TPWD 1975 F-2-R-22 #1658: Region V-B Fisheries Studies: Fisheries Management Recommendations, Federal Aid Project F-2-R-22

PERFORMANCE REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project F-2-R-22 Region V-B Fisheries Studies Objective B-26: Fisheries Management Recommendations Project Leader: D. Wade Butler Clayton T. Garrison Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Lonnie J. Peters Robert J. Kemp Chief, Inland Fisheries Director of Fisheries November 18, 1974 PERFORMANCE REPORT State: Texas Project Number: F-2—R-22 Project Title: Region V-B Fisheries Studies Project Section: Research and Surveys Study Title: Fisheries Management Recommendations Contract Period: February 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974 Program Narrative Objective Number: B—26 ABSTRACT This objective is designed to situate management practices in the public waters of Region V-B. To determine management needs, Lakes Canyon, Travis, Lyndon B. Johnson and Inks were surveyed (gill netting, seining, water quality). Cove rotenone samples were Collected from Lakes Canyon and Lyndon B. Johnson. Surveys indicate acceptable game fish populations in the lakes surveyed but all lakes have overpopulations of rough fishes. Recommendations for the lakes surveyed include continued predator stockings for control of rough fish popu- lations, habitat improvement to concentrate predators for harvest, and the construction of fishing piers for additional fishermen access at all times of the year. ‘ Additional walleye stockings were carried out on‘ Lakes Canyon and Lyndon B. Johnson. Surveys indicate good survival and growth of walleye in both lakes. Striped bass were stocked for the second year in Lakes Canyon and Travis. Survival from both stockings has been documented and growth is excellent in both lakes. Smallmouth bass were also stocked in Canyon Lake and a portion of the Guadalupe River near Kerrville, Kerr County. Northern pike were introduced into Inks Lake and Town Lake. Objective: To situate fishery management practices in the public waters of Region V-B. I. Segment Objectives: 1. To prepare fish harvest regulations for the waters of Region V-B. 2. To recommend management practiCes for waters not providing adequate sports fishing. 3. To determine the needs for supplemental stocking of hatchery reared fish. II. III. IV. 4. To conduct detailed surveys on Lakes Canyon, LBJ, and Travis. 5. To determine the source and extent of natural or artificial pollutants affecting fish pOpulations. 6. To determine needs for vegetation control. 7. To determine public access. Summary of Progress: Meetings were held with game management officers, biologists, and supervisory personnel to discuss existing and proposed fishing regula- tions in the Edwards Plateau, Possum Kingdom, and Trinity-Brazos Regulatory Districts. Public hearings were also held in each of the counties under regulatory authority and the preposed proclamation was presented to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Commission for approval. Detailed surveys (gill, netting, seining, water quality) were con- ducted on Lakes Canyon, Travis, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Inks to de- termine management needs and evaluate stockings. Cove rotenone sur- veys were also carried out on Lakes Canyon and Lyndon B. Johnson to estimate standing crops of existing fish p0pulations. Visual surveys were made on the lakes of the region for vegetation control needs and public access. There were no reports of pollution affecting fish populations in Region V-B this segment. Significant Deviation: Changes in Department alignment have made it necessary to transfer this objective to Project F-30-R, Statewide Management, beginning January 1, 1975. Since a report on the progress of this objective was necessary to affect the change in alignment, the quarterly surveys for the last quarter were not accomplished and the data reflects only the information collected for the first three quarters. Conclusions, Evaluations, and Recommendations: LAKE TRAVIS Lake Travis is the second largest lake in Region V-B having a surface area of 18,930 acres. It is a deep lake (mean depth - 62 feet) im- pounded upon a limestone basin within the Edwards Plateau, Travis County. The lake was impounded in 1940 and is utilized for recreation,' flood control, hydroelectric power, and municipal and industrial water supplies. Lake Travis impounds waters of the Colorado River and is controlled by the Lower Colorado River Authority. An