TPWD 1964 F-9-R-12 #934: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 5-A: Fisheries Reconnaissance, Job No. 3-22, Project No. F-9-R-12

SEGMENT CDMPLETIGN REPDET As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTUEATIDN AET TEXAS Federal Aid Prcject Na. F—D—R-lZ FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS 0F REGION S—A Jab Nc. 3'22 Fisheries Reconnaissance Prcject Leader: Elgin M. C. Diets J. Neldcn Natsnn Executive Directcr Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marian chle Eugene A. Walker D—J Guardinatcr Assistant Directcr far Wildlife July 2, 1965 ABSTRACT Seining collections from the Rio Grande River yielded 22 species of fish. Shiner minnows were the most numerous species taken. Gill netting collections on this stream yielded a relatively small number of game fish; slightly over 5 per cent of the total number taken. Gill netting data from Falcon Reservoir show the continued increase in the incidence of rough fish. Cissard shad continue to he the most numerous species taken by this method. All game species, except blue catfish, showed a slight decrease percentage wise from last year's collections. Collection data from the channel impoundments on the Nueces River, except Lake Nueces and Holland Lake, show a relatively low incidence of game fish species. Lake Nueces, which is a new impoundment, and Holland Lake have a good game fish population and are providing much needed fisheries in their respec- tive areas. Collections from the Frio River show a good population of largemouth bass and sunfish species. These are providing a good fisheries for the shoreline and wade fishermen. Diversion Lake apparently still has a very sparse fish population as indi~ cated by netting collections on this lake. The three impoundments in the San Antonio area, namely Elmendorf, Noodlawn and Davis Lakes, continue to provide much needed recreation for persons unable to fish outside the City of San Antonio. The relatively small streams of the Atascosa River and Cibolo Creek are greatly affected by irrigation practices throughout the region. These prac- tices greatly reduce the fish habitat and population. SEGMENT CUMPLETIDN REPDRT State of Texas Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 5—A Project No. F-9-R-12 Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance Job No. 3-22 Period Covered: December 1, 1963 through November 30, 1964 Dbjectives: To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. Introduction: During this study period, reconnaissance surveys were conducted on the Rio Crande River in Kinney, Maverick, Webb and Zapata Counties, as well as Falcon Reservoir in Zapata County; the Nueces River and its lakes in Uvalde, Zavala, Dimmit and La Salle Counties; the Fric River in Uvalde County; Diversion Lake in Medina County; Elmendcrf, Nocdlawn and Davis Lakes in Bexar County; the Atascosa River in Atasccsa County; and Ciholo Creek in Bexar and Wilson Coun- ties. A checklist cf all fish speeies collected is given in Table 1. Techniques Used: Fishes taken in netting samples were collected with standard gill nets con- sisting of six 25—foot sections of mesh varying from 1 to 3% inches square. Lengths, weights and numbers of netted fish were recorded in the field. From these records species composition, condition factors of individual specimens and species were computed. Fish collected by seining were taken in 12- by 4- common sense minnow seines or with 20- by 6-foot, %—inch mesh, straight seines,I and were preserved in 10 per cent formalin solution for later identification and tabulation in the laboratory. Since more than one body of water was studied, the techniques used andfor findings will be taken up separately for these waters in the succeeding sec- tions of this report: RID GRANDE RIVER Techniques Used and Findings: The Rio Grande River in Region fi-A, namely in Kinney, Maverick, Webb and Zavala Counties, was surveyed for the first time during this year. Falcon -2- Table 1. Checklist of fish species used in report Alligator gar Spotted gar Longncse gar Threadfin shad Gissard shad Mexican tetra Blue sucker Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker 10. Gray redhorse ll. Carp 12. Goldfish 13. Golden shiner 14. Speckled chub 15. Longncse dace 16. Rio Grande shiner 1?. Texas shiner o. Weed shiner Lepisosteus spatula L. cculatus L. osseus Dcrcscma petenense D. cepedianum Astyanax mexicanus Cycleptus elongatus Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpic Moxcstoma congestum Cyprinus carpic Carassius guratus Notemigonus crysoleucas Hybopsis aestivalis maxim Notropis jemesanus 1N. amabilis 1N- texanus fiflcmenbthr—I 13. Tamaulipas