TPWD 1967 F-5-R-14 #1147: Region I-B Fisheries Studies: Pre-inundation Investigation for Robert Lee Reservoir, Segment Completion Report

---———-—-——-.-_ Job No. Marion Toole D-J Coordinator ll SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT AS required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-5-R-l4 REGION I-B FISHERIES STUDIES Pre-innundation Investigation for Robert Lee Reservoir Project Leader: Billy J. Follis J. R. Singleton Executive Director Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Eugene A. Walker Director, Wildlife Services April 10, 1967 ABSTRACT Construction on the Robert Lee Dam is under way and progressing slightly ahead of schedule. Hydrological data, maps, construction plans and similar material have been obtained. The fish p0pulations of the immediate watershed were checked through the use of gill nets and seines. Although the existing fish p0pu1ation is predominantly composed of undesirable species, a chemical treatment cannot be justified. The use of local ranch ponds to rear brood game fish has been employed to assure adequate stocking when the reservoir begins to fill. SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F-5-R-l4 Name: Region l-B Fisheries Studies Job No. 11 Title: Pre—innundation Investigation for Robert Lee Reservoir Period Covered: March 1, 1966 to February 28, 1967 Objectives: 1. To determine if topographic and construction features may be employed to advance future game fish production and harvest. 2. To determine if existing waters may be benefited through proven manage- ment methods or experimental methods. 3. To determine what measures are necessary to assure adequate stocking. 4. To determine measures required to assure preservation of rare and endemic fish. Procedures: Liaison with the Colorado River Municipal Water District was established and maintained. The following types of information were obtained: (1) projected construction progress and closure dates (2) projected estimates of capacities, variations in shapes and other hydrological data (3) maps, aerial photographs and similar material (4) water usage and releases. Existing waters in and near the reservoir area were sampled with gill nets and seines to evaluate the current fish pOpulation. Fish species and populatiOn relative abundance were determined and recorded. Stocking needs were projected to coincide with various capacities and ele- vations. These stocking problems were studied and measures to assure adequate stocking of this reservoir were begun. A checklist of scientific names is presented so that common names may be used in this report. These names are specified in ”A list of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada”, Second Edition, American Fish- eries Society, Special Publication Number 2, 1960. Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Carp Cyprinus carpio Plains minnow Hybognathus placita Red Shiner NotroEis lutrensis Sharpnose Shiner Notropis oxyrhynchus Fathead minnow Pimephales_promelas Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax Longnose dace . Rhinichthys cataractae River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Smallmouth buffalo . Ictiobus bubalus Channel catfish I Ictalurus punctatus Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Rio Grande killifish ~Fundu1us zebrinus MOSQUiCOEiSh Gambusia affinis Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Orangespotted sunfish Lepomis humilis Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis White crappie - Pomoxis annularis Findings: Robert Lee Reservoir Basic Information Bids for the construction of the Robert Lee Dam, located on the Colorado River two miles West of Robert Lee, Coke County, Texas, were received by the Colorado River Municipal Water District in October 1966. The contract was awarded shortly thereafter and actual construction began in early November 1966. The contract documents state that the dam and its related facilities must be substantially completed by March 1, 1969. At this time the construction is pro- gressing ahead of schedule. There is good possibility that a limited amount of water can be impounded in the fall of 1968. The dam, when completed, will impound 488,760 acre-feet and will back water up 18 miles to a point adjacent to the Mitchell - Coke County line. When full, the lake will have a surface of 14,950 acres and a shoreline of approximately 135 miles. Thereservoir will have a maximum depth of 108 feet and an average depth of 33 feet. The average annual runoff into the reservoir according to historical records will be 140,000 acre-feet per annum. The District has purchased land up to elevation 1,900 feet above main sea level. This evelation is 2 feet above the elevation of the service spillway. A flood easement has been purchased to eleVation 1,912 feet. Contained in the easement are certain restrictions in so far as sanitation and develOping condi— tions are concerned. The property owners retain the right to lease or sell the pr0perty adjacent to the reservoir with the exception of five tracts of land containing a total of about 2,000 acres. These tracts will be deve10ped by the District for public recreational areas. The dam will be of earthen construction and approximately 4.2 miles long and 136 feet high at the river. It will be protected by two spillways. The service spillway will be a gated morning glory structure located at the river and have a maximum capacity of 40,000 second feet. The emergency