TPWD 1963 F-2-R-10 #859: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region II-B: Job No. B-22, Fisheries Reconnaissance

--- Page 1 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-2-R-10 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS OF REGION II-B Job No. B-22: Fisheries Reconnaissance Asst. Project Leader: Richard L. White H. D. Dodgen Executive Secretary Texas Game and Fish Commission Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A, Walker D-J Coordinator Director, Program Planning & March 20, 1963 --- Page 3 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F-2-R-10 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of Waters of Region II-B Job No, B-22 Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance Period Covered: February 1, 1962 - January 31, 1963 Objectives: To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. Procedure: Fish populations of selected waters were sampled principally by the use of small mesh experimental gill nets, These nets consist of five 25-foot sections ranging between one and three inch square mesh. Mesh size increases by one-half inch per section. Random net sets were used in all cases. An effort was made to note ecological conditions which might affect the fisheries complex. Turbidity, siltation, aquatic vegetation, land use in the surrounding terrain, and pollution ndicators were routinely observed. Field samples were compiled and analyzed to determine major changes in popula- tion ratio or relative abundance of species as well as general condition. This data will be used in planning future survey or management work in the concerned waters. A checklist of species mentioned in this report is given on Table 1. Lakes Brownwood, Coleman, Hord's Creek, Scarbrough, and the Medina, North Llano, and Blanco Rivers, were new bodies of water moved into Region LI-B under the reor- ganization of the Texas Game and Fish Commission. Project personnel spent some time becoming familiar with these waters, Findings: Lake Belton Netting trips were made to Lake Belton in Bell County on April 4-5, August 8-9, 1962, and on January 10-11, 1963, where a total of 34 experimental nets were set. Table 2 illustrates the results of these netting collections. In comparing Table 2 with the results of reconnaissance work on Lake Belton during 1962, there is no”. apparent evidence, from this limited sampling, of major population changes or trends, Project personnel, in talking with the camp operators and fishermen, have learned of the complete lack of success of white crappie fishing. The white bass population is steadily increasing in both creel reports and project survey work. Although a imited number of channel catfish were collected in netting samples, fishermen report sarger catfish catches in 1962 than in 1961. --- Page 4 --- a Ps Lake Brownwood Lake Brownwood, located in Brown County, was an addition to Project F-2-R under the reorganization. Trips were made to Lake Brownwood on March 20-21, July 25-26, and November 28-29, 1962, where a total of 40 nets were set. Project personnel spent time during the netting trips to inspect the lake and its facilities. The results of net- ting collections on Lake Brownwood are given in Table 3. From interviews with fishermen and from survey work, it has been found that Lake Brownwood is primarily a crappie and black bass lake with successful white bass fish- ing seasonally. Trotlines are employed by many sportsmen to harvest a fair amount of channel catfish. Gizzard shad comprise over 50% of the fish population of Lake Brownwood, but from all apparent evidence, have not become a serious problem as yet. Lake Buchanan A total of 13 nets were set on Lake Buchanan, located in Burnet and Llano counties, on February 13-84, 