shiner : _N. braytoni 20. Blacktail shiner E N. venustus 21. Red shiner l N. lutrensis 22. Plateau shiner .E° lepidus 23. Proserpine shiner 1N. proserpinus 24. Sand shiner N. stramineus 25. Ghost shiner N. buchanani 26. Roundnose minnow 2?. Plains minnow 2S. Bullhead minnow 29. Flathead minnow 3D. Stoneroller 31. Channel catfish 32. Blue catfish 33. Black bullhead 3A. Yellow bullhead 35. Flathead catfish 3b. Tadpole madtcm 3?. Blackstripe topminnow o. Sheepshead minnow 39. Mosquitcfish 40. Sailfin molly Al. Tidewater silverside 2. White bass 3. Largemcuth bass Warmcuth Green sunfish Dionda episccpa Hybognathus placita Pimephales vigilax P. promelgg Campostcma anomalum Ictalurus punctatus “I. furcatus I. melas l.lggtalig Pylodictis olivaris Schilbecdes gyrinus Fundulus ngtatus Cyprincdon variegatus Gambusia affinis Mollienesia latipinna } Menidia beryllina Roccus chryscps Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Table 1. Continued Green-Redear sunfish hybrid . cyanellus x.L, micrclophus Spotted sunfish . punctatus Redear sunfish . micrclcphus Bluegill . macrcchirus Redbreast sunfish . auritus Lcngear sunfish _, megalctis White crappie Pomoxis annularis Logperch Percina caprodes Greenthrcat darter Etheostcma lepidum Freshwater drum Aplcdinctus grunniens Rio Grande perch Cichlascma cyanoguttatum Reservoir, located on the Rio Grande in the lower portion of the region, has been surveyed almost continuously since its beginning in l953. Three reconnaissance trips were made to the Rio Grande River during this survey. The first, which was made in December, was for scouting and locating collection stations and points of access. It was found that the upper section, in the Eagle Pass area and in the Laredo vicinity, had numerous points of access, but heavy growths of aquatic and terrestrial vegetation made entry to the'water next to impossible. .Alsc, heavy siltation in the lower portion of the study area posed a difficult entry problem. The remaining section surveyed consists, for the most part, of rugged country with few roads or passes to the stream bed. In addition, fluctuating water level on the river posed the prob- lem of locating adequate waters for gill netting and seining sites. For example, the Rio Grande was some six feet lower in the summer of 196A than in December 1963. Many collection sites located in December were of little or no value when revisited for sampling. Nine seining collection stations were sampled during this survey and yielded 22 species of fish (see attached map and Table 2). Shiner minnows were the most numerous fish in these collections. Table 3 gives the results of the gill netting samples taken from this stream. The longnose gar was the most numerous single species taken and ac— counted for approximately 6d per cent of the total collection. It will be noted that game fish species made up a very small portion of the collection with only slightly over 5 per cent. Although the game species composition may not average this low throughout the entire stream, these collections are prob- ably an indication of a low game fish population. Good catches of catfish, channel, blue and flathead are reportedly taken by trotlines and setlines from this stream. thheul Gourd" MEVIFl Ck Coin-hi I . Mavcsmk __ Nebb Cam-m1 Cowl-n+7 C3) Gin No.1" Collec‘hoh Sites IdsET salons-3.2m " ‘ .111 g 1 4. g .5 miles HIE-lab Count! . - .' x In I 1 j i I - I — __..: - .3: - __.. l 3.! HERB COU .......... "I r. I 5.. N J I' "R 1 ~. Tlhh l E E I I' -5- Table 2. Rio Grande River seining results, 1964 Stations S-ecies Longncse gar 2 2 Gissard shad | 1 2 3 Mexican tetra 1 ; l l 2 Blue sucker 2 1 l ' 9 l l 12 Smallmouth buffalo 1 f 34 l 3 . 1 3 1 2 I 1 52 River carpsucker i i 0 05 1 9 . 112 Speckled chub g 4 4 12 10 15 1 6 10 61 Longncse dace 1 l l 9 l l ; 00 99 Rio Grande shiner 1 10 10? 5 : 15 ' l 226 Tamaulipas shiner - 3 91 10 5? I l 102 Red shiner 2 - 9 10 I y l l l 32 Sand shiner 1251 40 ' 6 1 l 3 310 Plains minnow ! 2 06 i 2 l 90 Bullhead minnow i 24 A I 24 Channel catfish E l [i 2 1 J 9 l3 Flathead catfish l 1 1 2 Mosquitcfish 11 11 21:. a. 1 F] 6 a 1 2 a Sailfin molly ‘ l 1 21 Largemcuth bass | E 1 6 2 Green sunfish _ ,1 1 1 3 11 Bluegill 1 - l 2 Rio Grande perch , 1 1 ll 1 1 ' 1 I Totals 1 23 330 1310 25 09 191 1352 . 1 . } Table 3. Gill netting results, Rio Grande River, 1964 Fish Collections ‘ Numbers Wei_hts f Mean ”K” S-EEiEE Fish 'Per Cent :Pounds Grams lPer Cent 1 . F Alligator gar* 1.16 11.00 30,521 i! 13.35 1.10 Spotted garE 5.01 12.46 5,651 I} 2.16 I 0.54 Longncse garh 63.9? 