spillway is located at the South end of the dam and will be 3,200 feet wide. Based on historical records, it should be utilized no more than once every 62 years. All the runoff will be impounded. The District is not required to release flood waters from the reservoir with the exception of very adverse conditions. of existing down stream reservoirs. However, the permit from the Texas Water Rights Commission states in part that the normal flow of the river will not be interrupted. ' The primary purpose of the reservoir is for municipal water supply for the cities of Odessa, Big Springs, Snyder and Midland. Based on hydrological records, it will have a safe yield of 50 million gallons per day. It is anticipated that water will be diverted for municipal use beginning January 1970. The land surrounding the reservoir is predominately pasture land (95 per cent). TOpographically, the area is rolling hills, plains and intermittent creek valleys. Vegatative cover is mesquite - grassland for the upland areas and salt cedar, mesquite, willow, and pecan in the low areas. Very little cultivation will be adjacent to the reservoir. Contour.and county maps and aerial photographs of the basin area have been obtained from various sources. FiSh Population Sampling of the fish population was divided into the following four areas: (1) tributaries, (2) Colorado River above reservoir basin, (3) Colorado River in reservoir basin and (4) Colorado River below reservoir basin. The tributaries were checked where access could be attained by highways, county roads and pasture or field roads. Permanent water was found only in Salt Creek and Pecan Creek. Both of these streams were confined to small, shallow, clear holes where only seining collections could be made. The results of these collections are given in Table 1. Table l Seining Results of Tributaries to Colorado River and Reservoir Area Seining results (10 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1f8-inch mesh seine) Species Number Size Range in Inches Red shiner 296 1—2 Fathead minnow 43 2—2% Bullhead minnow 21 1-1% River carpsucker 14 2-6 Mosquitofish' 81 %‘1% Green sunfish 21 ‘l%-6 Total 476 % Above the reservoir basin, the Colorado River is primarily shallow with a fairly constant flow. Due to the lack of deep water only 3 gill net collections were made. Rough fish, primarily longnose gar, accounted for 96 per cent of h both weight and number Of this netting sample (Table 2). Desirable species were channel catfish, flathead catfish, and white crappie. However, this portion of the river supports an enormous minnow population which will be of great benefit to the new reservoir. Red shiner is the most prominent of these small forage species. Table 2 Survey Results of Colorado River above Reservoir Area November 22, 1966 Results of Three Gill Nets Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. "K" Longnose gar 63 47.01 153.74 2.44 68.03 Gizzard shad 23 17.17 24.56 1.07 10.86 Carp 1 .74 5.06 5.06 2.24 River carpsucker 41 30.60 29.02 .71 12.85 Smallmouth buffalo l .74 5.78 5.78 2.55 Channel catfish * ' 2 1.50 3.40 1.70 1.51 1.84 Flathead catfish * l .74 2.75 2.75 1.22 1.90 2 White cra ie * 1.50 1.67 .83 _.74 Totals 134 100.00 225.98 100.00 Game Fish * 5 3.73 7.82 3.47 Rough Fish 129 96.27 218.16 96.53 Seining Results (4 drags with a 100' by 8' by %-inch mesh seine. l6 drags with a 30' by 6' by %-inch mesh seine and 20 drags with a 20' by 6' by l/8-inch mesh seine) 3.21 mm Species ' Number Size Range in Inches Gizzard shad 1 3-12 Plains minnow 14 2—2% Red shiner 2251 1-2% Sharpnose shiner 44 l%-3 Fathead minnow 112 1%-2 Bullhead minnow 169 1-2 River carpsucker 5 4-6 Channel catfish 2 3-3% Rio Grande killifish 40 l%-2% Mosquitofish 47 1-2 Green sunfish 1 3% Orangespotted sunfish 2 2% Bluegill 2 2% Longear sunfish 3 2—3 ‘ Total 2693 The l8-mi1e segment of the river that will be in the reservoir was checked at several locations. It was found to be fairly clear and up to 10 feet deep in the larger holes. The normal flow is reduced by irrigation withdrawals dur- ing the spring and summer months. Gill net collections were made at three locations in this area of the river. Table 3 reveals that longnose gar, gizzard shad, and river carpsucker comprised 89.32 per cent by number and 77.92 per cent by weight of the netting composite The percentage of game fish taken increased slightly over the sample from above the basin area. The seining collection from the basin area, which was a composflm of 55 seine drags, produced 17 species. Plains minnow and red shiner were very abundant (Table 3). River conditions below the reservoir area were found to be very similar to thoseththe basin. The netting results for this area (Table 4) show a pre- dominantly rough fish population. However, the number of gizzard shad in this sample was quite smaller than that of the basin area. Channel and flathead cat- fish were the only game fish taken in gill nets and accounted for only 6.50 per cent by number and 8.73 per cent by weight. The seining collection was significantly smaller than in either of the areas above. Only three Species were taken for a total of 62 fish. This may be due to the increased turbidity and water volume. Rare or endemic fish were not found in the course of this study. There— fore, measures to preserve such species were unnecessary. Stocking Plans Hydrological data for the Colorado River at the location of the new dam indicates an average annual impoundment of 140,000 