TPWD 1980 F-30-R-5 #1821: Performance Report: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations, Sabine River, Job A, District IV-A

PERFORMANCE REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTGRATION ACT Federal Aid Project F-BD-Rsfi Statewide Fishery Management Recommendations Job a: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations Sabine River Robert L. Bounds Inland Fisheries Management Program Director District IU-a Edgar P. Seidensticker District Management Supervisor Charles D. Travis Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Tamas Ernest G. Simmons Robert J. Kemp Chief, Inland Fisheries Director of Fisheries September 2a, 1980 Performance Report Job A, District IV-A Dbjective: To recommend habitat improvement, fisherman information, fish population manipulation, vegetation control, pollution control, fisherman access end facility development, and fishing regulations for existing and proposed public waters of Texas. I. Summary: During 19?9 the Sabine River and its tributaries in Texas were surveyed according to the TExas Parks and Wildlife Management Manual to identify areas where fishing recreation could be increased by applying fisheries management techniques. The ease with which white crappie, channel catfish, and largemouth bass were collected suggests that there were good populations of these fish in the Sabine River. Similar information suggests that the tributaries generally had good populations of bluegill and redear sunfish with the larger tributaries having an adequate presence of largemouth bass. Sixty-five species were collected by all sample methods. Species observed, but not collected during this segment, were striped bass and American eel. Species on the endangered or threatened list in the river were the blue sucker (collected by electrofishing) and probably the paddlefish. (A photograph was seen of one specimen reportedly taken by a trotline fishermen just below the Toledo Bend Dam tailrace.) Management recommendations are as follows: 1) There should be more information made available to the public on the stream fisheries, river flow and access points. 2) Boat ramps should be installed at the tailrace area and on State Highway 63. 3) The effects of any new paper mill should be monitored to determine its influence on the river. II. Significant Deviations: Dnhaited hoop nets were set for a total of six nights in the river and no fish were collected. Mo seine collections were made in the main river due to high water during most of this segment. 111. Cost: $30,o00 IV. Prepared by: Edgar P, Seidensticker Date: Se tember 2A 1980 District Management Supervisor Approved by: D—J Management Coordinator Assistant D—J Managemen Coordinator DESCRIPTION CF STUDY AREA The study area consisted of that segment of the Sabine River located from Toledo Bend Dam in Newton County downstream to about where Sabine Lake begins in Drange County (14? river miles) and all its tributaries on the Texas side of the river. Most of the river is located in the East Texas Timberlands land resource area except for the southernmost portion which is located in the Coast Marsh land resource area. The river is generally characterised by high water levels during the period from March through Dctober produced by a combination of rainfall and releases from Toledo Bend Dam for power generation (Figure 1). During these months, daily fluctuations are common due to the length of releases from the dam. These fluctuations are severe, A to 10 feet in a 24-hour period, in the upper half of this river segment. The dam is controlled by the Sabine River Authority of Texas and the Sabine River Authority of Louisiana. The electricity is produced for Gulf States Utilities. The water in the river is generally quite clear, particularly during the power producing season. Pollution in the river is minimal at this time with the main problems arising from two paper mills whose effluents give the river a black color during periods of low flow. The Sabine River is fairly large with its channel width ranging from ?5 yards to more than a quarter of a mile near Sabine Lake. water depths are quite variable, ranging from 1 foot to ?5 feet. Since there is little or no gravel or rock in the river, no riffles are present and there are no obstruction to fish movement in this segment. The stream bottom is composed primarily of sand with some of the shallow areas swept clean down to the hard clay substrate. Fish habitat in the river consists primarily of fallen timber and undercut banks. The topography of the watershed in this segment of the river consists of heavily wooded hills in the upper half and heavily wooded level areas in the lower half. Associated vegetation is principally pine uplands and mixed pine—hardwoods bottomlands. Large cypress swamps are found primarily at the lowermost portion of the river. Channel, blue, and flathead catfish, crappie and largemouth bass are the major components of this fishery. Hoop nets are legal on the Louisiana side of the river, but not on theTexas side; therefore, some buffalo are also probably taken. Estuarine species, such as flounder, redfish and seatrout, enter the fisheries in the lower portion of the river near