TPWD 1964 F-5-R-11 #939: Job Completion Report: An Investigation of Waters of the El Paso Area in Order to Evolve Efficient Management of the Game Fish Resource, Project F-5-R-11, Job B-34

--- Page 1 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT Federal Aid Project No. F-5-R-11 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS OF REGION 1-B Job No. B-34 An Investigation of Waters of the El Paso Area in Order to Evolve Efficient Management of the Game Fish Resource Project Leader: Lawrence S. Campbell J. Weldon Watson Executive Director Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D-J Coordinator Assistant Director, Wildlife August 27, 1964 --- Page 2 --- ABSTRACT General surveys and observations were conducted on more than 350 miles of canals and laterals, approximately 100 miles of the Rio Grande, and 8 secondary lakes. Detailed surveys were conducted on more than 400 miles of drainage canals, 50 miles of the Rio Grande, and 6 primary lakes. Data collected included physical topography of structures, chemistry of the water, and biological data pertaining to (a) vegetation type and distribution, (b) presence, influence, and distribution of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, and (d) presence, distribution, relative abundance, condition, reproductive success, and utilization of existing fish populations. Seventy-six rotenone collections made from 14,295 yards of drains resulted in taking 6,394 fish of 14 species. Forty-six gill net collections made in the Rio Grande resulted in the capture of 148 fish of 7 species. Seventy gill net collections from 5 lakes produced 1,422 fish of 12 species. Seining collections at lakes yielded another 3,125 specimens of 7 species. Further studies were made to determine inherent problems associated with the area, and determined man-made circumstances or limitations imposed upon the present fish producing facilities. It was concluded that present knowledge is insufficient to provide adequate means for effectuating a substantial and long term improvement in game fish production in the Rio Grande and associated irrigation system. It is doubtful if further biological studies will provide the means of achieving a wide scale improvement in production by these facilities. The productive capacity of most of the system will continue to deteriorate. The Rio Grande and irrigation system should be employed in a secondary role in management attempted. Lakes and reser- voirs offer the best potential for producing game fish in the El Paso area, and their expansion should be encouraged. Present management of lakes and reservoirs is adequate. Large scale biological investigations should be suspended until the prospects of developing additional facilities or altering existing facilities are known. When circumstances will permit, investigations of this nature should be carried out. --- Page 3 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F-5-R-11 Name; Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 1~B Job No. B-34 Title: An investigation of Waters of the El Paso Area in Order to Evolve an Efficient Management of the Game Fish Resource . Period Covered March 1, 1963 - February 28, 1964 Objectives: To obtain data essential to sound fisheries management of waters of the El Paso area. To obtain (a) physical, chemical, and biological data for determining the potential fishery resource, (b) data that will establish species present, distribution, relative abundance, condition, reproductive success, and utilization, and (c) to determine the man-made circumstances and limitations imposed upon the present fish producing facilities. Procedures: The field work, collection and treatment of data and the original rough draft of this report was accomplished by Assistant Project Leader Glenn Omundson. During this period of study Mr. Omundson and his crew of two biology field workers were stationed at El Paso. Because of an unexpected termination of employment with the Parks and Wildlife Department, as well as other circumstances beyond his con- trol, Mr. Omundson was unable to complete the final draft. Therefore, the field- collected data and the original rough draft was submitted to Project Leader Larry S. Campbell who revised the manuscript, completed and submitted the report in the final form. In surveying the Rio Grande and lakes and reservoirs of the El Paso area, 100 standard gill net collections, 39 specific gill net collections, 24 standard seining collections, and 9 specific seining collections were taken. Data from these collections and basic data were recorded in accordance with the following project standards. I. Sampling Fish Populations A. A standard gill netting unit is made up of nylon gill netting, measuring 150 feet long by 8 feet deep. The unit is in 25-foot sections. Mesh sizes of these nets increase progressively to larger sizes in following sections, at half-inch intervals, beginning with one-inch mesh sections and terminating with a three and one-half inch section. Bags are created in these nets by means of "tie downs" that are 6 feet long and are spaced at 9-foot intervals along the horizontal length of the net. B. A standard gill net collection is the data from fish captured in an overnight set of one standard gill netting unit. --- Page 4 --- Il. C. A standard seining unit is a 12-foot common seine whose mesh size does not exceed 1/4 inch. D. A