1962, and January 23-24, 1963. The results of these netting collec- tions are shown in Table 4, Comparison of these netting results with data collected during the 1961 resur- vey of Lake Buchanan shows no major change in fish population or trends, Fishing pressure tended to fall off on Lake Buchanan as fishing success was somewhat low. White bass fishing is still good, seasonally, on Lake Buchanan, and trotline fishermen are harvesting a number of catfish. Lake Coleman On May 25, 1962, three experimental nets were set in Lake Coleman in Coleman County. The netting results, shown in Table 5, indicated an over-population of rough fish. Since the lake's sole purpose is public recreation, it was decided to eradicate the standing fish population and restock with desirable fish species. A total fish kill was accomplished on Lake Coleman under F-14-D-6, Job 16a40, on September 20, 1962, with an extensive kill of carp, shad, and sunfish, On October 17, 1962, Lake Coleman was stocked with 3,000 fingerling largemouth bass and 2,000 fingerling blue catfish. The blue catfish were stocked strictly for experimental purposes to deter- mine the desirability of this fish. It was recommended that the lake be closed to fishing until September 1963. Lake Coleman will be checked in the latter part of the succeeding segment to determine the survival and growth rate of the fish species stocked. Lake Granite Shoals Trips were made to Lake Granite Shoals, Llano, and Burnet counties on February 6-7, July’ 19-20, September 27-28, October 10-11, November 1-2, and 21, 1962, where a total of 50 experimental gill nets were set. Results of these collections are shown..in Table 6. --- Page 5 --- -3- The most significant change between these and previous net collections was the emergence of a great number of smallmouth buffalo. A commercial fishing contract 1as been let on Lake Granite Shoals. It is hoped that the commercial netting will reduce the smallmouth buffalo's numbers. Submerged vegetation, Myriophyllum sp., still remains the most serious fish- eries problem existing in Lake Granite Shoals, Hord's Creek Ten experimental gill nets were set on Hord's Creek, Coleman County, on May 24-25, 1962. Physical reconnaissance was carried on by Project personnel on Hord's Creek Reservoir to become familiar with the impoundment. Table 7 shows the results of the netting collections. There seems to be a well balanced fish population in Hord's Creek, although gizzard shad are quite numerous. Project personnel will make further netting collections in the next segment to ascer- tain the progress of the fishing success in this lake. Lake Marble Falls Trips were made to Lake Marble Falls, Burnet County, on January 30-31, and March 27-28, 1962, where a total of 17 experimental gill nets were set. From fisher- men and camp operators, reports, fishing success for largemouth bass is well below normal, Trotlining remains the most productive fishing method. White bass fishing in the upper end of the lake is fair, seasonally. Table 8 gives the netting results of Lake Marble Falls. Lake Scarbrough Five experimental gill nets were set on Lake Scarbrough, Coleman County, on May 24, 1962. Table 9 illustrates the results of these netting collections. Although a great number of white crappie were collected, none were of any size. It appears that there is an over-population of white crappie which has resulted in "stunting" of this specie. Further checks of the fish population of Lake Scarbrough will be made in the next segment by project personnel. Lake Travis Sixteen experimental gill nets were set in the lower end of Lake Travis, Travis and Burnet Counties on December 19-20;.1962. Table 10 represents the netting data collected, By comparison of these collections and 1961 