additional 137,500 striped bass fingerling were stocked in Lake Travis in June, 1974. This was the second year of stocking, bringing the total stocking to 343,648 stripers over the past two years. Lake Travis was surveyed quarterly using 150-foot experimental gill nets set overnight on the bottom at 15 stations. A total of 45 net-nights produced 845 fish weighing 1,357.26 pounds representing 21 different species. Game fishes represented 25.09 percent of the catch by number and 25.84 percent by weight (Table 1). Figure 1 illustrates a three year trend of rough fish, game fish, and sunfish based on the catch per 100 feet of net. The gill netting data reflects overpopulations of gizzard shad (35.86 percent by number, 15.29 percent by weight), river carpsucker, and European carp. Populations of channel catfish, flathead catfish, and blue catfish seem to be acceptable as are the populations of largemouth bass, spotted bass, white crappie, and white bass. Seine samples were collected only in July and September. Results in- dicate available forage consisting of predominantly blacktail shiners, and Mississippi silversides (Table 2). Only four largemouth bass were collected in seining collections but the morphometry of the basin makes seining very difficult and the results could be misleading. Time did not permit cove rotenone surveys on Lake Travis as planned but the surveys will be carried out during the next segment to determine standing crop estimates. Although few striped bass were collected in netting surveys this segment there have been numerous reports of catches by area fishermen. September striper surveys produced only one from 1974 stockings. Management Recommendations: 1. The stocking of striped bass should continue. This species could assistfl'in the control of the large population of gizzard shad and other open water rough fishes. 2. Additional forage should be provided for the predator species in Lake Travis. A few threadfin shad have been collected but additional stockings of this species should be made in an attempt to establish a good population in all parts of the lake. 3. The construction of lighted and heated fishing docks could provide an increase in angler harvest of exotic stockings and native species. The lake area is heavily populated but only a few areas provide access to fishermen without the aid of a boat. 4. Brush shelters and baited areas could also be useful in increasing angler harvest. Such areas could be marked and located in and around fishing docks to attract fish for harvest. Table 1 Results of Lake Travis Gill Netting for 197h h5 Net Sets Percent Percent Species Nuflber of Weight of Average Number (pounds) Weight Weight Lepisosteus osseus 37 8.38 133.01 9.80 3.59 Dorosoma cepedianum 303 35.86 207.51 15.2 .68 Ictiobus bubalus 22 3.03 235.50 1Z.35 9.56 Carpiodes carpio 7 .9 190.19 .01 2. 0 Moxostoma congestum 22 2.60 38.38 2.53 1.56 gxprinus carpio h6 5.88 182.69 10.51 3.10 Aplodinotus grunniens 15 1.78 h2.25 3.11 2.82 * Ictalurus punctatus 80 8.73 37.32 2.75 .93 * Ictalurus furcatus 15 1.78 62.32 8.59 8.15 * Pylodictus oIivaris 17 2.00 109.6h 8.08 6.h5 * Morons oh so a 69 8.17 88.88 6.53 1.28 * Morons saxatiIis 1 .12 1.hb .11 1.hh Lepomis macrochirus 56 6.63 12.25 .90 .22 Lepomis auritus ' 11 1.30 2.13 .16 .19 LEEomiS megalOtia 10 1.18 1.63 .12 .16 GhaenObryttus cyanelluS' 12 1.82 2.20 .16 .18 Chaenobryttus gulosus 3 .36 .56 .0h .19 * Micropterus salmoides 25 2.97 16.62 1.22 .66 *LMicropterus unctulatus 26 3.08 21.62 1.59 .83 * Ponoxis annu aris 19 2.25 13.25 .98 .70 Cichlasoma cyanoguttata 16 1.89 2.31 .17 .1h Totals 8L5 100.00 1357.26 100.00 Percent of catch by: Number 'Weight Rough fish = 6b.02 72.78 Game fish 25.09 25.8h Sunfish = 10.89 1.38 Catch per 100 feet of net: Number Wei ht Rough fish = 8.01 18.63 Game fish = 3.1b 5.16 Sunfish s 1.36 .28 * Denotes game fish species Catch per 100 feet of net 20 Catch per 100 feet of net Figure 1 m Pounds of rough fish Pounds of game fish E Pounds of sunfish - Number III-III... III-III... III-III..- IIIIIIIIII III-III... III-III... III-II-III IIi III III III III III .Ii III III II: II! III Ill III III Ill 1972 _ 1973 1974 LAKE CANYON 'IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIl-IIIII =lllglee-la Iii-IIIIII -.. II ---- ‘II III-- - II II III-IIII I. III III.- .. .'| IIII. .. 4" III..