TPWD 1962 F-3-R-9 #779: Fisheries Reconnaissance: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 5-B
Open PDFExtracted Text
SEGMENT COMELETION REPORT
As required by
FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT
TEXAS
Federal Aid Project No. F—3uR-9
Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region S—B
Job No. 3-18 Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance
Project Leader John N, Dorchester
H9 D o. DOdgen
Executive Secretary
Texas Geme.and Fish Commission
Austin, Texas
Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker
DwJ Coordinator Director, Pregram Planning
April 25, 1962
ABSTRACT
A reconnaissance survey was made on each of the following lakes during
this Period: Tyler State Park Lake, Dam "B” Reservoir, Lake 0' the Pines,
Lake Murvaul, Lake Striker and Caddo Lakeo Data collected is compared as
near as possible with data collected in the basic surveys conducted on these
lakes. Over-all, there were very few gross changes in any of the lakes with
an indication that game fish are on an increase in all. Aquatic vegetation is
the universal problem in all of the lakesa
SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT
State of Texas
Project No, Fm3wR~9 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys
of the Waters of Region 5==Bo
Job Noo B-18 . Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance
° February 1, 1961 m January 31, 1962
OBJECTIVES:
To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning
gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populationso
TECHNIQUES USED:
Netting trips were made to six reservoirs that had previously been sur=
veyedo These lakes are as follows: Tyler State Park, Dam “B” Reservoir,
Lake OH the Pines, Lake Murvaul, Lake Striker and Caddo Lake,
Fish were collected with gill nets the dimensions of which are 125 feet
long, 8 feet deep with mesh size ranging from I to 3 inches, Also bag seines
were used to make seining collections on some of the lakes surveyed, These
seines were of two sizes, one was 26 feet long, 6 feet deep with l/4—inch
mesh, The other was 15 feet long, 4 feet deep with l/8minch mesh,
Observations were made on several items such as water level, status of
aquatic vegetation, fishing pressure and public access,
Water analysis includes pH, methyl orange alkalinity, chlorides, turbi-
dity (secchi) and water temperatures,
The findings for each lake are written separately and as follows:
TYLER STATE PARK LAKE
Tyler State Park Lake, located in Smith County 10 miles north of Tyler,
was first surveyed in 1959, The lake was found to be in need of a complete
renovation, which was be
for the initial survey,
Table l is a checklist of all species taken from the lake over the three
year period, The shift from undesirable fish in 1959 and 1960 to desirable
speCies in 1961 is obvious, To further show this Table 2 compares the per-
centages of numbers of netted fish, The per cent of game fish jumps from
37,50 per cent in 1959 to 100,00 per cent in 1961, Table 3 compares the per
cent of weight of netted fish, In this comparison the weight of game fish
rises from 20,60 per cent to 100,00 per cento
Table 4 compares the average weight in grams, average standard length in
millimeters and average coefficients of condition for five principal game
species for the three periods, All indications are that the fish stocked in
the lake following the renovation are doing quite well,
The water quality of the lake is nearly the same as before, The pH was
7,6 for both times, alkalinity was 27 p,p,m, in 1959 but only 0,5 p,p,m, in
1961, The chlorides were 28,37 p,p,m, and 21,28 p,p,m, respectively, The
water level has remained fairly constant with the fluctuation being less
than one foot, The water has remained clear with some turbidity following
fertilizer applications,
Fishing on the lake was closed for a period of approximately 1 year
during renovation, During the first few weeks following the reuopening of
the lake there was a good number of fishermen present but their success was
only mediocre and the numbers declined. An attempt to obtain 100 per cent'
creel census of the lake failed because of the lack of cooperation on the
part of the several people involved,
The amount of noxious vegetation in the lake has been reduced by at
least 95 per cent, Vegetation is only a minor problem at this time, Public
access is excellent with the exception of the boat launching area which is
unpaved and washed out,
Table 1, A Checklist of Tyler State Park Lake fish species,
Eateries Tilt l__960 _19._6__1
Spotted gar (LgpigggtgggFchlatgg) x
Blacktail redhorse (Mggggfigmg poecilgpgm) x
Lake chubsucker (Erimyggg_gggg§£g) ' x x
Carp (Cypginug carpig) x
Golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas) x
1.2:“: mm cum—p1—
Red Shiner (Egtggpis lutrensig)
- n emu—I.—
Channel catfish (Ictalurus pgpctatus)
—_.—-_-r wmuun In. .m—u —nm
Yellow bullhead (lctalurus1natalis)
tum—wrmnmm .u. rlfi:‘_—'_'lflhL'H-—_I-r
Blackstripe topminnow (Fundulus notatus)
(‘ur-(x “Wm—Fuhr- —-¢.-.—.-=u ”ram:-
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affigig)
M r. m nus—m a .
