TPWD 1961 F-7-R-9 #689: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 1-A: Job No. 3-18 Fisheries Reconnaissance

JOB COMPLETION REPORT As-required by FEDERAL AID-IN FISHERIES RESTORATION fiCT TEXAS Federal Aid Project Noo F—7-R-9 Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region l-A Job No. 3—18 Fisheries Reconnaissance Project Leader: Lonfiie Peters H. D. Dodgen Executive Seer-etary Texas Game and Fish Commissian Austin,Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D*J Coordinator Director, Program Planning January 22, 1962 ABSTRACT Buffalo Springs Lake, near Lubbock, was resurveyed on two occasions to deter- mine condition and growth rate of species stocked following a totalakill treatment in September 1959, and to determine possible affects of periodic fish-kills caused by pollution on the immediate watershed. Although all of the game fish collected were in good condition, they had not grown at the expected rate. The number of game Species collected was insufficient, and there was little indication of reproduction. The lake was restocked with 95.000 bass fry in May 1961. Lakes Eddleman and Graham were resurveyed to determine, primarily, the condi- tion and changes in the fishery that may have occurred since the selective rotenone treatments in 1959. Since these lakes are connected by a circulating ditch, factors affecting the fishery of one lake probably affects the other. With the exception of white bass, there were indications of successful reproduction of all game fish Species, whereas reproduction of rough fish species has been limited, at least during the two Spawning seasons prior to the resurveys. Black bullhead catfish are abundant in Lake Graham and are reproducing successfully. The selective-kill treatments in 1959 have apparently suppressed the populations of shad and drum. If future resurveys indicate an excessive increase of these Species, additional introductions of White bass may be considered as a biological control. Fisheries surveys were conducted at Lakes Baylor and Childress to determine relative abundance of species present, problems and factors influencing the fisheries. and remedial management practices. Al1.5pecies collected were in good Condition. Carp, present only in Baylor Lake, comprised 14.09 per cent of the total number taken and 67.8 per cent of the total weight. Bullhead catfish were present in both lakes, comprising 73.8 per cent of the total number and 58 per cent of the total weight. Black bass reproduced successfully in both lakes, whereas crappie failed to reproduce in either lake. Water quality was good in both lakes, hoWever, water clarity causes some vegetation problems. Fisheries investigations at Lake Pauline, near Quanah, disclosed that it was a typical "old-lake” fishery. Game fish comprised only 8.6 per cent of the col- lection and only 5.9 per cent of the total weight. Gizzard shad, carpsucker and carp combined made up 75 per cent of the collections. Carpsucker alone accounted for 45.4 per cent. There was no evidence of successful reproduction of any game fish Species during the past several years. Overabundance of rough fish Species and excessive turbidity is probably responsible for this lack of reproduction. The fish population was stunted and in poor condition. Recommendations included a total-kill treatment and restocking with a proper ratio of game fish Species. JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F-7-R-9 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region l-A Job No. ' B-18 Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance Period Covered: January 1, 1961, to December 31, 1961 Objectives: To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. Techniques Used: Techniques of investigations varied according to the nature of the data needed. When a reconnaissance which constituted a limited survey was made, fish collections were made with gill nets ranging from 1- to 3-inch mesh, and with 20-foot one—eighth-inch mesh minnow seines. All fish were weighed, measured and sexed, and game fish species were examined for stomach contents. Condition factors were determined and abnormalities were noted. Tabulation of data col- lected in the field showed the percentage composition of the gill net catch in terms of numbers and weight, average weights of each species, and K factor ranges and averages for each species. Minnow collections were preserved and saved for laboratory identification and counting. The percentage composition of minnow samples were tabulated. Vegetation checks and