reconnaissance on Lake Travis, there seems to be no significant change in fish population. There is a slight increase in rough fish numbers over the 1961 netting collections, but the netting was too limited to draw any definite conclusions. Although only seven blue catfish were collected, there was a good size range on this species. In the near future, it is hoped that a concentrated survey of Lake Travis may be undertaken, --- Page 6 --- ilps Blanco River Three experimental gill nets were set in the Blanco River, Blanco County, at the Blanco State Park. The results of the netting are given in Table 1l. Very few conclusions can be drawn from this limited sampling, and periodic reconnaissance work on the Blanco River will be carried out in the future to check the river's fish population, Brady Creek Netting trips were made to Brady Creek, McCulloch and Concho Counties, on April 26-27, August 7-8-, October 17-18, and December 12, 1962. As can be seen in Table 12, there is an overpopulation of rough fish in the creek. The fish popula- tion in Brady Creek is predominately carp, river carpsucker, gar, shad, and small- mouth buffalo. The city of Brady is completing a dam near Brady, Texas, to impound approxi- mately 2,500 acres of water. The dam is scheduled for completion in February, 1963. The lake will be fed by Brady Creek, a tributary of the San Saba River. A proposed job entails the removal of the existing fish population to provide suitable habitat for desirable game species to be stocked by Hatcheries of the Texas Game and Fish Commission. This fish eradication will take place in the coming segment of F-2-R. Colorado River A netting trip to the Colorado River, Mills County, was made June 14, 1962. Three experimental gill nets were set in the river, and the results of this sampling are shown in Table 13. Again, limited sampling prohibits any definite conclusions, but from all fishermen's reports in this area, catfishing is the only hopedf the angler. A few sunfish and white bass are taken, but not in great numbers. Lampasas River Six experimental gill nets were set in the Lampasas River, Burnet County, on January 30-31, 1962. As can be seen in Table 14, the Lampasas River in this area, has an abundance of rough fish, notably shad and suckers. Medina River Fourteen experimental gill nets were set in the Medina River, Bandera County, on July 25-26 and October 25-26, 1962. The results of this netting are shomin Table 15. There has been some discussion among the county citizens to eradicate the present fish population in Medina River in Bandera County and restock with desirable fish species, Such work, if undertaken, will probably take place in the next segment, after extensive netting of the river by project personnel to deter- mine the feasibility of the job. North Llano River Four experimental gill nets were set in the North Llano River near Junction, in Kimble County, on June 14, 1962. The netting results from these collections are shown in Table 16. Periodic sampling will be done in the future to check on the progress of the fish population of this river. --- Page 7 --- -5- Pedernales River One netting trip was made to the Pedernales River, Blanco County, on March 28, 1962, and three experimental gill nets were set. Table 17 shows the results of this netting collection, San Gabriel River Six experimental gill nets were set in the San Gabriel River, Williamson County, on July 11-12, 1962. As can be seen in Table 18, rough fish comprised the majority of the netted fish. Further checks on this river will be made in the future. Prepared by: Richard L. White Approved by: Asst. Project Leader Coordinator) John Tilton Date:_ March 20, 1963 Regional Supervisor --- Page 8 --- Checklist of Fish Species Mentioned in