Largemouth bass {Micropterus salmoidfig}
flJI-m- c—Erg:— Mfl- _W,-v, ._wmn__‘_u__“___
Warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus)
_—mm"_‘llm-‘x-—‘ —:——-——-— _ nmz—m-wn-T-I
Spotted sunfish (Lepomis pgnctatus)
wmu— -u-m.—_-_.—_w:m-m:z
Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlgphus)
sun-7.41. aux-r
94
5X:
N
PQXPGNEAMQQ
en
34%
Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)
“run-Mu: mull-(F; unnr—IF-Il-rr‘.1meI-fl=
x
x
Longear sunfish (Lepomis megalotis} x
x
533
“En—m ( H12- . .— aux—n;
Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)
m1m—Icwm muumw.m:r 11m mm
Number of Species l2 lO 5
Table 2, Comparison of per cent of numbers of netted fish from Tyler State
Park Lake,
Species 1959 1960 1961
Spotted gar* 0 0,89 0
Lake chubsucker* 16,67 55,36 0
Carp* 4,17 . 0 0
Golden shiner* 0 0,89 0
Channel catfish 0 0 6,67
Yellow bullhead* 41,66 0,89 0
Largemouth bass 12,50 7,1& 40,00
Warmouth 4,17 5,36 40,00
Redear sunfish 4,17 10,71 0
Bluegill sunfish 16,67 15,18 13,33
Longear sunfish 0 0,89 0
Black crappie 0 2,67 0
Rough Fish * 62,00 58,03 0
Game Fish 38,00 41,97 100,00
Total 100,00 100,00 100,00
Table 3, Comparison of per cent of weight of netted fish from Tyler State
Park Lake,
Species 1959 1960 1961
Spotted gar* 0 1,64 0
Lake chubsucker * 16,62 58,14 0
Carp* 23,56 0 0
Golden shiner* 0 0,39 0
Channel catfish 0 0 11,96
Yellow bullhead* 39,22 1,55 0
Largemouth bass 10,56 20,12 66,86
Warmouth 0,96 2.41 18,89
Redear sunfish 2,29 7,80 0
Bluegill sunfish 6,79 ’5,72 2,29
Longear sunfish 0 0,68 0
Black crappie 0 1,55 0
Rough Fish * 79,40 61,72 0
Game Fish 20,60 38,28 100.00
Total 100.00 100,00 100,00
Table 4, Comparison of average standard lengths in millimeters of several
game fish species from Tyler State Park Lake,
1959 1269 1961
Number of Number of
Species Fish Length Not Taken Fish Length
Channel catfish 0 0 1 340,00
Largemouth bass 3 209,00 6 268,83
Warmouth 1 117,00 6 163,50
Redear sunfish 1 165,00 0 0
Bluegill sunfish 4 137,50 2 110,50
Comparison of average weight in grams of several game fish
species from Tyler State Park Lake,
1959 1960 1961
Number of Number of
Species Fish Weight Not taken Fish weight
Channel catfish 0 0 1 737,00
Largemouth bass 3 216,60 6 680,50
Warmouth 1 58,00 6 191,66
Redear sunfish 1 140,00 0 0
Bluegill sunfish 4 104,00 2 55,00
Comparison of average coefficients of condition (”K”) of
several game fish species from Tyler State Park Lake,
1959 1299 1961
Number of Number of
Species Fish ”K” Not taken Fish ”K”
Channel catfish 0 0 1 1,87
Largemouth bass 3 2,15 6 2,97
Warmouth l 3,62 6 4,31
Redear sunfish l 3,12 0 0
Bluegill sunfish 4 3,66 2 4,08
Water Quality
1959 1960 1961
Ph 7,6 Not taken 7,6
Alkalinity 27,00p,p,m, 0,5 p,p,m,
Chlorides 28,37p,p,m, 21,28p,p,m,
DAM ”B” RESERVOIR
Table 5 is a checklist of fish collected from Dam ”B” in the earlier
surveys and in the reconnaissance survey, It should be pointed out that
the total feet of nets used on reconnaissance surveys are usually only
about oneatenth of that used on regular surveys, Table 6 is a comparim
son of per cent of numbers of fish collected by nets for both periods,
According to this table, gar (Lfipisosteus £22,) and catfish (Iotalurus
£22,) made the greatest increases while shad (Dorosoma cepedianum) and
white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) made the greatest decreases, This
same trend is indicated by Table 7 which is a comparison of the percent“
age of weights of netted fish, There is no data available on condition
of game fish,
Vegetation has always been a problem on the lake and the situation
remains unchanged, The greatest problem is the infestation of water
hyacinths, The shallow water, which is prevalent in the lake, is ideal
for vegetation,
The water level has remained fairly constant over the years, The
lake is still heavily fished and fishing has remained fairly good, Public
access has been greatly improved in the last year or two,
One of the objectives of netting Dam ”B” was to attempt to catch
white bass which had been introduced into the lake,
None were re“
covered during this period,
Table 5. A checklist of Dam ”B” Reservoir fish species.
