TPWD 1956 F-4-R-3 #252: Inventory of Species Present in Lake Whitney, Texas

--- Page 1 --- a JOB COMPLETION REPORT f ‘TE OF TEXAS Project No. F4R3 Name Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region LB, Job No. B-1 Title Inventory of Species Present in Lake Whitney, Texas. Period Covered: June 1, 1953 - October 31, 1956 ABSTRACT 1. Lake Whitney is a clear-water impoundment containing 15,800 surface acres at normal lake level. 2. The lake is located on the Brazos River in Hill, Bosque, and Johnson Counties approximately 38 river miles upstream from Waco, Texas. The gates of the dam were closed December 10, 1951. - The fish population was sampled with gill nets each month from June 1953 through October 1956. 4. he first three years of the lakes existence was the most productive period for game fish. 5. The fish population is slowly changing from game fish to rough fish. 6. Gizzard shad have increased from 27.60 percent of the total fish netted ( ing the first period of survey to 63.05 percent of the fish captured by nets during the third period of survey. 7. Game fish increased in average weight throughout the study but decreased from 30.04 percent to 24.80 percent in number of total fish netted between the first and last period of survey. 8. The number of largemouth bass decreased in the net catches as well as the anglers harvest after the first year of survey. 9. White crappie showed a noticeable decrease in the net catch and a very sharp decrease in the anglers harvest after the second year of survey. 10. Black crappie and Kentucky spotted bass showed a very sharp drop in numbers following the first period of survey. 11. White bass increased from 0.61 percent to 6.84 percent of the total fish netted between the first and third period of survey. OBJECTIVES To determine the species present and their relative abundance and to determine the ecological factors influencing their distribution. BTSTORY OF LAKE Lake Whitney is located on the Brazos River in Hill, Bosque, and Johnson Counties --- Page 2 --- approximately 38 river miles up stream from Waco, Texas. The Whitney Dam and Reservoir was constructed by the Corps of Army Engineers for flood control, development of hydroe- lectric power and recreational purposes. The gates of the dam were closed December 10, 1951 and the lake reached conservation pool level in April 1954. Lake Whitney is a large, clear-water impoundment 37 miles long at elevation 520, which is the top of the power pool. It has a shoreline 190 miles long characterized by limestone bluffs interspaced with long stretches of gently sloping beaches. A drainage area of 17,656 square miles is controlled by the dam, which backs up 15,800 surface acres of water with a maximum depth of 95 feet at normal lake level. Approximately one-third of the lake area has a depth of 10 feet or less which is conducive to good fisheries pro- duction. Part of the timber was cleared from the lake bottom before impoundment began but much of the timber along the original stream banks and some of the smaller brush in the general lake area was left standing. Excellent accomodations are offered to the public by over 50 modern fishing camps and concessions. The lake has been heavily fished and pleasure boat riding and water skiing are rapidly becoming a major pastime. COLLECTING METHODS Gill nets were used to collect random samples of the fish population. The nets were 100 or 125 feet long and had meshes of 1 to 3 inches measured on the square. A major part of the netting was done with nets composed of meshes 13 inches in size. Net- ting stations of various ecological types were selected in order to typify the different enviromental areas of the lake. Data taken from the netted fish included their length, weight, sex, and degree of gonadal development. Scale samples were collected from many of the game fish. Notes were made of any fungus or parasites found on the fish. Samp- ling was also done with minnow seines during most months of the year. Collections were made with rotenone from several stations. The seined and rotenone samples were preserved in 6 percent