TPWD 1975 F-5-R-22 #1657: Region I-B Fisheries Studies: Fisheries Management Recommendations, Project F-5-R-22

PERFORMANCE REPORT As required by / FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORfiTION ACT Texas Federal Aid Project No. FbS-Rp22 REGION I—B FISHERIES STUDIES Objective 13: Fisheries Management Recommendations Project Leader: Billy J,~F011is _..-.-‘ Clayton T. Garrison Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin , Texas Lonnie J. Peters Robert J; Kemp, Director Chief, Inland Fisheries Fisheries Division November 15, 197k Summany The Objective of this study is to recommend management practices for the public waters of Region liB. This job was terminated 3 months early to facilitate the initiation of a New Statewide Fisheries Management Project, F-30-R. However surveys were conducted at the major public lakes this segment. These 12 surveys included fish sampl- ing with gill nets and seines; collection of physical, hydrological and ecolo- gical data; aquatic vegetation checks, and water analysis. Preliminary meetings and public hearings were attended for the Permian Basin and Edwards Plateau Regulatory Districts. The existing fishing regulations were adequate for the existing fisheries resources and changes were not nece- ESQ-Ivy. Stocking was the most common management activity recommended. This includes both native game species stocked at opportune times and the introduction of large open water predator species (striped bass, white bass - striped bass hybrid and walleye). PERFORM-W CE RESPORT State: Texas Project Number: F-S-Rn22 _______..a___..____a_________a__ .________.___aa____l___ Project Title: Region I-B Fisheries Studies “Hi—WW— Project Section: Inventory Study Title: Fisheries Management Recommendations Ml Contract Period: From March 1, l97h To February 28 1975 W- m“.— Program Narrative Objective No.: 13 PS Objectives: To determine the need for in Region I-B waters, 1. Changes in fish harvest regulations 2. Population control 3. Stocking h. Vegetation control 5. Updating public access information. I. Segment Objectives: One through five above. II. Summary of Progress: Proposed fishing regulations were discussed with Plateau and Permian Basin Regulatory Districts. Current fisheries survey data, existing fisheries regulations, and applicable developments in fisheries management elswhere provided the basis for proposed fish harvest regulations. The resulting proposals were presented at public hearings in each county under regulatory authority. varying from 1 to 3% square inches. Additional large mesh (3 - and 3% _ square-inchemesh) gill nets were used to more adequately sample fishes of larger sizes. water conditions and time of year. The size of seines used is given with each survey results table. fish, usually up to 15 of each game species, was measured and examined for sexual development and stomach content. Total numbers, total weights, III. IV. -2- percentage composition, average weights and condition factors ("K") were tabulated. Fish taken in seines were counted and length ranges were record- ed. Several specimens of each species were preserved in formalin and re- turned to the laboratory where identifications were confirmed. Vegetation observations were made during each survey and records were made as to the kind and abundance. This information will be discussed only when significant. Air and water temperatures, hydrological data, turbidity, weather con- ditions and other physical data were recorded in each survey. Water analyses, including dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, alkalinity, total hardness, chlorides and pH were conducted on most waters. This type of information will be discussed in this report only when pertinent. Data for each body of water were examined to determine which waters would be considered for population control measures. The criteria for considering management efforts were population of undesirable species in excess of 80 per cent by weight and/or number, lake capacities, water usage, and the "cost-benefit ratio" of a treatment. Several public waters surveyed during this segment were recommended for supplementary hatchery stocking of fingerling game fish for one or more of the following reasons: (1) the degree and survival of game fish re- production, (2) reservoir capacities, (3) food abundance, (h) fishing pressure and (5) past production records. Significant Deviation: To facilitate to the initiation of a new State- wide Fisheries Management Project, F-30—R, this job was terminated 3 months early. However the