable item in the diet of all carnivorous species. A comparison of the catch by gill netting shows that the ratio of game to rough species is quite favorable to the production of game fish. The rough or forage Species, as shown by Table 3, make up 63% of the total catch by number but are only 5k% of the total weight. The average weight of the game fish was .75 pounds while that of the rough species was .55 pounds. The checklist (Table 1) indicates a lack of predatory species other than the game fish. The channel catfish is considered to be a game fish. The total absence of any Species of gar together with a scarcitvof bullheads leaves the bulk of the predation to three species. Largemouth bass, white crappie, and channel catfish comprise the bulk of the carnivorous population. Thirtyasix net sets totaling 3,650 feet of gill net were set during the eleven months of netting on Mbuntain Creek Lake. Table h gives the monthly‘variation in the catch per 100 feet of net. Seasonal variation may have something’to do with these fluctua- tions but the most probable cause is the weather. High winds seemed to accompany the majority of the poor catches since the lake is very shallow the wave action made the water rather turbulent. ' A rather distinct lack of variation in length, weight and coefficient of condition is shown in Table 5. The many small drum taken produced an average length of 183 milliu The various Species appeared in the net catch almost each month with the exception of the yellow bullhead, black bullhead and largemouth bass. The bullheads appeared once each and the largemouth bass appeared in the netting on three occasions. River carpsucker appeared in the catch each.month as did channel catfish and white crappie (Table 6). The river carpsucker make up 30.1 percent of the total catch followed by white crappie with 20.5 percent and drum.with 18.5 percent (Table 7). Gizzard Shad which are generally very numerous in the older lakes of this area occupied fifth place in the percentage with only 9.4 percent of the catch made up of this species. This may be due to the winter kills that result in the death of many small shad during the colder months. Such a kill occurred on December 20, 1955 when the entire shoreline of the lake was covered with small shad up to about four inches in length. No larger shad were observed in this kill. _ A total of 489.58 pounds of fish were taken in the gill nets of which 138.87 pounds were river carpsucker and 131.08 pounds were white crappie (Table 8). They made up 28.4 and 26.8 percent of the catch, respectively (Table 9). The 69.51 pounds of channel catfish made up 14.2 percent of th§”total weight. while January presented the best crappie catch but the catch of other Species was not little change from the average. The carpsucker and carppie catch rose in August but while the carpsucker rise continued into September the crappie declined to the lowest point of the year. The September catch of drum was the highest of the year for any Species and the channel catfish catch rose sharply. October provided the largest catch of carpsucker for the year and also produced the second highest month for the crappie. The stomachs of all game fish were examined to determine to what extent the avail« able food was being utilized (Table 11). A total of 126 fish contained food with giszard shad having been taken by 83 of them. The food of 24 Specimens was fish’but identification was not possible. Algae composed the food of 17 fish with white crappie and fish eggs being taken.by one fish each. ” The food preference of the various Species taken is shown in Table 12. One Spec- imen of black bullhead and one drum.were found to contain food that could be identified. The bulk of the data was obtained from channel catfish and white crappie. Gizsard shad made up 77.5 percent of the food of