acre-feet. If construction goes as planned and this area receives an average rain fall, there will be about 50 to 60 thousand acre-feet impounded by late spring or early summer of 1969 and 200 thousand acre-feet by fall of 1970. Amistad Reservoir may fill at the same time and other reservoirs, now reduced by drouth, will also possibly catch water. Should this occur, the need for stocking these new waters will exceed regional hatchery production. For these reasons and the questionable success of stocking waters containing an established fish population with small hatchery fish, an attempt is being made to rear largemouth bass and channel catfish to brood size. These fish will then be stocked in the new reservoir when suffi— cient water is impounded. For this rearing and holding of potential brood fish, the use of about 40 ranch tanks has been secured from land owners in and near the reservoir area. These ponds, most of which are % to 2 acres in size, were selected for (l) perm- anent water, (2) ease of future recovery activities which includes size, shape and depth, (3) location in relation to the new lake. Table 3 Survey Results of Colorado River in Reservoir Area June 28, 1966, August 16, 1966 and November 8, 1966 Results of Ten Gill Nets c________________I____________________________________in__________________________ Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. "K" Longnose gar 66 28.20 82.86 1.25 32.82 Gizzard shad 60 25.65 56.53 .94 22.39 Carp 7 2.99 26.11 3.73 10.34 River carpsucker 83 35.47 57.34 .69 22.71 Smallmouth buffalo 3 1.28 15.62 5.21 6.19 Channel catfish m 4 1.71 2.94 .74 1.16 1.64 Flathead catfish * 4 1.71 9.42 2.35 3.74 .l.82 Green sunfish * ’ 1 .43 .12 .12 .04 3.48 Longear sunfish * l .43 .16 .16 .07 4.67 White crappie * 5 2.13 - 1.36 .27 .54 3.43 Totals 234 100.00 252.46 100.00 Game Fish * 15 6.41 14.00 5.55 Rough Fish 219 93.59 238.46 94.45 Seining results (7 drags with a 100' by 8' by %-inch mesh seine and 48 drags with a 20"by 6' by l/8-inch mesh seine) ————-———_______—___________—_———_ Species Number Size Range in Inches Longnose gar 16 2-28 Gizzard shad ' - 96 2-10 Plains minnow 6489 %-3 Red shiner 6082 %-3 Sharpnose shiner 34 %—2% Fathead minnow 35 1—2% ' 'Bullhead minnow 722 %-2% Longnose dace a 6 . 1%-3 River carpsucker 23 2-8 Channel catfish 7 2-5 Rio Grande killifish 13 ' l%-2 Mosquitofish 33 1-2 Green sunfish 14 2-3 Orangespotted sunfish ' 210 l%-3 Bluegill 23 1%-3 Longear sunfish 25 1%‘3% White crappie 3 3-4 Total 13831 _________________________________________I______________________i_____u_________ Table 4 Survey Results of Colorado River below Reservoir Area October 13, 1966 Results of Four Gill Nets W Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. ”K” Longnose gar 26 33.76 31.37 1.21 22.02 Gizzard shad 5 6.49 4.75 .95 3.34 Carp 3 3.90 7.43 2.48 5.22 River carpsucker 30 38.96 35.68 1.19 25.05 Smallmouth buffalo 8 10.39 50.75 6.34 35.64 Channel catfish * 3 3.90 _ 4.18 1.39 2.93 1.51 Flathead catfish * 2 2.60 8.25 4.13 5.80 1.72 ___________m____________________________fl_______________________________________ Totals 77 100.00 142.41 100.00 Game Fish * 5 6.50 12.43 8.73 Rough Fish 72 93.50 129.98 91.27 W Seining results (8 drags with a 30' by 6' by %-inch mesh seine and 8 drags with a 20' by 6' by l/8-inch mesh seine) Species Number Size Range in Inches W Gizzard shad l 6 Red Shiner 48 1-2 Bullhead minnow - 13 1—2 “Wm—WWW Total 62 W Several of these ponds were void of fish and theremainder were chemically renovated. A total of 20,000 largemouth bass fingerlings and 2,000 channel catfish fingerlings were stocked at various rates. Along with these fish each pond received 5 to 10 thousand red shiners which were seined from the Colorado River. Also, two old city lakes at Robert Lee, 10 and 15 acres in size, were stocked with 1,400 largemouth bass. These fish were salvaged from various ranch ponds in the area and were % to 4 pounds in size. Minnows were also added to these lakes for forage. Basic Water Data Water samples were collected at several locations during the course of this study. These samples were returned to the Region 1 chemist for analysis. Addi- tional water quality data was obtained from the Colorado River Municipal Water District. Information from these sources is combined to give the average water quality (Table 5). District officials reported that the quality of water will be well within the U. S. Public Health Department standards for municipal use. Table 5 Colorado River Water Quality Number of Samples Chlorides Sulfates Pht. Alk. Tot. Alk. Hardness Area Averaggg pH (ppm) {ppm} (ppm) gppm) (ppm) Waters Above Reservoir Area 5 8.0 259 963 6.0 119 1131 Waters In Reservoir Area 6 7.7 581 860 0.0 163 1116 Waters Below Reservoir Area 3 8.5 313 143 18.0 110 313 Conclusions and Recommendations: Liaison should be maintained with the controlling authorities. Additional information, including up-to-date knowledge of planning, construction progress, structural and usage modifications and pertinent documents should be obtained. Plans for recreational usage and development will be appraised from a fisheries stand point. A chemical treatment of the watershed is not justifiable at this time due to the length of the river, conflicting opinions of land owners, and the immediate reinfestation of rough fish from existing lakes on the upper watershed. However, additional study should be made of the fish p0pulation in the river in and near the reservoir area.