water analyses were made when they were not available from previous surveys. Findings: Buffalo Springs Lake Two reconnaissance surveys were made at Buffalo Springs Lake to determine growth and condition of species present. Buffalo Springs Lake was given a total-kill rotenone treatment on September 27, 1959. The data concerning the treatment and the immediate results of the treatment are given in the job completion report for Project No. F—lA-D-A, Job No. l6a~19. Following the kill, the lake was restocked with largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis). Restocking data is given in the job completion report for Project No. F—l4—D-4, Job No. 18a—10. On March 3, 1961, approximately 1% years after restocking, 500 feet of ex— perimental gill nets were set and two drags were made with a ZOO—foot one-half- inch mesh seine. The gill nets took only 1 game fish, a channel catfish, which weighed 0.83 pounds, and 62 black bullhead catfish (lctalurus males). The two seine drags took one bullhead and four golden shiners (Notemigenus crysoleucas). -2- Extremely cold water was the cause of the small number of fish collected. The lake was again checked some four months later on June 27, 1961, with 10 experimental gill nets, and with 4 hoop nets specially designed to take bullhead catfish. This collection produced 7 channel catfish averaging 1.05 pounds, 1 white bass (Roccus chrysops) weighing 0.75 pounds, 2 black bass (Micropterus sp.) aver- aging 0.69 pounds, and 4 crappie averaging 0.21 pounds. An additional four crappie were partially eaten by turtles and could not be processed. K factors showed game fish to be in good condition. The single channel catfish taken on March 3 had a K factor of 2.5. Average K factors of game fish taken on June 27 were: channel catfish 2.0, black bass 2.6, crappie 3.0, and white bass 3.5. Although in good condition, these fish had not grown at thelexpected rate. At the time of the last check, the largest game fish, all of which were about two years old, weighed less than 1% pounds. The slow growth rate of game fish at Buffalo Springs Lake is attributed to a short “growing season" due to early cooling of the lake in the fall of the year. Buffalo Springs Lake was stocked with 95,000 bass fry in May 1961. Lakes Eddleman and Graham -ijectives: To determine the condition of the fish population of these lakes, to note management practices that could be used to improve the fishery,euulix)determine the extent to which shad and drum have repopulated these lakes since the selective rotenone treatment in 1959. Procedure: Field work done on July 10—14, 1961, and on October 17—18, 1961, included seining with 20—foot one-eighth—inch mesh nylon minnow seine, netting with ex- perimental gill nets and 3—inch mesh gill nets, and a vegetation check. Lake Description: Both lakes are situated approximately three miles north of the city of Graham. Lake Eddleman was impounded by a rock and earth dam across Flint Creek in 1928. Lake Graham was impounded by a rock and earth dam across Salt Creek in 1959. Lake Eddleman has a capacity of 12,000 acreufeet and covers 700 acres at spillway level. Lake Graham has a capacity of 39,000 acre-feet and will cover 1,800 acres at spillway level. At the time of these Surveys, the lakes were 12 feet below spillway level. Water is pumped from Lake Eddleman to supply water to the city of Graham. An electric company uses water from Lake Graham for cooling purposes. It is pumped through the plant and emptied into Lake Eddleman where it circulates and returns to Lake Graham through a large connecting ditch. Both lakes are open to free public fishing, waterfowl hunting and boating. Skiing and swimming are permitted in Lake Graham. Numerous access points are located on both lakes. Findings: Vegetation: The following plants were found in the noted abundance: -3- Species Lake Graham Lake Eddleman Black Willow Frequent Frequent Salt Cedar Rare Common Lotus — Abundant Cattail Common Common Sedges (Five species) Frequent Frequent Bulrush Rare Common Chara sp. Abundant Frequent Smartweed Common Common Potomogeton sp. Common Rare Water Primrose Abundant Frequent Fish Collections: The following species were taken by either gill netting or by seining on July 11-13, 1961, and the results are shown in Tables 1 through 3: Common Name Scientific Name Shortnose Gar Lepisosteus platostomus Longnose Gar Lepisosteus osseus Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum Smallmouth Buffalo lctiobus bubalus River Carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Carp