the 80 channel catfish that contained food while 43.2 7 cent of the white crapppie had consumed shad. Fish remains that had been digested' beyond identification as to species accounted for the stomach contents of 45.4 percent of the White crappie containing food. The one white crappie as well as the single occurrence of fish eggs were eaten by channel catfish. Algae was consumed by 15 percent 0f the channel catfish and 11.4 percent of the white crappie. Mountain Creek Lake is difficult to fish since it is shallow near the Shore and the mud bottom makes launching boats difficult. The fluctuations prevent the establish— ment of suitable boat liveries or docking Space thus-restricting fishing to the banks of the discharge canal where the warm water from.the power plant is returned to the lake after condensing the steam from the boilers of the steam turbine electric power units. The average Size of the crappie and channel catfish that make up the bulk of the game fish population is good since the game fish taken in gill nets average .62 pounds and make up 44 percent of the total weight of fish taken. Gizzard shad generally make up a rather high percentage of the total catch in the older lakes of this area but only 9.4 percent of the catch from Mountain Creek Lake were shad. The most numerous species was river carpsucker making up 30.1 percent of the catch. The importance of shad in the food chain of this lake is readily seen when Table 12 is examined. Gizzard shad appeared in 65.9 percent of the fish stomachs that contains food and doubtless a good portion of the 19 percent identified as fish remains was also ' of that species. The absence of sunfish from the net collections was not as significant as the lack of sunfish in the seine samples. None of these species were observed on the stringers of the fishermen and the writer is not able to account for this condition. The absence of gar and other predators was noted and no explanation is at hand since gar are quite numerous in the Trinity River and abound in the stilling basin below the dam. RECOMMENDATIONS . 1. The lack of boat launching facilities prevents the full utilization of the fishing potential of this lake. The dredging of a small stream near the mouth of the discharge canal could provide a launching site at little cost. This stream was used when the lake level was high but as the level decended to normal or below it became impossible to use. 2. The rough fish control problem in this lake differs from that of the other lakes of the area in that the gizsard shad is of less importance. The introduction of white bass into this lake as a shed control measure has been suggested. The lack of deep water and the absence of running, gravel botton streams might well prove to be a limiting factor in this type of control but there is little eXpense involved in the introduction of this species and no objection is at hand. 3. While the gizzard shad appears to be a smaller problem than usual the river carpsucker assumes a more important place. The need for control of this Species becomes more prominent when one notes the absence of this fish from.the list of foods consumed by the carnivorous Species. The most numerous species in the net catches appears to be absent from the diet of the other inhabitants of the lake. 5. Table 1. Checklist of fishes from Mountain Creek Lake, December 1, 1955 - October 31, 1956. ______fl_____________n______H__fi____n_m________lfl__l__________1__1___._____l__________l__. Scientific Name _ Common Name . ____l___l1__1_____l______l_____1_11_______.____.______a__a_____.