TPWD 1968 F-4-R-15 #1193: Region 2-A Fisheries Study: Job No. 3-37 Fishery Management Recommendations

Marion Toole D-J Coordinator JOB ' PROGRESS REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. Fwd-R-lS REGION 2-A FISHERIES STUDY Job No. 3-37: Fishery Management ReCommendatioms Project Leader: Gharles T. Menu J. R. Singleton Executive Director Texae'Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas, Eugene A, Walker Director, Wildlife Services July 22, 1969 Summary During this segment 15 major public lakes in North Central Texas were checked on a quarterly basisa From 5 to 15 netting collections were made on each lake. Data were recorded for the Specimens taken in the netting and seining collec= tions, and notes were made on aQuatic vegetationo Game fish Species comprised 50 per cent or more of the total number of fish taken in 5 lakes: But rough fish species9 by weight3 were dominant in 1a of the 15 lakes checked. In 7 lakes the rough fish Species comprised more than 80 per cent of the total weight of all fish takeno Some consideration should be given to controlling the rough fish Species in those lakeso Aquatic vegetation control work Should be done at Lakes Graham and Wichita immediately“ Lotus and cattails are likely to blanket many prime fishing areas if they are allowed to go uncheckedo This job should be continued so that we may be able to keep abreast of changes in the fish populationsa This information will be valuable in managing the fisheries of this areae Job Progress Report State of Texas Project No. F=eeRsl5fi Name: Region Zea Fisheries Studies Job No. ,. _ Be37 Title: Fishery Nana ement Recommendations Period Covered: 3i Objectives: To determine the need for9 in Region 2eA waters: l. Changes in fish harvest regulations. 2. Pepulation control. 3. Stocking. 4. Evaluation of commercial netting. 5. Vegetation control. Procedures: Proposed fishing regulations for the Possum Kingdom Regulatory Authority area were discussed at a Game Management OfficereBiologist meeting prior to being present= ed at public hearings. Then they were presented to the Commissioners of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The-regulations were based upon results and findings of surveys and work done in this-region9 and they set seasonss bag and possession limits9 and means and methods of harvest. Fifteen major public lakes in the region were divided into 3 groups: less than 5.000 acres9 lore than 53000 acres3 and more than lCSOOC acres. From 5 to 15 netsS based on the size of the lakes were set overnight in each lake during each quarter. Experimental gill nets9 150 feet long with varying mesh sizes from 1 to 3% inches, and a 2Cmfoot seine were used to make the fish collections. The game fish Species were weighed and measured individually. A representative sample of rough fish Species were weighed and measured and the remainder of roughgfish were counted and bulk weighed. Seining collections were checked for game fish species primarily. Notes were made on the game fish and the forage fish Species taken. Stocking recommendations were based on seining collection data. Gill netting data were used in considering whether or not a contract fisherman might be beneficial to a lake. Notes were made on the types of aquatic wegetation present and whether or not it interfered with access or fishability. Table l is a checklist of all fish taken in the netting and seining collections during this segment. Only common names are used in the report. mgr Table 1 Checklist of Fish Species Common Name ggientifim_Name Spotted gar L££;§ steus ocul.atus Longnose gar =14EE§E£§k§,OoSGUS Threadfin shad Dc.o§gmm pe.tenense Gizsard shad {#:953ng filfifibgg;_z Smallmouth buffalo lctiobus bubalus River carpsucker iflagiia £§£El0 Gray redhorse Egggsgggfl Egg-es cm Spotted sucker in“crema melanogsfl Carp CV rinus carpio Golden Shiner figtemi opus crysoleucas Blacktail Shiner gggfigaggnWstos Red Shiner Egtrogig intransis Fathead minnow ‘imephales promelas Channel catfish lctal res punctatus Blue catfish iggi;fl£m§ gurcatus Black bullhead Tctaigggg melee Yellow bullhead ggfiggglmg_:jtalis Flathead Catfish P;£§lr#§£§,gliwaris Blackstripe topminnow mgggglc- ggigggg Mosquitofish gagggggg gggiggg Brook silverside Labidesthgg §icc