Report Scientific Name Lepisosteus, osseus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysQleucas Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Pylodictis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis humilis Lepomis auritis Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Common Name Longnose gar Spotted gar Gizzard shad Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker Gray redhorse sucker Carp Golden shiner Channel catfish Blue channel catfish Black bullhead catfish Yellow bullhead catfish Flathead catfish White bass Texas spotted bass Largemouth black bass Warmouth Green sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Orangespotted. sunfish Yellowbelly sunfish Longear sunfish White crappie Freshwater drum Rio Grande cichlid --- Page 9 --- -7- Table 2 Lake Belton Netting Results, 1962 _—_ eet Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number by Weight eee Longnose gar 3 0.67 | 13.69 2.75 Spotted gar 12 2.70 17.09 3.44 Shad 80 17.90 34.11 6.86 Smallmouth buffalo 9 2.01 52.38 10.54 River carpsucker 36 8.05 77.94 15.68 Gray redhorse sucker 18 4.03 23.52 4.73 Carp 8 1.80 28.93 5.82 Channel catfish 35 7.83 69.70 14.02 White bass 112 25.06 124.92 25.13 ‘exas spotted bass 6 1.34 4.69 0.94 Largemouth black bass 24 5.40 26.92 5.42 Warmouth 1 0.22 0.13 0.03 Green sunfish 13 2.91 2.54 0.51 Redear sunfish 1 0.22 0.21 0.04 Bluegill 65 14.54 9.39 1.89 Longear 6 1.34 0.34 0.07 Redbreast sunfish 2 0.45 0.15 0.03 White crappie 16 3.60 10.48 2.12 eee Totals 447 100,00 497.13 100.00 a SSSeSSSSSSSeeSeSSSSSSSSSSSSSSEE --- Page 10 --- Common Name Longnose gar Gizzard shad Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker Carp Channel catfish White bass Largemouth black bass Warmouth Green sunfish:: Redear sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish White crappie Freshwater drum Totals -§- Table 3 Lake Brownwood Netting Results, 1962 Number 59 643 65 70 17 144 1,283 1 Per Cent of Number 4.59 50.12 5.06 5.46 0.55 5292 11.85 1.33 0.39 11.22 00.00 Weight 163.91 327.11 198.02 131.50 27.45 69.14 144.70 1,160.10 Per Cent by Weight 14.13 28.12 17.07 11.34 2.37 5.96 12.47 1.21 0.04 0.00 0.05 6.64 0.25 100.00 --- Page 11 --- = 9s Table 4 Lake Buchanan Netting Results, 1962 ESSE Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight See Longnose gar 10 3.10 19.01 5.13 Shad 162 50.15 89.14 24.05 River carpsucker 83 25.69 186.68 50.37 Gray redhorse sucker 2 0.62 5.51 1.49 Carp 5 1.55 20.93 5.65 Channel catfish 18 DDT 7.68 2.07 White bass 22 6.81 16.05 4.33 Texas spotted bass 2 0.62 1.81 0.49 Black bass 12 3.72 22.39 6.04 Sreen sunfish 1 0.31 0.17 0,04 Redear sunfish 1 0.31 0.38 0.10 Bluegill sunfish 3 0.93 0.38 0.10 White crappie 2 0.62 0.51 0.14 Totals 323 100.00 370.64 100.00 --- Page 12 --- -10- Table 5 Lake Coleman Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight Shad 15 27.78 3.39 6.81 Carp 8 14.81 40.51 81.32 Black bullhead catfish 2 3.71 L at’ 3.60 Largemouth black bass 1 1.85 0.69 1.38 Redear sunfish 1 1.85 0.08 0.16 Bluegill sunfish 14 25.93 1.24 2.49 White crappie 10 18.52 1.46 2.94 Freshwater drum 3 5.55 0.65 1.30 Totals 54 100.00 49.81 100.00 --- Page 13 --- -11- Table 6 Granite Shoals Netting Results, 1962 TT EEF Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight eee Longnose gar 23 1.61 78.49 3.57 Shad 300 21.02 110.04 5.00 Smallmouth buffalo 482 33.78 1,432.94 65.17 River carpsucker 262 18.36 320.63 14.58 Gray redhorse sucker 4 0.28 7.77 0.35 Carp 8 0.56 30.89 1.40 Golden shiner 1 0,07 0.13 0.01 Channel catfish 68 4.76 100.16 4.56 Flathead catfish 4 0.28 27.75 1.26 White bass 50 330 36.43 1.66 Largemouth black bass 27 1.89 19.59 0.89 Warmouth 6 0.42 1.44 0.06 Green sunfish 13 0.91 1.82 0.08 Redear sunfish 3 0.21 0.22 0.01 Bluegill sunfish 127 8.90 