___a___________ll_l_____ Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo Carpiodes cappio River carpsucker Cyprinus cappio European carp Notropis brazosensis Brazos River shiner Notropis lutrensis Redhorse shiner Pimephales vigilax Parrot minnow Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish Ictalurus melas Black bullhead Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead Gambusia affinis Mosquitofish Micropterus salmoides Largemouth black bass Pomoxis annularis White crappie Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drmn Table 2. Species of Fishes Collected by Seining from mountain Creek Lake, by Number of Each Species Taken Each Seining Station December 1, 1955 - October 31, 1956. Fish Species Station 1 Station 2 Total Dorosoma cepedianum 64 45 -109 Cyprinus caflio 1 O 1 NotrOpis brazosensis O 1 1 Notropis lutrensis 28 24 52 Pimephales vigilax 2O 1 21 Ictalurus melas 0 1 1 Gambusia affinis 0 3 3 Palaemonetes ERR * 2 28 30 Total 115 103 218 * Freshwater shrimp included since they appear to be an important food item. .able 3. A Comparison of Game and Rough Species caught in Gill Nets from Mountain Creek Lake, Texas, December 1, 1955 ~ October 31, 1956. W“ Total No. Specimens Caught 785 Total Wt. Specimens Caught (pounds) 489.58 _ ? Average Wt. Per Specimen (pounds) ".62 ' Total Weight of Rough: Fish (pounds) 276.83 Total Weight of Game Fish (pounds) 212.95 Total Number of Rough Fish 500 Total Number of Game Fish 285 Average Weight per Rough Fish (pounds) .55 Average Weight per Game Fish (pounds .75 Percent Rough Fish (by weight) 56.0 Percent Game Fish (by weight) 44.0 Percent Rough Fish (by number) 64.0 Percent Game Fish (by number) 36.0 * All catfish included in game fishes. W emoHo :. moooomm_ow QHHH Zeaewom me accesses Gamma Home Ho Hanan ow assume mom wosogm ow ewmw cosmos» bonehead H» mem : OOdOGoH wH» Homo. ram. 20 new. 20. rem. 20. rem. 20. Roses 20. 0% 20. as. an. Memo 20. Ham. memo mama memo woe ham..wwmw Ham. demo Ema moe Zoe mos Cosmos common woe Zoe H00. Zoe wow and woe H00. Zed amasseme w woo m0 mm.mm we we Hm.mm Hm.mm mangoes w woo m: ro.ee pm we Hm.:e om.:e essences : :00 mm mm.Ho we we m.4m m.em geese. w woo How mm.ow mm mm we.w: me.0e scoop : roo mm wo.op Hm om o.om o.wm ewe r poo w: Ho.oe w o c.44 :.44 ones 0 woo :0 mp.mo or we 4.mo 4.mo ones 0 woo 0m Hm.mm pm pm m.~o m.~4 sesame x two so mm.mH mo Hm Hw.ow Hw.pw maesmseme m mmm we wo.mo to 0m Hm.:o Hw.mm Ooaoems w 000 ewe: mp.:4 rm to me.pm mo.pm mosses om 0mmo new ewe.mm zonaswe as. w.m4 www.mo 4H.wm ::.mo mm mp.mo Hw.mo H0.:H c. Hmowo m. boomers zowmoec mom oomwwHoHooa ow Mwmo OOHHoodoQ 5% QHHH zoem wees zoobemwo macaw boas u moccaoos H. Homo - Ooeoems we. Heme. mam. ma memowmm . Hoamw Bo. boomer wmomo Hmomao phoneme Seemed momma seemed beoemmo W momma m racemes r1iiiII1rirrlIailiII1iIIIgiaaIIa:a11s1sx111IIIi1In1gr1gI:sIIiIIiiIgsIInsIIsinIiI:IIIIIaIluiuiu:n::r::::;iliitliirii. m. omemoomses a: Heo-mwo moo mo-mmo who H.m-m.0m H.ow .m. seasons mo me-:eo mew mm-memm pro: w.:gw.e m.e m. oceeoo mom www-mmm mom Heo-mom wow m.m-m.e m.mm mm. omeeso mm pecumeo moo .Pao-eme mom m.m-m.m m.mm Mu manganese How Hwo-roo we: wo-powe men H.m-e.em H.mm H. swoon _w Hee-mwo moo moo-wrp mam m.w-m.mm m.me mo Sassoon H Hmo-pmo Hmo wanes me H.om- .mm o.em .w. moosouomm e moo-wwo mom possess mmo m.mam.mm m.mm w. msseomsom was Hmo-woo mes Hmo-mme wmo H.wm-m.w w.wm m. mecSSMmSm or: Hoo-mmo Hmw wmgmmo Hmm m.p-w.w m.:o Hoops m. memowom 0HmaswdoeMOS ”.5 Zoe Ochoa .3. Echoes. we Zombamwo edema beam. .. Uooosdoe. H. mem .. Oodoooe mu... 0.80. 3054.5. concedes. Manama wooedmsw Emcee bpfiH 334 Mono «30.2 romance metastases Ooaoooe Hosea. .w. ommwosmsss o o w so Hm m w m H H H a: w. eeemHSm H m o o o o H H m 0 Ho mH m» commas a a we wH He H4 H0 e me He mm mom MM. omwwHo H 0 m H w r w 0 4 H w Mm My escosmacm mo HH : m Ho w H H H Ho : HHw H.1smHsm w o o o o o o o o o o w m. scamHom o o o o o H o o o o o H m. mmHSOsomm o m o e o o o o o o H a w. msseHmesm mo wH H: Hm Hm m m m mm H m: HmH m. mSSSSHmSm o H m m H m He .Hm Hm mo. wH Her soamH mm m: mm HHw mm w: to am «e mH Hmw new HO .