Sabine Lake. Many tributaries are clear, cool streams with heavily vegetated banks. The smaller streams support primarily sunfish while the larger streams produce more bass, crappie and catfish. Coastal streams are wide, sluggish bayous with dark murky water, and these produce some estuarine species in addition to the freshwater fish. -3- MATERIALS AND METHODS Data from Sabine River Authority weter quality sampling stations on the main river were used in this report (Table 1). Additional water quality analyses were made on five tributary streams (Table 1). Temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, and total alkalinity, turbidity and chlorides were determined using portable, direct reading meters and a portable Hach Model DR—EL Engineer's Laboratory. Fish habitat improvement needs were determined by visual inspections. Species composition and distribution of aquatic vegetation was determined for the river during August and September. Seining wes conducted at 43 stations on the tributary streams from August through Dctober (Figures 2 and 3). Samples were taken using whatever size seine best suited the situation. Straight seines with lid inch mesh were used in the following sises: 10 feet long by 4 feet deep and 20 feet long by 6 feet deep. Generally three to six drags of various lengths were made at each stations. Seven gill net sampling stations were sampled during June, August and September (Figures 2 and 3). Five stations were sampled with six gill nets and two stations were sampled with twelve gill nets. Generally each station covered two to four river miles. Gill nets used were constructed of monofilament and multifilament nylon and measured 200 feet long and 3 feet deep. Mesh siaes increased by lf2 inch increments from lf2 to A inch bar mesh at 25 feet intervals. The lf2 inch panel was the only part that was made of multifilament nylon. Nets were set late in the afternoon and ran before noon the following day. Samples were taken with the boom type electrofishing boat during August and Dctober (Figures 2 and 3). The boat was equipped with a 3,000 watt portable generator capable of producing 120 volts alternating current. Most collections were made using alternating current because the trans— former-pulsator part of the unit burned out during August. The Sabine River was sampled at five sites, Adams Bayou and Cow Bayou were each sampled at one site. Each sample period consisted of one hour actual shocking time. Samples were taken with the back-pack electrofishing unit during November (Figures 2 and 3). Due site on Davis Creek and two sites on Nichols Creek were sampled. Each sample site was subjected to four 15-minute collecting periods. The unit used was a Smith-Root Type VII—A Electrofisher powered by a 12 bolt battery. All common and scientific names used in this report are in accordance with A List of Common andScientific Names of Fishes from the united States and Canada, American Fisheries Society Special Publication, No. 6. Scale samples were collected from some of the largemouth bass, spotted bass, white and black crappie. Impressions of the scales were made on clear plastic slides and these were analysed to estimate lengths at earlier periods of life. The length-weight relationship was expressed as log N = log a +-b log L where W = weight in grams, L e length in millimeters, a = a constant and b the slope of the length-weight regression. A value of b over 3 indicates that the weight increased at a faster rate than the leng h. The plumpness of the fishes was expressed as K = W X 103 x lfL where R = the index of plumpness or condition, N = the weight in grams, L = length in millimeters. In the case of largemouth base, the technique of Anderson (19?3) was used as a measure of condition as well. Bass collected in June were not used. Bass weighing over 800 grams were not used because the accuracy of scales measuring weights heavier than this are probably not accurate to within one per cent of the true body weight, which is the required accuracy for this technique. Public access and fisherman information needs were evaluated by determining if existing access facilities and sources of information were adequate to promote optimum utilisation of the fishing resource. Fisheries surveys information was used to detennine needs for changes in harvest regulations. Public hearings concerning proposed regulations were attended and justification for these proposals with the attending public. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIDN Physicochemical Characteristics water quality in the river and tributary streams was generally good (Table l). The main stream was generally slightly acid to neutral while the tributaries were very acid (pH 5.3 or less). It was not possible to measure the pH in Dempsey and Quicksand Creeks with the method used. 0xygen in the river was adequate for aquatic life. Turbidity was low in the river primarily because the main source of water from February through Dctober was from surface water released through the power plant at Toledo Bend Dam (Figure 1). During extended periods of low releases from the dam, the water in the river below the confluence of Anacocoa Bayou becomes quite black in color due to the presence of paper mill effluent from the Boise Southern Paper Mill in Anacocoa, Louisiana. Except during periods of heavy rainfall, most of the tributaries are clear, cool, shallow streams. The coastal bayous are deep, sluggish streams with dark colored waters which become estuarine in nature as they near their confluence with the Sabine River. Fish Habitat Cood spawning and nursery areas are available for maintaining sport fish populations in the Sabine River. Spawning areas include protected backwaters, old sloughs and creeks. Cover is limited primarily to fallen trees. stumps, log jams and undercut banks. Aquatic vegetation in the river itself is quite limited due to the wide fluctuations in water level and high current speeds. Noar the headwaters of Sabine Lake, the current becomes quite sluggish. At this point the vegetation includes pondweed, water hyacinths, duckweed, fanwart, coontail and bushy pondweed. Most of the remaining aquatic vegetation is emergent vegetation, including bald cypress, black willow, buttonbush, smartweed, common and narrowleaf cattails, bulrush, water pennywort, water celery, sedge, and arrowhead. During this survey no problems with aquatic vege— tation were observed. Fish Community Forage Fishes: Gill net and electrofishing samples (Tables 2 and 3) in- dicate that gissard shad, threadfin shad, sunfish and striped mullet were probably the primary forage fishes present in the river. Several black— tail shiners were also collected by these methods suggesting a good popu- lation was present. The gissard shad was by far the most frequently collected and widespread of the forage fishes. Sport Fishes: Largemouth bass, spotted bass, white crappie, black crappie and channel catfish were the most frequently collected species from the river (Tables 2 and 3) using gill nets and electrofishing. Blue catfish, flathead catfish, bluegill, redear and warmouth were also commonly collected. Good reproduction was suggested for these species by the variation in sises of captured specimen. No striped bass were collected during the survey; however, during striped bass hatchery work in April, many stripers were collected in the tailrace area below the Ibledo Bend Lake dam. These fish ranged in site from 15 to 30 pounds. A fisherman caught a lZ-pound striped bass—white bass hybrid in this same area during December. Six sexually mature white bass were collected from the tailrace by State personnel with rod and reel April 9, 1980. Sport fish population appears adequate to support additional fishing pressure. Sheepshead, flounder and seatrout enter the picture as the river becomes more estuarine in nature. 0ther estuarine species, such as redfish, probably also occur. Rough Fishgg: Spotted gar, longnose gar, ladyfish, smallmouth buffalo, river carpsucker, carp and blacktail redhorse were the most frequently collected rough fishes in the river using gill nets and electrofishing (Tables 2 and 3). No rough species appeared to be problematical. Endangered Populations: Dnly one species on the State's threatened species list was collected during this segment- 0ne specimen of blue sucker was taken by electrofishing (Table 3). This specimen was small, weighing only 0.1 pound. Three large specimen were observed, but not collected, during electrofishing. These fish appeared to weigh approximately 5 pounds. The one small specimen indicated at least some reproduction. 0ne AS-pound paddlefish was reportedly caught by a fisherman just below the tailrace area in the spring of 19??. This fisherman had a photograph -5- to substantiate his story. Another 25-pound paddlefish was reportedly taken in the same area in early l9?8. gge. Growth and Condition Analysis: Due to the small sample sises of the different species examined, conclusions drawn from the following results are tentative. The growth rate of the largemouth bass from the Sabine River (Table A) was slow compared to reservoirs located on the SabinecSulphur-Cypress- Neches river systems and compared to reservoirs located in the Piney- woods ecological region of Texas (Prentice and Durocher, 19?3). The Sabine River bass reached the legal length of 10 inches in their second or third year and weighed 1.0 to 1.5 pounds in their fourth year. However, their growth rate was similar to that of nearby reservoirs (Table 5), at least the first three years. The data for Table 5 were collected with other data for the studies of Seidensticker and Helton, 19?6; Seidensticker, 19??; and Seidensticker, l9?S; however, these data did not appear in the reports of these studies, although some other growth data did. In the case of Dam B, the data used is in the appendix of the report. 