formalin and taken to the laboratory to be counted and identified. Table 1 is a cheklist of all species collected from Lake Whitney during the entire period of study. DISCUSSION Consideration will be given to each major species of fish and the changes that took place in the population of those species throughout the period of study. Table 2 records the number and species of fish that have been stocked in Lake Whitney. Table 3 shows the results of the seine collections made during the last segment of the survey. Table 4 records the frequency of occurrence of fooditems from fish collected by gill nets during the last segment. Table 5 is a tabulation of data from the gill net collections made during the last period of survey and shows pertinent information regarding each species of fish. Table 6 is a comparison of the changes in the net catch and average weight and "K" factor of several species for the three periods of study. Table 7 is a comparison of the game fish and rough fish populations and shows the percentage of change between various periods of the survey. Table 8 shows the water depth areas of Lake Whitney and the percentage of the lake area that is covered by various depths of water. Table 9 shows the high-water frequencies that will be theoretically attained over a period of years. LARGEMOUTH BASS The most productive years for largemouth bass in Lake Whitney were during the first two and one-half years of its existence. As long as the rising water inundated new ground during the initial filling of the lake, the bass population was active and showed signs of a rapid increase in numbers. But, as the smaller vegetation completed its cycle of decay and the areas of submerged vegetation became bare, the bass population was less --- Page 3 --- active and apparently began to decrease in numbers. Naturally, many of the bass harvested “uring the later part of the survey were larger than those taken during the first part f the study, but the total harvest in both pounds and numbers became smaller as the lake aged. Bass accounted for a progressively smaller percentage of the fish netted during each successive segment of the survey. Reference to the netting data shows that this spe- cles represented 3.69 percent of the total fish netted during the first study made on the lake, but dropped to 2.48 and 2.00 percent between the first and latter surveys represents a drop of 46 percent in the bass population during three and one-half years as shown by the gill net collections. As the same methods of survey were used throughout the entire study, it seems that the population decrease indicated is reasonable. ‘The angler's harvest followed a similar but more pronounced trend. KENTUCKY SPOTTED BASS The Kentucky spotted bass population is on a rapid decline. The species was once as abundant as the largemouth bass but dropped very sharply in the percentage of the total bass harvested during the second and third segment of the survey. The Kentucky spotted bass accounted for only 0.22 percent of the total fish netted during the last year of sur- vey as compared with 3.69 percent of all the specimens captured in the first survey. The ecological requirements are probably more exacting for the Kentucky spotted bass than are required for the largemouth bass. Our experience was to find the species more closely associated with rocky creeks and firm sand beaches. The Kentucky spotted was more active than the largemouth bass during cold weather. The species is a hard fighting fish when hooked and was very popular with the fishermen. TITE BASS The white bass population came from fish that were in the Brazos River prior to the formation of the lake. Very few bass were captured during the first year of the survey but the population expanded rapidly until they were taken quite frequently in the net cat- ches. White bass accounted for only 0.61 percent of the total fish netted during the first survey, but composed 3.38 and 6.84 percent of the fish captured in the remaining two surveys. The increase from 0.61 to 6.84 percent between the first and last surveys represents an approximate 1000 