culus White bass figgggs Chi\ s Spotted bass Maffifl£gi i3 punctulatus Largemouth bass MEEEEEEf£g§=§filmU1dES Warmouth Sflfiaa32= true a; Green sunfish c- ”" Redear sunfish Bluegill Yellowbelly Longear sunfish White crappie Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum ..le ' Findings: Lake Pat Clebu rne my mm: wwnncm Gill Nett-ing_: A total of 286 Specimens of 14 species was taken in 20 netting collections made on this lake near Cleburne in Johnson Coo“. . The combined results of the 4 nettin.g trips are shown in Table 2. it is is .teres trig to note that game fish species comprised more than 51 per cent of the number and weight of all fish taken. This is probably due to the fact t.hat Lake Pat Cl eburne is a reLar:"ely new reservoir; it was built in 1963. 13- Table 2 Lake Pat Cleburne Netting Results n 1968 Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Number Total Number m_§Fonnds of Weight Giazard shad l/ 53 18.53 10.50 4.33 Smallmouth buffalo ii 32 11 19 so.2s 16.60 River carpsncker l! 21 7.34 19.68 8.11 Carp l! 28 9.79 39.n1 16.24 Channel catfish 43 15.04 70.17 28.92 Blue catfish 1 0.35 2.81 1.16 Yellow bullhead _ 8 2.80 2.90 1.20 White bass 15 5.24 8.60 3.54 Largemouth bass 14 4.90 19.20 7.91 Warmonth ' l 0.35 0.12 0.04 Green sunfish 1 0.35 0.13 0.05 Bluegill 25 8.74 2.43 1.00 White crappie 40 13.99 19.25 7.93 Freshwater drum if 4 1.39 7.20 2.97 Total 286 100.00 242.68 100.00 Rough Fish 138 48.24 117.07 48.25 Esme Fish 148 51.76 125.61 51.75 1/ Indicates rough fish species Gizzard shed. the most frequently encountered rough fish species. comprised 18.53 per cent of the total number and 4.33 per cent of the total weight of all fish taken in the netting collections. Smallmouth buffalos carp. and river carpsucker, in that order. were the most abundant rough fish Species taken. Channel catfish were the most abundant game fish Species taken in the nets at Lake Pat Cleburne. White crappie were the next most abundant. In addition, there appears to be good populations of white bass and largemouth bass in the lake. §sinio Collgggigns: Two seining collections were made in conjunction with the netting trips. Small gizzard shad, from 4 to 9 inches were the most abundant fish taken. The only other fish taken were 2 red shiners and 1 fathead minnow. No catfish, bass, or crappie were taken. Even though no game fish were takens evidence of sufficient forage was found. Vegetation: Aquatic vegetation is not a problem in this lake at this time. Eggs Nocona Eillmhfifiilflgfi in the 20 netting collections made on take Nocona9 Montague County, during 1968. 573 fish of 13 Species were taken (Table 3). Overall9 game fish species comprised 55.49 per sent of the total number of all fish takenD but only 20.15 per cent of the total weight. aria,- Table 3 Lake Nocona Netting Results a 1968 Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Species gumber lggagfifiggggg’ Smégggngglflm’ of Weight Gizzard shad 4’ 31 5.41 5.73 0.66 Smallmouth buffalo 2:” 2 0.35 31.25 3.62 River carpsucker l! 146 25.48 589.17 68.18 Carp 1/ 73 12.72. 57.59 6.67 Channel catfish 25 4.36 30.59 3.54 Flathead catfish 7 1.22 12.05 1.39 White bass 54 9.42 71.00 8.22 Largemouth base 21 3.67 36.15 4.18 Green sunfish l 0.17 0.09 0.01 Bluegill 55 9.60 3.98 0.46 Yellowbelly sunfish 1 0.17 ‘0.05 0.01 White-crappie 154 26.88 20.23 2.34 Freshwater drum 4! 3 0.53 6.24 0.72 Total 573 100.00 864.10 100.00 Rough Fish 255 44.51 689.96 79.85 Game Fish 318 55.49 174.14 20.15 / P Species White crappie. bluegill. white bass. channel catfish. and largemouth bass. in that order. were the most frequently taken game fish species. The white crappie population appears to be stunted; the average weight was s1ight~ 1y more than 2 ounces. Other than this. the game fish population seems to be in relatively good shape. River carpsucker ranked first in total number and total weight among the rough fish Species. They comprised more than 60 per cent of the total weight of all fish taken in the nets. No other rough fish Species seems to be a problem at this time. Seining Collections; Several seining collectiOns were made on this lake. Brook silversides were the most abundant; however. 