12.44 0.56 Longear sunfish 17 1.19 1.51 0.07 White crappie 30 2.10 15.15 0.69 Freshwater drum 2 0.14 1.37 0.06 TT Totals 1,427 100.00 2,198.77 100.00 ESSE --- Page 14 --- Common Name Shad River carpsucker Carp Golden shiner: Channel catfish Black bullhead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth black bass Warmouth Green sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Longear sunfish White crappie Totals Hord's Creek Netting Results, 1962 Number 72 30 17 33 11 90 116 503 «12% Table 7 Per Cent of Number 34.20 5.97 3037 0.20 6.56 0.20 1.19 3.38 0,60 0.79 17.89 0.40 23.06 100,00 Weight 47.94 102.59 52.03 0.19 0.51 1.38 9.00 341.86 Per Cent of Weight 14.03 30.01 15.22 0.14 0.40 2.63 100.00 --- Page 15 --- <3 Table 8 Marble Falls Netting Results, 1962 eee Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number by Weight Longnose gar 3 0.65 9.94 1.91 Shad 221 47.73 113.81 21.85 Smallmouth buffalo 42 9.07 155.10 29.78 River carpsucker 98 21.17 189.90 36.46 Carp 3 0.65 9.76 1.87 Channel catfish 42 9.07 29.54 5.67 White bass 2 0.43 1.06 0,20 Texas spotted bass 2 0.43 0.19 0.04 Black bass 4 0,86 1.72 0.33 Warmouth i 0,22 0.13 0,02 Green sunfish 1 0,22 0,09 0,02 Bluegill 31 6.70 . 4.35 0.84 Longear sunfish 4 0.86 0.78 0.15 Orange spotted sunfish 2 0.43 0.19 0.04 White crappie 7 1.51 3.16 0.61 Totals 463 100.00 519.72 100.00 --- Page 16 --- -14- Table 9 Lake Scarbrough Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight Shad | 16 7.27 14,09 30.56 Largemouth black bass 4 1.82 2.63 5<7L Redear sunfish 3 1437 0.93 2.02 Bluegill sunfish 15 6.82 2.44 D029 Longear sunfish 1 0.45 0.29 0.63 White crappie 180 81.81 22.72 49,28 Freshwater drum 1 0.46 3.00 6.51 Totals 220 100.00 46.10 100.00 --- Page 17 --- -15- Table 10 Lake Travis Netting Results, 1962 ———-_-- rxTKrrerwr eee Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSeSeSeeeEeeeeeeEEESe Longnose gar 2 0.92 | 6.88 2.25 Shad 113 51.83 67.86 22.19 Smallmouth buffalo 16 7.34 79.52 26.01 River carpsucker 35 16.06 80., 22 26.24 Gray redhorse sucker 16 7.34 20.22 6.61 Carp 3 1.38 14.19 4.64 Channel catfish 6 2.75 3.77 1.23 Blue catfish 7 3.21 16.73 5.47 White bass 12 550 13.57 4.44 Texas spotted bass 3 1.38 1.25 0.41 Largemouth black bass 1 0.46 0.44 0.14 Green sunfish 1 0.46 0.11 0.04 Bluegill 2 0.92 0.38 0.12 Rio Grande Cichlid 1 0.46 0.61 0.20 Totals 218 100.00 305.75 100.00 --- Page 18 --- -16- Table 11 Blanco River Netting Results, 1962 Le Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ee Channel catfish 2 11.11 3.88 39.47 Black bullhead 2 11.14 1.13 11.50 Largemouth black bass 2 11.11 2.81 28.59 Warmouth 4 22.22 0.88 8.95 Redear sunfish 5 27.77 0.75 7.64 Longear sunfish 3 1.65 0.38 3.86 ig Totals 18 100.00 9.83 100.00 --- Page 19 --- Common Name Longnose gar Shad Smallmouth buffalo River carpsucker Gray redhorse sucker Carp Channel catfish Blue catfish White bass Texas spotted bass Largemouth black bass Green sunfish Bluegill Rio Grande Cichlid Totals Lake Travis Netting Results, 1962 Number 113 16 35 16 218 -15- Table 10 Per Cent of Number 51.83 7.234 16.06 7.34 1.38 3.21 5-50 1.38 0.46 0.46 100.00 Weight 6.88 67.86 79.52 80,22 20.22 14.19 3.77 16.73 13.57 1.25 0.44 0.38 0.61 305.75 Per Cent of Weight 2.25 22.19 26.01 26.24 6.61 4.64 1.23 5.47 4.44 0.41 0.14 0.04 100.00 --- Page 20 --- -16- Table 11 Blanco River Netting Results, 1962 - OOOO OcOvOCC eee Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ee ee a ee ee Channel catfish 2 LL.11 3.88 39.47 . Black bullhead 2 11.11 1,13 11.50 Largemouth black bass 2 LL, 41 2.81 28.59 Warmouth 4 22.22 0.88 8.95 Redear sunfish 5 27.77 0.75 7.64 Longear sunfish 3 1.65 0,38 3.86 eee Totals 18 100.00 9.83 100.00 ae eerie eeemneemneememmmeeemnnnnemnemenennnemnennsn ener ee --- Page 21 --- «17. Table 