Species
Alligator gar (Lepisosteus spatula)
Shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)
Spotted gar (Lepisosteus_oculatus)
Longnose gar (Lepisosteus osseus)
Bowfin (Amia calva)
Gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)
Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)
Smallmouth buffalo (lctiobus bubulas)
River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio)
Gray redhorse (Monstoma congestum)
Blacktail redhorse (Mpxostoma poecilurum)
Spotted sucker (Minytrema melanops)
Lake chubsucker (Erimyzon sucetta)
Carp (Cyprinus carpio)
Ribbon Shiner (Notropis fumeus)
Pallid shiner (Notropip amnis)
Blacktail shiner (Notropis venustus)
Red shiner (Npppppip lptrensis)
Sand shiner (Notropig stramineus)
Mimic shiner (Notropis volucellus)
Silvery minnow (HybOgnathus nuchalis)
Bullhead minnow (Pimephales vigilax)
Channel catfish (lpgalurus ppnctatus)
Blue catfish (Ictalurus furcatus)
Black bullhead (lctalurpp melas)
Yellow bullhead (Ictalurus natalis)
Flathead catfish (Eylpdictis olivariS)
Golden topminnow (Fundulus chrysotus)
Blackstripe topminnow (Epndulus notatus)
Mosquitofish (Gambusip affinis)
Brook silversides (Labidesthes sicculus)
White bass (Roccus p__ysops) *
Spotted bass (Micropterus punctulatus)
Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides)
Warmouth (Chaenobryttus gulosus)
Spotted sunfish (Lppomis punctatUS)
Redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus)
Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus)
White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)
Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatu32
Bluntnose darter (Etheostoma chlorosomdm)
Freshwater drum(Aplodinopp§ grunniens)
Number of Species
* Introduced
l958~59
NKNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNXNNNMNNNXMNXNNNMNNNMNMN
.I'.\
N
1961
XX
94%
N94
MN
NNNN
17
Table 6. Comparison of percentages of number of netted fish from Dam ”B”
Reservoir.
Species
Alligator gar*
Longnose gar*
Shortnose gar*
Spotted gar*
Bowfin*
Gizzard shad*
Blue sucker*
Smallmouth buffalo*
River carpsucker*
Gray redhorse*
Blacktail redhorse*
Spotted sucker*
Lake chubsucker*
Carp*
Channel catfish
Blue catfish
Black bullhead*
Yellow bullhead
Flathead catfish
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Warmouth
Redear sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
White crappie
Black crappie
Freshwater drum*
Rough fish*
Game fish
Total
1958-59
0.34
3.12
0.08
4.68
0.68
16.27
0.08
22.11
4.96
0.24
0.36
5.36
0.08
0.80
6.20
2.72
0.16
0.47
0.60
0.24
3.36
0.47
3.80
4.24
10.60
5.40
2.56
62.34
37.66
100.00
1961
14.74
6,31
10.53
18.95
4.21
12.63
2.11
4.21
4.21
1.05
2.11
5.26
9.47
64.21
35.79
100.00
Table 7. Comparison of percentages of weights of netted fish from Dam ”B”
Reservoir.
Species
Alligator gar*
Longnose gar*
Shortnose gar*
Spotted gar*
Bowfin*
Gizzard shad*
Blue sucker*
Smallmouth buffalo*
River carpsucker*
Gray redhorse*
Blacktail redhorse*
Spotted sucker*
Lake chubsucker*
Carp*
Channel catfish
Blue catfish
Black bullhead
Yellow bullhead*
Flathead
Spotted bass
Largemouth bass
Warmouth
Redear sunfish
Bluegill sunfish
White crappie
Black crappie
Freshwater drum*
Rough fish*
Game fish
Total
1958-59
1.08
6.47
0.16
9.70
2.86
0.20
29.23
7.38
0.36
0.14
4.75
0.02
2.42
4.29
3.08
0.21
0.24
1.91
0.14
3.83
0.17
1.03
0.71
6.59
3.66
3.21
74.60
25.40
100.00
1961
29.34
7.61
3.39
O
a
N
boo
\lw
\Di—I
\JH
4500
ONOOOO-DOOOOO
N 1»
R: U1
0\
O
0“
(TO
0.09
1.38
2.13
7.15
80.59
19.41
100.00