major public lakes of Region 1—5 were surveyed this segment. Field data collections for the Statewide walleye Evaluation, Job 18 , Project F-7-H, were made on Twin Buttes Reservoir. These samples included monthly water analysis, frame net collections, seining samples and rotenone cove samples. No major improvements or developments of access and/or facilities were feund, therefore updating of the Statewide Public Access Bulletin was not necessary. Conclusions, Evaluations and Recommendations: The existing fish harvest regulations for Region 1-8 were found to be satisfactory for the present resources and no changes were proposed or adopted. The public waters of Region I-B surveyed during this segment are listed in Table l. A comparison of the average coefficients of condition ("K" factors) for all game species collected with gill nets at all waters sur- veyed is presented in Table 2. The l97h supplementary hatchery stocking of game fish recommended by this project is found in Table 3. The evaluation, discussion, and recommendations for objectives 2,3, and h will be combined and reported separately for each concerned body of water Table l . 'Waters Surveyed During Segment 22 Name Amistad Reservoir Ascarate Lake Balmorhea Reservoir Diablo 1 Lake E. V. Spence Reservoir Macho Lake Mountain Creek Lake Nasworthy Lake Oak Creek Reservoir Red Bluff Reservoir Twin Buttes Reservoir Valley Creek Lake County Val Verde El Paso Reeves Hudspeth Coke Hudspeth Coke Tom Green Coke Reeves Tom Green Runnels Surface Acres Size 6h,900 50 S 73 8h Number of Visits Hm bdosmmo ENUHQ Ne nospmswmon ow psosmmm em: wmoeosm oh mesa mpoowom h m s .1 .1 pl h f t S s .t a s .1 a c s a a . a .. a .l .m .h .d c e e e e n a a a u m a .1 r 1. .h .l “m +. he no F. as venom bewmdma H.QH HemH mooq Meow emoesmeo H.Mm meaoHSom H.mr m.mm UHmUHm H H.mm Moro. We do mwmnom HcNO Homfl Meow New“ McH? guano m.mm accesses names H.mw m.o: zmusosdse H.mH How» m.mw omw osmow HomH m.Hw m.wH men deHw Houw m.ww as. manfifimm Harm HIWW Non—um <mHHow odoow m.Hm Noam White x Striped bass hybrid mpoowom .n .m M .t .n S .t a mm me we w.wm w.wa r.mm m.wm Green sunfish Largemouth bass m.mH .n S .1 f. m h S .D .m an .m m m f o s m D. .l S S 1; r e .1 a r on so 6 a m m m. A... e m. m % m.Hm u.Ho m.ww w.mo m.mm W000 womm WONW u.ow w.rw w.H~ w.mw w.mm :.em u.Hm w.ww w.mw memo rowo :.mm :.40 m.wo White crappie Black crappie 'Walleye v.0? ill-Ii!!! gills-Ii I \n I Table 3. Stocking Records for Region l—B Public Waters, l97h Lake or ‘1 Amistad E.V. Spence Nasworthy N. Concho Oak Creek Red Bluff San saba River Twin Buttes Stream Species Striped Bass Blue Catfish Flathead Catfish Striped Bass Largemouth Bass Channel Catfish White-Striped Bass Hybrid Largemouth Bass Blue Catfish Channel Catfish Hybrid Sunfish Largemouth Bass "Walleye Channel Catfish Channel Catfish Channel Catfish Blue Catfish Channel Catfish Flathead Catfish Largemouth Bass Walleye * "Super Bass" (Florida - Texas Cross) Number Recommended 30,000 6,000 52,000 30,000 10,000 16,000 10,000 25,000 75.000 100,000 10,000 15,000 19,000 20,000 25,000 20,000 u,000 20,000 Number Stocked 83,000 52,000 10,000 16,000 2h,000 66,800 100,000 h.500 50,000 15,000 19,900 20,000 h,8h0 20,000 20,000 100,000 for expediency. Stocking requests for 1975 have been made but may require changes because of unpredictable water levels in West Texas. Lake Amistad Lake Amistad has gained a large volume of water because of heavy Septem— ber rains in West Texas. The lake rose to within a few feet of maximum flood level in less than a week. The International Boundary and Water Commission released a 60,000-second-foot flow over the spillway to pre- vent overtopping the flood gates. Fewer largemouth bass than usual were captured in gill nets this year (Table h); future surveys will determine whether there is a significant trend. No evidence of detrimental factors is known. Extensive shallows newly inundated this fall should contribute to largemouth bass spawning and forage areas next year. The IBWC has cooperated in maintaining the water level during previous bass Spawning seasons. In the future, how— ever, Amistad requirements may have to yield to those of Falcon Lake in alternate years to assist in maintaining the largemouth bass population in the downstream reservoir. The size of the river cerpsucker fraction of total fish population appears to be increasing. As with largemouth bass, future surveys are necessary to determine whether this year's results represent a changing population or are simply minor variations due to weather conditions or