percent rise in the white bass population. Fishing for white bass is becoming more popular on Lake Whitney. Anglers were eager to search for the early morning schools of whites, or sand bass as they are sometime called, and many good catches were made of that species while fishing for only an hour or two during the early part of the day. The white bass is given considerable credit for his voracious foraging habits upon the schcols of small shad. WHITE CRAPPIE White crappie are the most abundant of the two species of crappie that are found in Lake Whitney. Crappie are very popular with the fishermen and are fished for more consistently than any other species. Data from the creel census that was performed on Lake Whitney from August 1953 through October 1955 reveals that fishermen caught 87 pounds of crappie per surface acre from that lake during the 27-month period. The creel census also showed that the harvest of crappie was not as good during 1955 as it had been in the two previous years. From January through October of 1954 fishermen averaged catching 32 crappie per hour of fishing time. During the same period of 1955 fishermen caught an average of only 0.10 crappie per hour of fishing time. It is well known that crappie fishing has not been good on Lake Whitney since that time. The cause of the poor crappie harvest during the last two years is difficult to determine from data collected in cur netting survey. However, a review of the data does show that only 1.54 crappie were captured --- Page 4 --- 4, per 100 feet of gill net during the last year of survey as compared to 1.80 crappie caught per 100 feet of net during the previous period of survey. This represents a drop of 14 percent. Although it is not as large a drop as shown by the data from the creel census, it is probably indicative of a declining crappie population. As crappie are difficult to accurately survey with a gill net in lakes containing lots of brush, it would be better to study the crappie population in Lake Whitney with gear and techniques more suit- able for the problems involved. BLACK CRAPPIE The black crappie population had decreased rather sharply in Lake Whitney during the past three years. When the netting survey was first begun, black crappie were found in the net catches almost as frequently as white crappie. Black crappie accounted for 3.28 percent of the total fish netted during the entire first period of study as compared to 7.14 percent of the fish accounted for by white crappie. During the next period of study the black crappie percentage had dropped to 0.41 while the white crappie percentage had risen to 9.90. The population of black crappie has continued to be low since the. in- itial netting survey. Fishermen express their preference for the black species anda larger population of the fish would be highly welcomed. CHANNEL CATFISH AND YELLOW CATFISH Lake Whitney is a good channel cat lake and has produced many excellent catches of that species. The fish are usually very fat and show signs of rapid growth. There are a number of limestone bluffs containing many holes, and vast areas of thick brush and large boulders that offer ideal spawning facilities for catfish. Channel cat represented 5.72 percent of the total fish netted during the first survey and 3.49 and 4.31 percent of the fish collected during the other two surveys. The average weight per fish for eac. period of survey was 0.95, 1.39 and 0.89 of a pound respectively. The harvest of fish was 1.23, 0.64 and 0.95 of a fish per hundred feet of net, beginning with the first survey. The yellow cat (flathead) population of Lake Whitney is good and offers fair catches to those who like to trotline for that species. Yellow cats were not caught very frequently in the gill nets, which was not surprising as most of the nets were floated in the upper eight feet of water. COMPARISON OF THE GAME FISH AND ROUGH FISH POPULATION The fish population of Lake Whitney is slowly progressing toward the rough fish species. Reference is given to Table 7 which records the changes in the composition of the fish population and shows the percentage