- I. 1 ..... III II mu I. i II I. I. I. I. 1972 1973 1974 LAKE TRAVIS Three year trend of fish populations in Lakes Canyon and Travis based on catch per unit effort oi netting surveys. nber 3111' i; '1’ Table 2 deining Results — Lane Travis Juiy beptemner are are e a m 3 CL Ed D. :0 ,c ,n h u a a G} a) G) G) Q) .Q , _ m a: a 8 3 .4 u m a s m " 0') ’7: ’55: L3 .01000ma ceneuianum 1 3.13 1 3.13 Ecrosema netsnense — - 3 J.35 F ’ropis venustus 13 1.63 65 0.13 Jotronis lutrensis 1 0.13 - - LtQULLL macrochirus 8 1.00 10 1.25 W“ Begonia aurieus “otemizonus cry£31eu0as Eilmld gergllina Car . ides c-arpio elienoorvttus ’uTOsus .ichiasoma cyano;~ uttata % icrjpeerus ecu * nanotes rams species be [.1 1.4 I L.) C; e I (33 ]--~‘ C43 KL} .1 I C.) . z—J LO 1...! F...‘ lotal 3 i": be I-" «"37” tw‘ C”: l-wi C: bu PC 3' Kid -.. LAKE CANYON Lake Canyon is a large (8,240 acres), deep (mean depth — 47 feet) reservoir located entirely within Comal County. The lake was con- structed in 1964 by the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers and impounds waters from the Guadalupe Rivers Canyon Lake was the target of considerable exotic stockings during this segment. A total of 16,160 striped bass fingerling were stocked for the second year bringing the total to 35,910 since June, 1973. Walleye were also stocked for the ascend year of a three year schedule. A total of 124,000 fingerling walisye‘were stocked in April and May, 1974. This 'brings the total walleye accused for 1973-74 to 749,000 fingerling. Smallmouth bass were also intrcjuaed into Canyon Lake in May of this segment. Approximately 75,008 fingerling were stocked at five locations in the lake. Approximately 600 threadfin shad were collected from Lake Calaveras and stocked into Canyon Lake in April, 1974 in an attempt to provide additional forage. .\ Canyon Lake was netted quarteriy during this segment using 150-foot standard eXperimental gill nets set overnight on the bottom at 15 stations. A total of 60 net-nights preduced 1,376 fish weighing 2,052.58 pounds representing 22 Species. Game species represented 15.70 percent of the catch by number and 26.35 percent by weight (Table 3). The remainder of the catch was comprised of nine species of rough fishes (67.71 percent by number and 70.02 percent by weight) and five Species of sunfishes (16.86 percent by number and 3.63 percent by weight). Figure 1 illustrates a three year trend of rough, game, and sunfishes based upon catch per 100 feet of net. Netting data reflects high populations of gizzard shad and grey redhorse suckers representing almost 60 percent of the total catch by number. Channel catfish represented the qreatest numbers of the game Species collected (9.59 percent) while flathead catfish represented the greatest biomass (10.86 percent). Seining collections were made at five stations (two drags at each station) monthly from May thrsngh September to determine availability of forage, survival of walleye and striped bass stockings, and survival of younguofmthe-year native predators. The available forage consists of blacktail shiners, red shiners, threadfin shad and fathead minnows (Table 4). Large numbers cf sunfish were also collected. Good numbers of young-of—the—year largemouth were collected in July collections, but few were collected after this time. It is possible that largemouth bass could be the victim of considerable predation by the large sunfish population in Lake Canyon. Lepisosteus osseus 27 1.96 ' 69.38 3.35 2.57 Dorosoma cepedianun 820 30.53 176.18 8.58 .82 Notemigonus cgzsoleucae 8 .29 .82 . .08 .20 gzprinus cargio 51 3.70 820.26 20.88 8.28 Carpiodes eggpio 8 .58 26.32 1.28 3.29 Moxostoma congestum 389 28.28 716.85 38.91 1.88 Morone chgysops 23 1.67 26.70 1.30 1.16 * Ictalurus punctatus 132 9.59 262.51 12.80 1.99 *-Ictalurus furcatus l .07 17.50 .85 17.50 -Ictalurus natalis 1 .07 .25 .01 .25 * Pylodictus oIivaris 33 2.80 223.00 10.86 6.76 *-Micr02terus salmoides 28 1.78 15.82. .77 .66 Chaenobgzttus Iosus 21 1.53 8.63 .22 .22 Chaenobgzttus cyaneIlus 13 .98 1.88 .09 .18 Lepomis macrochirus - 76 5.52 10.58 - .51 .18 Lepomie microIophus 120 8.73 56.98 2.77 .87 Lepomis auritus 2 .15 .56 .03 .28 s Pomoxis annularis 11 .80 5.76 .28 .52 * Stizostedion vitreun 15 1.09 16.20 .79 1.82 Cichlasona czanOggttata 3 .22 .19 .01 . Tilapia Sp. 1 .07 .63 003 063 Carassius auratus 1 .07 .06 .01 .06 Totals 1376 100.00 2052.58 100.00 ____________________________________________________________________________________ Percent of catch by: Number 'Weight Rough fish . 67.71 70.02 Game fish '_ 15.70 26.35 Sunfish ' 16.86 3.63 Catch per 100 feet of net: Number Weight Rough fish - 10.31 15.97 Game fish - 2.10 6.01 Sunfish - 2.78 .83 M * Denotes game fish species