2 largemouth bass £1 to 3 inches) and 1 white crappie (1% inchl'were also taken. The game fish indicate successful repro- duction. Vegetation: Aquatic vegetation is not a problem in this lake at this time. The turbidity. caused by wind action and rough fish. is sufficient to present the dewelop= ment of large beds of submerged vegetation. 25, Possum Kingdom Lake Gill Netting: Sixty netting collections were made during 1968 on Possum Kingdom Lake. Palo Pinto County. The results are shown in Table 4. Rough fish species comprised 52.49 per cent of the total number and 69.10 per cent of the total weight. Gizzard shad. the most frequently taken fish. comprised 28.78 per cent of the to al number of the fish taken in the nets. Smallmouth buffalo comprised 8.59 per cent of the total number but more than 28 per cent of the total weight. Table 4 Lake Possum Kingdom Netting Results m 1968 Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Species Number Total Number gPoundsl_Ml Q; Weight Longnose gar if. 48 4.97 119.72 10.22 Threadfin shad if 26 2.69 2.89 0.25 Gizzard shad 1! 278 28.78 157.61 13.45 Smallmouth buffalo l/ 83 8.59 330.70 28.22 River carpsucker l] 37 3.83 92.84 7.92 Carp 1/ 24 2.49 77 15 6.58 Channel catfish 76 7.87 114.55 9.78 Flathead catfish 12 1.24 47.94 4.09 White bass 115 11.90 83.44 7.12 Spotted bass 6 0.62 5.01 0.43 Largemouth bass 44 4.56 61.53 5.25 Warmouth 6 0.62 1.85 0.16 Green sunfish 14 1.45 _2.25 0.19 Redear sunfish 24 2.48 6.00 0.51 Bluegill 139 14.39 31.16 2.66 Yellowbelly sunfish 2 0.21 0.61 0.05 Longear sunfish 3 0.31 0.22 0.02 White crappie .. 18 1.86 7.54 0.64 Freshwater drum if 11 1.14 28.82 2.46 Total 966 100.00 1.171.83 100.00 Rough Fish 507 52 49 812.73 69.10 Game Fish 459 47.51 w. 359.10 30.90 gunman—m1. c.L-¢-mhm¢..x .aI.‘ ..u-wn. “fit-am r 'I .a'; u ..-.gwm‘::m.u=.-u.-M “our.- '- you... .Aa‘a L/ Indicates rough fish species Bluegill. white bass. and channel catfish. in that order. were the most frequentm 1y taken game fish species. Despite the relatively low percentage of crappie. the ones taken seem to be in good shape. Generally. the game fish pOpulation is good despite the age of the lake. figinin Collggtiong: Brook silversides. blacktail shiners. largemouth bass. and bluegills were taken in the seining collections. The brook silversides were the most abundant and widely distributed Species. 161 The small bass (2 to 4 inch) indicated that there had been a good spawn in Lake Possum Kingdom. Vegetatigg: Generally. aQuatic vegetation is not a problem in this lake. How- ever. some persons with lake front preperty have complained about the pondweeds. Potamogeton. Recommendations were made to individuals. upon request. for its control. Lake Grahap; ¢_mm. _ 3min”; mr‘ Gill Netting: Netting results. based on 20 netting collections. indicate that rough fish Species are dominant in Lake Graham. Young County. Rough fish species comprised 61.51 per cent of the total number and 80.19 per cent of the total weight. Gizzard shad alone represented 43.65 per cent of the total catch (Table 5?. Since few gar were taken in the nets. it seems that the bass and crappie are the shad”s primary natural predators. however. they do not seem to be very effective in controllw ing the shed. At this time. no other rough fish species seems to be a problem. Table 5 Lake Graham Netting Results m 1s68 Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Specigg Number Total Nantes, amjgggggggth of Weight Spotted gar if 2 0.10 2.18 0.15 Gizsard shad l/ 1. 220 43.65 11.77 9.23 Smallmouth 6611816 11 15 2.98 116.23 23.96 River carpsucker 1. 44 8.73 145.90 30.0 Carp l! 13 2.58 40.56 8.36 Golden shiner l/ 3 0.60 0.48 0.10 Channel catfish 29 5.75 33.70 6.95 Flathead catfish 8 1.59 s2.13 8.69 largemouth bass 20 3.97 23.13 4.77 Warmouth 4 0.79 0.69 0.14 Green sunfish 6 1.19 0.9f 0.19 Redear sunfish 7 1.39 1.18 0.24 Bluegill 63 _ 12.50 8.63 1.78 Yellowbelly sunfish 3 0.60 0.70 0.1' White-crappie . 54 10.71 18.71 3.86 Freshwater drum 1! 13 2.57 5.13 1.06 Total 504 100.00 485.04 100.00 Rough Fish 310 61.51 355.27 80.19 Game Fish 194 38.49 129.77 19.81 W if 'Indicates rough fish species Bluegill. white crappie. and channel catfish were the most abundant game fish species taken in the netting collections. Largemouth bass comprised 3.97 per cent of the total number of fish taken in the collections. The rough fish population. partim cularly the shad. should be reduced if possible. 