of change from one period of inventory to another. It also shows the percentage change between the first and last periods of study. It will be noted that the game species dropped in percentage by number throughout the entire study but regained part of their percentage by weight during the last segment of the survey. The gain is reflected in the average weight per game fish which showed a continuous rise throughout the period of study. Most of the gain in the rough fish population resulted from an increase in the number of shad, which showed a yearly gain of approximately 50 percent over the previous period of study. It is amazing that the rough fish population has not increased even more rapidiy than it has due to the vast numbers of game fish that have been harvested in comparison to the small number of rough fish that have been taken from the lake. --- Page 5 --- RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the monthly netting of Lake Whitney be discontinued, but that some provision be provided for an occasional check on the lake to obtain current data regarding the fish population. It is recommended that a study of the crappie be made to try to find reasons for the recent small harvest of that species from Lake Whitney. It is further recommended that the large concentrations of carp that spawn in the flooded basins during lake rises be killed as it would involve only a minimum of chemicals and labor. It is also suggested that test strips of wild buckwheat or similar vegetation be planted on the lowlands that are exposed during periods of water drawdown. This would concentrate the bass when the areas flood during rises with the possibility of greatly increasing the fishermens harvest of bass. Prepared by Robert N. Hambric Approved by LLL Zao. tate J Assistant Project Leader Chief Aquatic Biologist April 16, 19 Date _ --- Page 6 --- 6. Table 1. Checklist of Fish Species From Lake Whitney, Texas, 1953-56. Common Name Scientific Name Spotted gar Longnose gar Gizzard shad Mexican Jumper Smallmouth buffalo River carspucker Grey redhorse Carp Golden shiner Pugnose minnow Sharpnose shiner Brazos river shiner Pallid shiner Blacktail shiner (spottail) Red shiner (redhorse) Sand shiner Plains minnow Parrot minnow Fathead. minnow Stoneroller Southern channel catfish Black bullhead Yellow. bullhead Flathead. catfish Blackstripe topminnow Gambusia White bass Kentucky spotted bass Largemouth black bass Warmouth. Green sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Yellowbelly sunfish White crappie Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Lepisosteus productus Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Astyanax fasciatus Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus — carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Opsopoeodus emiliae Notropis oxyrhynchus Notropis brazosensis Notropis amnis Notropis venustus Notropis lutrensis Notropis deliciosus Hybognathus placita Pimephales vigilax Pimephales promelas Campostoma anomalw anomalum Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Pylodictus olivaris Fundulus notatus Gambusia affinis Roccus chrysops Micropterus punctulatus Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis humilis Lepomis auritus Pomoxis annularis Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina carprodes Aplodinotus grunniens --- Page 7 --- “able 2. Stocking of Fish in Lake Whitney, Texas by State Fish Hatcheries. Species 1950 1951 Total Largemouth black bass 50 , O00 120,000 170,000 Black crappie 110,000 110,000 Channel catfish 150,000 150,000 Bream (Bluegill and Redear) 40,000 40,000 Warmouth bass 45,000 45,000 Total 395,000 120,000 515,000 --- Page 8 --- 8. Table 3. Results of Seining Collections by Number of Each Species, Lake Whitney, Texas. LL et nt anne Species Number Collected Percent of Total —_——_. eee Gizzard shad 1,318 32.94 Carpsucker 2 0.05 Carp 6 0.15 Sharpnose shiner 14 0.35 Blacktail shiner (Spottail) 2he 6.05 Red shiner (Redhorse) 1,792 4.79 Sand shiner 1 0.02 Plains minnow 1 0.02 Parrot minnow 345 8.62 Blackstripe topminnow 1 0.02 Gambusia 185 4.62 White bass 3 0.07 