Cyprinus carpio Golden Shiner Notemigonus Crysoleucas Blacktail Shiner Notropis venustus Red Shiner Notropis lutrensis Mimic Shiner Notropis volucellus Bullhead Minnow Pimephales vigilax Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Black Bullhead Ictalurus melas Blackstripe Topminnow Fundulus notatus Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Warmouth Chaenobryttus gulosus Green Sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Spotted Sunfish Lepomis punctatus Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Orangespotted Sunfish Lepomis humilis White Crappie Pomoxis annularis Freshwater Drum Aplodinotus grunniens Food Habits: Stomach contents of the game species are illustrated in Tables 4 and 5. Condition Factors: K factors of species collected during these surveys are exhibited in Tables 6 and 7. All game fish were in good condition. Spawning Success: Seining results indicate a large spawn of bluegill, and a satisfactory spawn of largemouth bass. Few fingerling crappie and no fingerling channel catfish were taken by seining. However, gill net results indicate ex— cellent reproduction of crappie and good reproduction of channel catfish and bass last year. Only a few fingerlings or fry of any rough fish species were taken. Inspection of river carpsuckers showed that they have not, and will not, spawn -4- successfully this year. Similarly, carp apparently have not successfully spawned thus far this year. Only one spent female was taken, and all but a small part of the remaining female carp had begun to reabsorb their eggs. Slowly but stead- ily dropping water levels during the spawning season probably account for this. In general, spawning of game fish has been successful while spawning of rough fish has been limited, at least for the past two spawning seasons. Not a single young—of-the-year, or 1—year old carpsucker, carp or buffalo was taken, however, some spent female buffalo were taken. White bass, reported as present but rare in April 1958 apparently have failed to reproduce. (See Fisheries Survey of Lake Eddleman, F-7—R—5.) None were taken during this survey, and several fisher- men reported that they know of none being taken in the past year. Black bullhead catfish are abundant in Lake Graham, and the presence of many spent female bull— heads in the gill net catch indicates successful reproduction of this species. Discussion: Since Lakes Graham and Eddleman are connected by a large ditch through which fish can easily pass from one lake to the other, and through which water circulates from one lake to the other, conditions affecting the fishery of one lake must necessarily affect the other. Water passing through the electric plant is heated considerably, and the large amount of water pumped through the plant creates a strong current at the outlet and in the connecting ditch. The effect of the inflow of warm water and currents on the distribution and movements of fish in these lakes has not been determined. It seems logical, however, that fish would respond markedly to these conditions, especially during colder months. Water passing through the electric plant warms about 5° or 6° F., and the water flow was reported to be 150,000 gallons per minute. These conditions would be ideal for a study of the seasonal effects of inflowing warm water on the distribution of fish species. It is possible that some type of rough fish control projeci for these lakes could be evolved from such a study. It certainly is worthy of further investigation. During the July survey, for some unknown reason, the bullhead population was concentrated in the new lake. Possibly food was more abundant there or perhaps the netting of Lake Eddleman failed to show the true bullhead population of that lake. At any rate, the gill net catch in Lake Graham consisted of 30.18 per cent bullheads, while none were taken in Lake Eddleman. Lake Graham was rechecked on October 18, and this collection showed only 3.68 per cent bullheads, which is probably more accurate. The percentages of game fish consisting of channel catfish, black bass and crappie taken during July were: Per Cent Per Cent by Number by Weight Lake Graham 21.57 13.85 Lake Eddleman 59.53 16.64 The numerical difference was due to a large catch of small crappie in Lake Eddleman, and a large catch of bullheads in Lake Graham. The difference in weight percentage was due to the catch of several large smallmouth buffalo and carp in Lake Eddleman. The selective control of shad and drum (1959) seems to have suppressed these