0klahoma data reported by Heidinger (l9?6) indicates that the growth rate of large- mouth bass is a function of the type of water where they are found. Therefore, it is doubtful that Texas reservoir data can be used to make a judgement about the quality of the Sabine River as river habitat for bass. There is little growth rate data from rivers for largemouth bass (Carlander, l9??), and it is nonexistant for Texas. The growth rate is similar to the average growth rate of three Dklahoma rivers (Carlander, 197?) so at least the Sabine River compares well with these rivers. The slope of the length-weight regression was not significantly different than three at the 0.05 level. This indicates that the bass gained weight at about the same rate as they increased in length. There are many values reported by Carlander (19??) that are near three and one would expect that many are not significantly different from three; however, no mention is made of a test for significance. Prentice and Durocher (l9?8) reported slopes of 3 and 3.1 for the Sabine-Sulphur—Cypress—Nachos river systems and the Pineywoods ecological area respectively. Therefore, this value is acceptable. The average condition factor was 1.531. This is larger than most of the values listed by Carlander (19??); however, it is less than any of the values listed by Prentice and Durocher (l9?8) for any place in Texas. I conclude from this that 1.531 is acceptable even though it is low for this State. Condition was also evaluated using the method recommended by Anderson (19TB). Using this method, condition is expressed in terms of relative weight. The desirable values for relative weight are those from 95 through 100. The Three length groups: less than 8 inches, 8 inches to less than 12 inches, and 12 inches and larger had relative weight values of 91,93 and 110 respectively. The number of fish involved in the cal— culations for each length class was 3, d and S. These data suggest that smaller bass do not do as well as larger bass. Perhaps an insufficient amount of small forage was the cause of this. The Sabine River spotted bass reached catchable sise about the time they started their third year (Table 6). This is somewhat longer than was required for largemouth bass to reach catchable sise; however, since the spotted bass does not grow as large, this slower growth is expected. Carlander (19??) stated that the growth rate of spotted bass in reservoirs is generally faster than that of spotted bass in streams and that the growth rate of these fish seems to be faster in rivers than in their tributaries. Using data compiled by Carlander (19??), the average growth rate of spotted bass from three 0klahoma lakes were calculated as was that of three 0klahoma rivers. The average growth rate for the lakes was greater than that of the rivers at every age. The above information suggests that the growth rate of spotted bass is a function of the kind of water they came from. Therefore, in order to evaluate the Sabine River as habitat for spotted bass, it is probably necessary to have river data to compare it with. There is no river data for Texas. Compared to the growth rates reported for three 0klahoma Rivers (Carlander, 197?), the Sabine River fish averaged two inches longer at age one than the average length of the spotted bass from any of the 0klahoma rivers. In subsequent years, the Sabine River spotted bass grew about as fast as the fastest growing 0klahoma fish. This suggests that the Sabine River is good river habitat for spotted bass. The fact that Sabine River spotted bass grew faster than Sabine River largemouth bass their first year and faster the first two years of life than spotted bass collected in Sam Rayburn (Seidensticker, 19??) also suggests that conditions for spotted bass are good in the Sabine River, since this was not what would be expected from 0klahoma data (Carlander, 19??). The slope of the length—weight regression, 3.A9?, is significantly greater than three at the 0.05 level. This indicates that as these fish grew older their weight increased at a faster rate than their length. The slope values compiled by Carlander (19??) are surprisingly variable and there is no mention of testing to determine if any of them are significantly different from three. However, the 3.A9? value from the Sabine River is larger than the nine values that are listed. The slope of the length— weight regression for Sam Rayburn was 3.296 and it was also significantly greater than three of the 0.05 level. The average condition factor was l.A09. The amount of data compiled by Carlander (19??) is limited and highly variable; however, this value does compare well with the Sam Reyburn value of 1.343. More data are needed to evaluate these values. White crappie probably did not enter the fisherman's creel until their third year when they reached 8.5 inches total length (Table ?). The state average growth rats (Table 5) calculated from data given in D.J. reports (Bamberg, l9?9; Bonn, 19??; Hysmith and Mocsygemba, l9?Sa, l9?Sb, 19?9; Inman, 19?S; Kraai, 19??, l9?8a, l9?3b; Smith, l9??a, l9??b) was slower than that of the Sabine River fish every year where comparison is possible except the first year. Therefore, compared to the rest of the State, the Sabine River white crappie have a reasonable growth rate. Apparently white crappie growth is a function of the type of water where they are found (Carlander, 19??). Therefore, in order to evaluate the Sabine River as river habitat for white crappie, it is necessary to have other river data. unfortunately, such data does not exist for Texas. The average growth of Sabine River white crappie is similar to that of five rivers in 0klahoma, except for the first year where Sabine River white crappie average about an inch longer