1322.20 121,096 ii 65.40 ' 0.40 Gissard shady 5.0 0.53 2,053 l 0.10 l 2.10 Blue sucksr* 0.50 l 2.25 1,021 I 0.39 1.?2 Smallmouth buffalo* 9.00 ' 9.02 35,012 1 13.30 3.53 River carpsuckerfi 3.49 6.60 2,995 1.15 2.90 Carph 0.50 6.94 3,147 1.20 3.23 Channel catfish 2.33 3.40 1,540 0.59 1.72 Blue catfish 1.16 i 1.64 744 0.20 1.44 Flathead catfish 0.50 3.00 1,150 | 0.60 1.26 White bass 1.16 1.00 00 0.10 2.01 Freshwater drum* 3.49 2.61 . 1,104 0.46 I 2.4? Totals 112 530.01 1261,0115 | 100.00 i F Indicates rough fish species. __.I..'I'I'I"" __u—flh—H-a-H— ——I-.-. FALCGN RESERFDIR Techniques Used and Findings: Gill netting collections for Falcon Reservoir show the continued increase in incidence of rough fish when compared to previous samples. This year's collections showed that over 21 per cent of the specimens taken were clas- sified as rough fish compared to 60 per cent for the previous year (Table 4). This is not a large overall increase, but indicates the continuation of the rough fish build-up. Giss rd shad were the most numerous single species and showed an increase from 43.12 per cent for 1963 to 60.42 per cent for this year. All game species, except blue catfish, showed a slight decrease percentage-wise when compared with last year's collection. Fishing success for the white crappie, mentioned in previous reports, was continued during this segment. However, the overall decrease in large— mouth bass fishing success was also continued during this year. Seining collections from Falcon Reservoir showed the red shiner to be the most numerous single species taken (Table 5). The tidewater silverside was also present in substantial numbers. NUECES RIVER Techniques Used and Findings: 1:. The section of the Nueces River surveyed during this segment was confined to the area south of the Balccnes Escarpmsnt in Uvalde County to above Crystal City in Zavala County. This section consists of large pools, some of them covering several acres, and normally flows only during a rise on the river. Access is difficult,and only two areas were sampled by gill netting. Table 6 gives the results of these collections. Rough fish species were dominant among the specimens taken. Good fishing is reported from thsss-argas, especially for catfish species and white crappie. Seining collections show a wide range of minnows as well as other fish species present (Table 5). Fish samples were also taken from five channel impoundments on the Nueces River including Lake Nueces, Comanche, Espantcsa, Harris and Holland. Results of these surveys are discussed separately in the text below. LAKE NUECES Findings: This is the latest impoundment to be built on this stream and provides much needed fishing and water recreation in an area where public lakes are non—existent. Table 4. Gill netting results, Falcon Reservoir, 1964 Fish Collections Numbers Wei;bts Msan ”K“ S-ecies ' Fish Per Cent Pounds Grams Per Cent Spotted gar0 23 23,731 0.63 Longncse gar* 52,033 0.46 Threadfin shad* 1,232 2.00 Gissard shadh 130,094 2.00 Smallmouth buffalo* 20,250 3.50 River carpsucker* 10,05? 2.94 Carp0 26,206 2.2? Channel catfish 13,22? 1.40 Blue catfish 33,001 1.32 Flathead catfish 2,560 1.2? White bass 15,425 2.44 Largemcuth bass 3,262 2.20 Warmcuth 116 3.50 Redear sunfish 264 4.4? Bluegill 1,361 4.00 White crappie 30,802 2.66 Freshwater drumfi 4,122 2.36 1 100.00 E _-- -r-J-hr- -_- T Totals 11642 1 100.00 E‘ 001.00 $300,193 *Indicates rough fish species. Species Spotted gar Threadfin shad Gissard shad Mexican tetra Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker Gray redhorse Carp Golden shiner Texas shiner . Weed shiner .- Blacktail shiner I Red shiner Plateau shiner ‘ Sand shiner I Ghost shinsr , Roundnose minnow 1 Plains minnow Bullhead minnow Flathead minnow Stoneroller Black bullhead Tadpole madtcm Blackstripe topminnow Sheepshead minnow Mosquitofish Sailfin molly Tidewater silverside Largsmouth bass Warmcuth Green sunfish Green-redear sunfish hybrid Spotted sunfish Redear sunfish i Bluegill ' Redbreast sunfish Longsar sunfish Logperch Grssnthroat darter Rio Grande Perch Table 5. Seining results, 1964 Numbers of Fish Collected for the Waters Surve ed -0 D o 0 m i 0 : 205 11 6 2 16 5 1 130 20- -1910 51 ' 66 13 25 1 150 10 1 101. 3601 133 i 1 1292 1 22 ' 1 ‘ 2 6 2 36 1 15 Divers1cn Elmendorf Lake Woodlawn Lake Davis Lake 1 2 l 5 E I z ! 1 .'- 1 " l l | i i . 01 l 2? 1 1 l 3 . 1 64 14 } y 100 22 . 1446 1 1 1 1 y , 15 15 E g 1 166 1 65 g 200! 10 11 102 ' 655132 0 , 0; 3 { 21 5 15 1 11] 1 5 J 2! 0 3 , 091 6 i l; 36 1 g i I 1 i l 10 . 0 220 i Hi—Lions Lake Atasccsa . 1 l l 26 1 00 l 0 1 100 1 304 1 11 1 19 l l 3 L' I E 1 21 - 2 E 20 10l 000 100 21 35? 10 1. 1 1 211 .12 I 22 23 6: 15 0 1 j 1 1 3 6- 102 114 ' 2693 394 1? 32 ' 25 1 l?1 15 ?? 2 2 20 10? ‘ 15?4 ?20