12 Brady Creek Netting Results, 1962 _ O_O rrr SSSSSFSSSSSSSSSFSFSFFSFFhseeFeFe Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ree ace ne ee a en re ee ee Longnose Gar 47 5.34 121.06 16.97 Shad 528 60.07 227453 31.90 Smallmouth buffalo 45 5.12 119.21 16.72 River carpsucker 100 11.38 182.58 25.60 Carp 1 O.11 3.19 0.45 Channel catfish 10 1.14 17.51 2.45 Black bullhead catfish 53 6.03 17.15 2.41 Largemouth black bass 6 0.68 6.47 0.90 Green sunfish 3 0.34 0.59 0.09 Redear sunfish 1 0.11 0.10 0.01 Bluegill sunfish 46 5.24 4.36 0.61 Longear sunfish 5 0.57 0.52 0.07 White crappie 23 2.61 3.64 0.52 Freshwater drum 1 0.12 2.75 0.38 Gray redhorse sucker 10 1.14 6.52 0.92 Totals 879 100.00 713418 100.00 --- Page 22 --- -18- Table 13 Colorado River Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight Longnose gar 16 13.11 36.25 27.36 Shadc 57 46.72 32,02 24.16 River carpsucker 19 15.57 25.63 19.34 Gray redhorse sucker 10 8.20 19.01 14.35 Carp 2 1.64 9.32 7.03 Channel catfish 3 2.46 1.31 0.99 White bass 3 2.46 1.62 1.22 Freshwater drum 12 9.84 7.35 5.55 Totals 122 100.00 132.51 100.00 --- Page 23 --- =i Be Table 14 Lampasas River Netting Results, 1962 nj Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ke, Longnose gar 2 1..87 1.69 1.00 Shad 29 27.10 59.88 35.58 River carpsucker:: 34 31.78 54.34 32..29 Gray redhorse sucker 28 26.17 39.15 23.26 Carp 1 0.93 7.63 4.53 Channel catfish 3 2.80 2.50 1.48 Largemouth black bass 3 2.80 1.57 0.93 Green sunfish 2 1.87 0.51 0.30 Redear sunfish 1 0.93 0.38 0.23 Bluagill sunfish 2 1.87 0.38 0.23 Longear sunfish 2 1.87 0.26 0.15 eh ee Totals 107 100.00 168.29 100.00 ne cme emeeemeeeemmnemeemememnnemmmemnnemmmmemnemnmenennennenennes cme ener --- Page 24 --- Medina River Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Longnose gar Shad Smallmouth buffalo Gray redhorse sucker Carp Channel catfish Yellow bullhead catfish Flathead catfish White bass Largemouth black bass Warmouth Green sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Yellowbelly sunfish Longear sunfish Rio Grande cichlid Totals Number 26 72 44 112 13 24 332 =D0s Table 14 Per Gent of Number 7.83 21.69 13.25 0.30 0.90 0.30 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.90 100.00 Weight 46.90 84.57 144.55 149.28 519.23 Per Cent of Weight 28.75 10.64 4.09 1.18 0.19 0.74 0.06 0.19: 0,13 100.00 --- Page 25 --- ~21- Table 16 North Llano River (Junction) Netting Results, 1962 CO eo Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ee RR Ee ear eee Longnose gar 10 8.62 10.75 6.77 Shad 46 39,66 50.87 32.02 River Carpsucker 39 33.62 69.50 43.74 Gray redhorse sucker 8 6,90 13.57 8.54 Channel catfish 9 776 8.69 5.47 Flathead catfish 1 0.86 1.44 0.91 Bluegill sunfish 1 0,86 0.13 j0.08 Longear sunfish 1 0.86 0.19 0.12 Freshwater drum 1 0.86 3.75 2436 ee ee ee eae eee a ae Totals 116 100.00 158.89 100.00 Table 17 Pedernales River Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight ee ee ee ee eee ee eS River carpsucker 61 70.11 66.23 64.94 Gray redhorse sucker 6 6.90 6.63 6.50 Carp 5 5.74 24.69 24.21 Channel catfish 10 11.48 3.38 3431 Largemouth black bass 1 1.14 0.31 0.30 Green sunfish 1 1.14 0.19 0.19 Bluegill sunfish 3 3.42 0.56 0.55 Totals 87 100.00 101.99 100.00 -—_— --- Page 26 --- if “Dh Table 18 San Gabriel River Netting Results, 1962 Common Name Number Per Cent Weight Per Cent of Number of Weight Longnose gar 8 14.54 8.01 19.28 Shad 3 5.45 3.75 9,03 River carpsucker 6 10.91 6.16 14.83 Gray redhorse sucker 13 23.64 10.79 25.97 Carp 1 1.82 7.00 16.85 Channel catfish 5 9.09 2.15 5.18 Yellow bullhead 2 3.64 0.40 0.96 Black bass 5 9.09 1.44 3.47 Green sunfish 8 14.54 Veh 2.67 Redear sunfish 2 3.64 0.38 0.91 Bluegill sunfish Ll 1.82 0.25 0,60 Longear sunfish 1 1.82 0.10 0.24 Totals 55 100,00 41.54 100.00