net locations. The number and weight of smallmouth buffalo remain high and their mean weight continues to increase. Although not requested by this project, striped bass were introduced into Amistad in 197h. The number of fingerlings stocked was inadequate to pro- duce a significant population, in the opinion of the project leader. Ascarate and Ascarate Fisherman‘s Lakes Data for these lakes are presented together (Table 5) because the water supply and the fish population are shared. No differences were noted in netting results that c0uld be ascribed to significant population changes. However, adult largemouth base, which were not caught in gill nets in Oct- ober 1973, were present in October l97h. Y0ung of the year bass finger- lings were seined, although no fish were stocked in either lake this year. Channel catfish, however, showed decreasing numbers and increasing mean WBighto The suspension of stocking should be continued to determine the current level of natural recruitment of game fish in Ascarate Park. If catfish continue to decline in numbers, fingerling stocking should resume at levels low enough to avoid overcrowding and insure good growth in the 50 acres av- ailable in both lakes. This lake needs a large predator species to utilize the larger gizzard shad. Striped bass x white bass hybrids have shown some potential in larger re- servoirs. Ascarate should be considered as a candidate water for evaluation of this predator in smaller impoundments. Table h Survey results Amistad Lake, May 21-2h, and November 11-13, 197h. Results of forty standard gill nets, and eleven large mesh nets. Per Cent Tot Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average S ecies Number By No. Pounds Pounds Wt. "K" Spotted gar 3 0.25 H.00 1.33 0.16 Longnose gar 12 1.00 31.99 2.67 1.28 Alligator gar 2 0.17 95.00 h7.50 3.81 Gizzard shad 383 31.88 212.00 0.55 8.h9 Goldfish 1 0.08 0.88 0.88 0.0h Carp ho 3.33 110.78 2.77 h.hh Golden Shiner 1 0.08 0.1h 0.1h 0.01 River carpsucker 137 11.h1 268.20 1.96 10.75 Smallmouth buffalo 371 30.88 1155.30 3.11 h6.28 Gray redhorse 5 0.h2 7.95 1.59 0.32 Blue catfishs 11 0.92 17.18 1.56 0.69 1.55 Channel catfisha as 3.75 50.12 1.11 2.01 1.71 Flathead catfishv R6 3.83 869.13 10.20 18.79 2.03 White bases 8 0.67 9.95 1.2h 0.h0 2.81 Warmouths 2 0.17 0.82 0.21 0.02 3.08 Redbreast sunfisha h 0.33 0.68 0.17 0.03 3.22 Bluegill* 6h 5.32 7.17 0.11 0.29 3.2h Longear sunfisha 2 - 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.01 3.53 Redear sunfishs 5 0.h2 0.59 0.12 0.02 2.93 Largemouth bases 20 1.67 21.02 1.05 0.8L 2.29 White crappies 12 1.00 5.11 0.83 0.20 2.35 Freshwater drum 23 " 1.92 26.03 1.13 1.0h Rio Grande perch h 0.33 2.00 0.50 0.08 Total 1201 100.00 2h95.81 100.00 Game Fisha 219 18.23 581.5h 23.30 Rough Fish 982 81.77 1918.27 76.70 ' Seining results Amistad Lake, (Bag 26'x6'x% inch mesh seine, and 20'xh'x 1/8 inch mesh seine). Species Number Size Range in Inches Gizzard shad 3 7-10 Threadfin shad l 1 Mexican tetra 1 1% Devil's River minnow 6 1%?2 Golden shiner 2 2sr3 Tamaulipas Shiner 6 1-h Red Shiner 3 2-2% Sand Shiner 2 2 Blacktail shiner 333 1-3fi Mosquitofish 8 1-1% Bluegill 17 2-5 Redbreast sunfish l 3 Longear sunfish 1 3 Largemouth bass 1 l Logperch 1 3 Rio Grande perch 1 8 Tidewater silversides 205 1—h% Total ____________m_________w_____ll_______________________________________a______fl_________ Km \0 M .5... Table 5. Survey results Ascarate Lake, October 9, 197k. Results of five standard gill nets, and two large-mesh nets. Per Cent TotaI'Wt. Avg.'Wt. Per Cent Average S ecies Number No. Pounds Pounds Wt. "K" Gizzard shad 79 58.08 h6.00 .58 36.19 Carp 15 11.03 h1.6b 2.77 32.76 Smallmouth buffalo ' 1 .7h 9.00 9.00 7.08 Black bullhead 8 5.88 1.5h .19 1.21 Channel catfish * 1h 10.29 21.62 1.5h 17.01 1.52 Bluegill * 7 5015 .52 .0? ch]. 3056 Redear sunfish * 1 .7h ..16 .16 .13 2.88 Largemouth bass * 5 3.67 h.61 .92 3.62 3.18 White crappie * 2 l.h7 .73 .36 .58 2.7? Black crappie * h 2.95 1.28 .32 1.01 3.19 .___________________________________________________________________________________ Total 136 100.00 127.10 100.00 Game Fish * 33 2h.27 28.92 77.2h Rough Fish 103 75.73 98.18 22.76 W Seining results Ascarate Lake, (Bag 26": 6! x.esineh mesh seine, and 20‘ x h' x 1/8-inch mesh seine). .______________1____________________________________________________________________, Species Number Size Range in Inches W Green sunfish l 2 Bluegill 25 1'3 Redear sunfish 0 2-3 Largemouth bass 7 1-5 W Total 37 .__________________________________________________________________________________.