two species considerably. In 1958 the population of shad in Lake Eddleman was reported to be 9.5 per cent of the total papulation as determined from the gill -5- net catch. Shad were recorded as ”very abundant" from the seine samples. During the July survey, shad accounted for only 3.02 per cent of the gill net catch from Lake Eddleman, and they were scarce in seine samples. In Lake Graham, 79 shad were taken in gill nets which constituted 13.86 per cent of the total, but only 4 out of 740 fish taken by seining were shad. Drum accounted for less than 3 per cent of the gill net catch in both lakes, and no drum were taken by seining. Recommendations: Chara is abundant in Lake Graham, but does not constitute a problem at present. Small areas of cattail and bulrush were noted in shallow areas of the upper section of the lake. These patches should be killed out next spring provided that they are not covered by the expected lO-foot rise in water level. The control of some 10 to 15 acres of lotus will likewise be necessary next spring if they are not inundated before that time. Whether or not white bass Should be introduced into these lakeslin an effort to establish a white bass fishery should depend on the concensus of local fishermen. There is a difference of opinion among fishermen regarding the desirability of white bass as a desirable game fish. It seems questionable whether white bass would help to control shad, sunfish, drum and other rough fish without becoming serious competitors to crappie and largemouth bass. If shad start increasing in the future, it would probably be wise to introduce white bass as a control. Table 1. Netting results, Lake Graham, July 11-13, 1961, using experimental nets and 1,400 feet of 3-inch mesh gill net Per Cent Per Cent Average Species Number by Number Weight by Weight Weight Shortnose Gar s .70 13.28 2.19 3.32 Longnose Ger .5 .87 16.89 2.77 3.38 Shad 79 13.86 11.71 1.92 .15 Smallmouth Buffal 38 6.67 125.67 20.67 3.31 Carpsucker ' 70 12.28 150.94 24.82 2.16 Carp 40 7.02 151.70 24.94 3.79 Golden Shiner 1 .18 .13 .03 .13 Channel Catfish 61 10.70 57.32 9.43 .94 Black Bullhead 172 30.18 38.47 6.32 .22 Warmouth l .18 .14 .02 .14 Black Bass 12 2.10 18.30 3.01 1.53 Longear Sunfish 7 1.22 .54 .09 .08 Bluegill 23 4.04 2.00 .33 .09 White Crappie 50 8.77 8.60 1.41 .17 Drum 7 1.23 12.46 2.05 1.78 Totals 570 100.00 608.15 100.00 Table 2. -6- using seven gill nets, 1- to 3-inch mesh Netting results, Lake Graham, October 18, 1961, Per Cent . . Per Cent Average Species Number by Number Weight by Weight Weight Shad 28 17.17 '3.40 3.16 .12 Carpsucker 13 7.98 35.82 33.29 2.76 _Carp 7 4.29 21.35 19.85 3.05 Channel Catfish 15 9.21 25.64 23.84 1.71 Bullhead 6 3.68 1.09 1.01 .18 Black Bass 5 3.06 10.11 9.40 2.02 Crappie ' 89 54.61 10.16 9.45 .11 Totals 163 100.00 107.57 100.00 Table 3. Seining results, Lake Graham and Lake.Eddleman, July‘llel3, 1961 Lake Eddleman Lake Graham Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Gizzard Shad 15 3.77 4 0.54 Golden Shiner 0 0 4 0.54 Blacktail Shiner 3 0.76 54 7.29 Red Shiner 3 0.75 109 14.73 'Mimic Shiner 18 4.54 1 0.14 Bullhead Minnow 29 7.30 40 5.40 Blackstripe Topminnow 96 24.18 101 13.65 Mbsquitofish 42 10.58 195 26.35 Largemouth Bass 14 3.53 13 1.76 Warmouth 0 0 1 0.14 Green-Sunfish 6 1.51 7 0.94 Spotted Sunfish 54 13.60 63 8.52 Bluegill 116 29.22 142 19.18 Orangespotted Sunfish 0 0 3 0.41 White Crappie 1 0226 3 0.41 Totals 397 100.00 740 100.00 m a m o O: O O o o O o H seem Illlmmmmwmflflw mcoooounnno mmwmmm. ruse -mseuao eon: . some “usage are: cmEonmm oxmq Eonw ooxmu Seam mo mwmhawom somfioum ownma no moamom amwm owuoa mo moumwmcoo moflmEen onH g _o m d o o o o o N 0 rm 5 N NH :Immmww mchEmm seem wmmmmm. mmmmmmm. nurses swam sung nummsH some run: run: some Emzmuw axed Scum comma seem mo mammaono Lomeoum a o N muoomCH are: 0 o u wanna some 0 o m manna nose 0 o h masseuse scene some we we measure. 0 m swam euaam_ e an emumuso Sausage room nonfinz newcomm some .m.mnnsn .mocoa swam .ofiocs soumo non mums swam emu pomp oumowmofi mconon mo enema n w . owammuu n ma mmmm_xomam wN om fimwmumo Hooomso room noneoz monommm sue: .¢.mnnse "K“ Factor distribution, range and average of fish from Lake Graham, July 10-13, 1961 Table 6. a to In rs M In \1’ .I a I O O O O I O m u-c N .4 N N N H a m ‘3' o <3 ("1 a x? N I Q H I H ¢ 0 U N 0‘ o m w o \“f h - —l m \o o if U" o ("'3 0 m N m m m N o N A H o m m v-l O a m I v-l H o N 27 S ecies Spotted Gar Smallmouth Buffalo Shad River Carpsucker Channel Catfish Black Bullhead Black Bass Crappie Carp