Kentucky spotted bass 1 0.02 Largemouth black bass 33 0.82 Green sunfish 2 0.05 Redear sunfish 2 0.05 Bluegill sunfish 51 1.27 Orangespotted sunfish ub 0.02 Logperch 1 0.02 Total 1,001 99. RL neu st nnn rset vse npr pett nc neste seis \O Xe} Wi --- Page 9 --- 9. Table 4. Frequency of Occurrence of Food Items from Fish Collected by Gill Nets, Lake Whitney, Texas, November 1955 through October 1956. i cc Species Shad Unidentifiable Algae and Sunfish Food Scrap or Total No. of Fish Remains Vegetation Stock Feed Fish Examined Fe a eee Spotted gar ) 3 ) 0 ) 16 Longnose gar 2 3 @) @) ) 47 Southern channel catfish ie) 22 27 29 5 153 White bass h 59 fe) @) 0 243 Largemouth black bass (@) 15 0) 6] e) 79 Bluegill sunfish 6) 2 4 18 @) 112 White crappie ) 119 6 5 1 2h9 Black crappie ) 5 1 0 ) 16 Freshwater drum 6) 3 6) e) 0 23 --- Page 10 --- 02° ST 96° T2 00° OOT €4° 9642 00° 0OT €SSE TeTOL, 60°0 +T°O $9°0 T9°0 46° HT $9°0 €z wum.ig 40°0 OT°O O° 0 92°0 6£°9 me) 9T etddero yoeTg 9S°0 HS°T 9£°0 ol € 98°06 ToL 64z etddero oy TUM 60°0 69°0 €T°O 1LS°0 ZO° HT STE It ystyuns TT Tseng To°0 rAehae) 62°0 +0°0 19°0 g0°0 € YyNoure, 9S°0 +H° 0 Le°T 99°€ 49°68 00°2 TL sseq YyNowes1e7T - 40°O S0°0 6L°0 92°0 g2°9 rete 6) 8 sseq peyjods Ayonzuey 4Q°0O 0S°T 9S°0 TS°S BESET 4Q°9 Cuz sseq 87 TUM €0°0 To°o Ls e'0 Hes 90°0 Z ystsyeo peeuye Ts TO°O TO’0O 4S°0 40°0O LO°T 90°0 Fe pesyting yoetg +48°0 66°0 68°0 ZS°S G9°SET Te*t €ST ystszeo Teumeyp OTATSTTZON TO°O LT°O TO°0 LT°O €0°0 T reuyys wepTon 19°0 TH°O T9°T 6E°h 2g: LOT 88°T 19 dieg 60°0 S0°0 98°T 09°0 SB° HT Ze°O g esroypert. Lerp 19°T 00° T L9°T 66° OT 26 °692 9S°H ZOT reyonsdiep qT°S 0g°0 L9°2 TT’ HT 65° 9HE 99°¢ O€T oTaggng QT°9 Ge° fT €4°0 OL OF 98 °666 Go°e9 OneZ peys prezzty ZT°T 62°0 9e°€ ge°l 62° TT se°T La JeZ esousu0y roto) OT°O 08°S €q°T 02°SE St°O 9T IeB pez ods YON, OOT 28d YON, OOT 40d spunog UT WUSTOM TeI0, 1WeNeD AsqUMY TeJO, W4eNED usta spumog Ustg FO °ON WUBTOM °Bay jo jUs0LEg spunog fo yUuseTeg <AequNY gatoodg *9G6T 28qQ0100 YBnory1 GGETrsqmeaoy ‘Lou TYM eYeT Wor suOTIOSTION ION TITH worz eyeq Jo uoTVeTHQEL °S eTAeL “OT --- Page 11 --- ll. Table 6. A Comparison of Fish Caught Per 100 Feet of Net and their Average Weight and "K" Factor, Lake Whitney, Texas. Species No. of Fish Avg. Wt. Avg. "K" Per 100' Net (pounds ) Factor Largemouth bass 1954 0.80 0.86 2.2h 1955 0.45 1.01 2.80 1956 O.4y 1.27 2.38 Kentucky spotted bass 1954 0.82 0.69 2.38 1955 0.10 0.89 2.40 1956 0.05 0.79 2.25 White crappie 1954 1.55 0.33 2.21 1955 1.80 0.33 2.70 1956 1.54 0.36 2.71 Black crappie 1954 0.71 0.37 2.27 ; 1955 0.08 0.49 4 KO 1956 0.10 0.40 3.25 White bass 1954 0.13 O<TT 2.76 . 1955 _ 0.66 0.59 2.72 1956 1.50 0.56 2.60 Channel cat 1954 1.23 0.94 1.70 1955 © 0.64 1.39 1.50 1956 0.95 0.89 1.56 --- Page 12 --- 12. Table 7. A Comparison of the Changes in the Game Fish and Rough Fish Populations of Lake Whitney, Texas. June 1953 June 1954 % change from Nov. 1955 % Change from Percentage Change through through previous through previous between first and May 1954 Oct. 1955 segment Oct. 1956 segment last segment Average weight per speciman for all fish netted 0.51 0.87 70.59 0.69 -20.69 35.29 Average weight per game fish 0.30 0.51 63.33 0.57 11.76 90.00 Average weight per rough . fish 0.70 1.01 4.29 0.73 ~27.72 k 28 Percent game fish by number 30 .O4 29.35 -2..30 2h .80 -15.50 -17 4 Percent rough fish by number 69.96 70.65 0.99 75.20 64h TAQ Percent game fish by weight 26.78 17.37 -35.14 20.32 16.98 -2h .12 Percent rough fish by weight 73.22 82.63 12.85 79.68 -3.57 8.82 --- Page 13 --- Table 8. Water Depth Areas. Depth Range Feet 0-5 5-10 10 - 20 20 - 45 45 - 70 70 - 95 (maximum depth) Total 13. (Pool Elevation 520) Area, Acres 2,700 2,290 3,170 5,010 2,040 590 15, 800 Percent of Area (rounded ) 17 15 20 32 12 h 100 --- Page 14 --- Table 9. High-Water Frequencies. Pool Level 520 (Power Pool Level) 525 530 535 540 545 550 555 560 565 Frequency Once every 0.6 years Once every 1.3 years Once every 2.2 years Once every 3.2 years Once every 4.5 years Once every 6.5 years Once every 9.8 years Once every 16.0 years Once every 29.4 years Once every 50.0 years