171 Seining Collections: Brook silversides, blacktail shiners. gizzard shad, large- mouth bass. bluegill. and blackstripe topminnow were taken in the seining collections. The shad and the silversides were the most frequently taken fish. The small bass, from 2 to 4 inches. indicated that they had spawned. Vegetation: Lotus (Nelumbo Sp.) and cattails (Ty W2 alatifoli so) are becoming a problem in the upper reache.s of the la.ke. In August we estimated that there were approximately 6 acres of lotus in the north end of the lake. The local Game Management Officer estimated approximately 200 acres of cattails scattered around the lake's shore" line. Both of these plants are likely to cover prime fishing areas if they are not controlled. Lake Bridgeport GollmggghpggJ Sixty netting collections were made during 1968 on Lake Bridge- port. Wise County. The results are shown in Table 6. Game fish Species comprised 57.72 per cent of the total number and 31.43 per cent of the total weight of all fish taken in the nets. Table 6 Lake Bridgeport Netting Results a 1968 Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Species Number Total Number {Pogpdsl of Weight Spotted ga.r l/ 2 0.17 5.86 0 36 Longnose ga.r 4] 9 0.73 67.17 4.17 Gizzard shad 4/ 37 3.04 16 20 1. 01 Smallmouth buffalo l/ 219 17.98 515.09 31 97 River Carpsucker if 216 17 73 364.38 22 62 Carp l/ 14 1.15 64.55 4.01 Channel catfish 43 3.53 75.03 4.67 Flathead catfish 10 0.82 54.72 3. 40 White bass 197 16.17 155.52 9. 65 Largemouth bass 52 4.27 44.68 2. 77 Green sunfish 4 0.33 0.42 0.03 Bluegill 55 4.52 7.48 0.46 White crappie . 342 28.08 168.58 10. 46 Freshwater drum 1! 18 1.48 _ 71 33 4.43 26181 - 1.218 100 00 1,611.01 100.00 Rough Fish 515 42.28 1.104.58 68.57 Game FiSh 703 57.72 506.43 31.43 1/ Indicates rough fish Species White crappie. smallmouth buffalo. river carpsucker. and white bass. in that order. were the most frequently taken fish. Of all the lakes checked during this year. Bridgeport has one of the best crappie populations. Not only are they abundant but there is also a good size range. and they are in good condition as shown by the average ”K” factor. 2.67. 181 The smallmouth buffalo and the river carpsucker combined comprised more than 35 per cent of all fish taken in the nets. Thus these 2 species might be considered a problem in Lake Bridgeport. Since giazard shad comprised only 3.04 per cent of all fish taken in the nets. they could hardly be considered a problem fish at this time. Seining Collections: Few seining collections were made on this lake due to the windy weather. When collections were made. gisaard shad. brook silversides. mosquito~ fish. and bluegills were usually found. Vegetation: Aquatic vegetation is not a problem in Lake Bridgeport at this time. Several patches of pondweed were found in the shallow water areas of the lake. but it is not considered to be a problem. lesissasrest Gill Netting: Tuenty netting collections were made on Lake Benbrook. Tarrant County. during this segment. A total of 639 fish of 15 species was taken in the nets (Table 7). Rough fish species were dominant both in number and weight. Spotted sucker. found only in this lake during this-survey. were the most frequently taken fish; they comprised 22.69 per cent of the total number. River carpsucker and gizzard shad. in that order. were the second and third most abundant fish taken in the nets at Benbrook. Table 7 Lake Benbrook Netting Results 4 1968 - Total Per Cent of Total Weight Per Cent Species Number_ Eggal Number 190222221” of Weight Gizzard shad l! . ' 104 16.28 40.82 4.82 River carpsucker 4] 121 18.94 418.23 49.37 Spotted sucker 1! 145 22.69 106.64 12.59 Carp A 40 6.26 1 1.05 15.47 Golden shiner l/ 14 2.19 2.80 0.33 Channel catfish 6 0.94 17.58 2.08 Flathead catfish 2 0.31 11.36 1.34 White bass 51 7.98 51.38 6.07 Largemouth bass 13 2.04 13.92 1.65 Warmouth l 0.16 0.09 0.01 Green sunfish ' 2. 0.51 '1 0.26 0.03 Bluegill 60 9.39 7.40 0.87 White crappie 36 5.63 15.08 1.78 Black crappie . 1 0.16 0.36 0.04 Freshwater drum 1! 43 6.72 30.15 3.55 Total 639 100.00 847 :2 100.00 Rough Fish 467 73.08 729.69 86.13 Game Fish 172 26.92 117.43 13.87 ' ' m if Indicates rough fish Species