than the 0klahoma fish. This suggest that the Sabine River is suitable river habitat for white crappie at least if 0klahoma rivers are used as a standard. The slope of the length-weight regression was not significantly different than three at the 0.05 level. It is not possible to tell from the data compiled by Carlander (19??) or Texas D.J. reports whether-or not this is the usual situation. The average condition factor was l.5¢0. This compares well with data compiled by Carlander (19??), which suggests that this is an acceptable value. Little condition data have been reported in Texas; therefore, no comparison with State data is possible. The growth rate of black crappie was similar to white crappie (Table 3). They probably did not enter the fisherman's creel until their third year when they reached 3.5 inches total length. Unfortunately, there is not enough statewide data for a state average to mean anything. The growth rate was somewhat slower than that of Toledo Bend (Table 5) after the first year and faster than the Oklahoma average (Carlander, 19??) until the fifth year. (The Thledo Send data were collected during the study of that reservoir (Seidensticker and Helton, 19?6); however, it never appeared in the report.) There is not enough information to know whether under these conditions, this is a reasonable growth rate. There is nothing in the data compiled by Carlander (19??) to suggest whether the growth rate of black crappie is or is not a function of the type of water where they are found. The slope of the length-weight regression was not significantly different than three at the 0.05 level. This was also the case for Toledo Bend; however, it is not possible to tell from the data compiled by Carlander (19??) whether or not this is the usual situation. The average condition factor was l.é03. This compares well with Toledo Bend (1.1698) and values reported by Carlander (19??), which suggests that this is an acceptable value. There is not enough data from the rest of the State to many any further comparison. Tributary Fishes: Samples from the tributaries in the East TExas Timber- lands land resource area produced primarily minnows and sunfishes (Tables 9 and 10). These streams contained a good variety of species, but most of the fish collected were small since most of the creeks were small and generally shallow. Host of the tributaries provide fishing primarily for sunfish, small bass and bullhead catfish. However, Big Cow Creek has a reputation for producing good catches of channel and flathead catfish although neither of these species were collected by seining. Trout Creek is reported to be a good bass producing stream. Samples from the larger coastal streams, Adams and Cow Bayous, indicated fish populations similar to the main river. Several estuarine species, including sheepshead and finescale menhaden, were also taken. Fishing in these tributaries is reported to be most productive for largemouth bass, crappie, sunfish and some estuarine species. Fish Community Cverview: Sixty—five species were collected from the Sabine River and its Texas tributaries (Table 11). 0ne specimen of American eel was observed, but not collected, during electrofishing in the river. Striped bass were collected during hatchery work in April, but not during the management survey. It seems likely that one specimen of paddlefish was taken from the river by a fisherman. A wide variety of species, as was found in this survey, is indicative of a fish community that is in good condition. Seine collections from the main river would probably have added more species, but high water levels prohibited seining during this segment. Blacktail shiner, ironcolor shiner and striped mullet were the most abundant species. Channel catfish, largemouth bass, white crappie and black crappie were the most abundant sport fishes. It may be that wide fluctuations in water levels and flow reduced the number of suitable size forage fish which in turn slowed the growth of the sport fishes. Public Access and Facilities Public access to the Sabine River was found to be fair. Boat ramps are available at road crossings on U.S. 190, State highway 12 and I.H. 10. Access to the Toledo Bend tailrace is good; however, no fishing is allowed for approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the dam and no improved boat ramp is available. The area closed to fishing is the area which normally provides the best tailrace fishing. Although the river and land between the cut banks are open to the public, most of the land surrounding the river is privately owned and posted. Ho picnic or camping facilities are available at any point on this section of river. The long distances between public boat ramps inhibits fishermen from making float trips. Fishermgfl_lnformation Existing sources of fisherman information are adequate for promoting recreational use of the Sabine River. However, more information needs to be publicised regarding public access to the stream, water releases from Toledo Send Dam and the type of fisheries available. Fish Harvest Regulations Existing regulations are adequate to protect the fishery resources of the Sabine River. If fishing pressure for largemouth bass becomes heavy, some