standard seining collection is data from fish captured with three hauls of a standard seining unit. E. A specific gill netting unit is any gill net, either with all its mesh the same size or with several sizes whose total components equal 150 linear feet. Data obtained from use of such nets is presented separately from that obtained from standard units. F. A specific gill net collection is the data from fish captured in an overnight set of a specific gill netting unit. G. A specific seining unit is any seining equipment that does not meet standard specifications. H. A specific seining collection is data from fish captured with a specific seining unit. I. Data from gill netting collections normally included obtaining weight, length, sex and gonadal development, stomach contents, and "K" for 50 individuals for each of the primary species. J. Data obtained from seining collections was in accordance with the objective for carrying out the work. Basic Data Recorded for Each Field Trip A. Physical data 1. Turbidity readings to denote major deviations in turbidity. 2. Temperatures (Fahrenheit). a. Water temperatures including area deviations and diurnal and nocturnal variations. b. Air temperatures including minimum and maximum for period during which field activities were carried out. 3. Wind (mph) a. Estimated speed, direction and variations. 4. Hydrology a. Lake or stream level or volume. b. Flow or velocity. 5. Weather and Climatic conditions Cloud cover. Moisture. Relative stability of temperatures. Barometric pressure. Moon phase. oan 7 --- Page 5 --- 6. Bottom type 7. Cover 8. Vegetation 9. Other ecological conditions or influences and observations, Occurrence of springs, stream gradient, shade of trees, canyon walls, riffles or falls, aquatic vegetation or organisms. B. Water Quality 1. Where possible data were obtained from qualified cooperating agencies. Most data were obtained from the State Health De- partment, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, U. S. Salinity Laboratory, U. S. Department of the Interior, International Boundary and Water Commission, and the City of El Paso Water Department. 2. Essential determination of pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved carbon dioxide, chlorides, and alkalinity were by standard analysis outlined in FRESHWATER FISHERY BIOLOGY by Lagler. As anticipated in planning, seining and netting proved to be ineffective for sampling fish populations of the irrigation canal system. In attempting to survey the supply canal system adequate sampling methods were not discovered. Flow, when water was present, was too great to permit effective sampling with gill nets or seines. The shallowness and velocity of the current, the deep mud of the bottom, and floating and suspended debris combined to render efforts to use nets ineffectual, It was equally impossible to sample fish populations of the supply system with chemicals. The effect of the chemical could not be adequately con- trolled, and fish destroyed could not be recovered in a manner to provide mean- ful data. A small isolated pool at the end of the Riverside Canal provided the only collection to sample fish populations for the supply canal system. In the drainage canal system other methods were tried and chemical sampling with rotenone was selected as the best technique for carrying out objectives. The procedure most frequently used was to place two 25-foot bag seines at opposite ends of a measure length of canal (175-225 yards), and kill the entrapped fish with rotenone. As many fish were recovered as possible, tallies by species were made, and other data recorded in keeping with standards specified for netting and seining collections. In rotenone collections toxicant was applied in two ways. If flow was meager or indolent the area between the two seines was treated with a slurry of rotenone that was broadcast over nearly the entire surface of the closed off area. If velocity or flow was significant, (exceeding 2.5 - 3.0 mph), a thin slurry was mixed and introduced into the current about 10 yards above the upper net. Slow, gradual, and relatively uniform application was achieved by placing the slurry in a burlap bag for dissipation by the current in the sampling area. Trial and error determined the quantity of 6.5 per cent rotenone required to accomplish sampling of the limited area without serious damage to downstream populations. Comparative results of seining and rotenone collections taken from the same site on succeeding days are shown in Table 1. --- Page 6 --- Table 1. Comparison of Two Sampling Methods in Anthony Drainage Canal Seining Collection Rotenone Sample Taken 5-8-63 Taken 5-9-63 Species Number Number Gizzard shad 16 221 Grey redhorse suckers 0 6 Carp 0 23 Channel catfish 1 0 Black bullhead 0 9 Largemouth bass 1 0 Green sunfish 2 21 20 280 Seventy~six rotenone collections were taken from the drainage canal system. A summation of sampling efforts for the drainage system is as follows: Table 2. Composite for Mesilla, El Paso and Lower Valley Drainage Systems Total number of yards of canal worked 14,295 Total surface area (sq. ft.) 348, 870 (acres) 8.01 Total volume (5 538,860 (acre-feet) 12.37 Number collections 76 Average Yards for Each collection 188 a. Work completed in the Mesilla Valley (Upper Valley) Total number of yards of canal worked 1,250 Total surface area (sq. ft.) 32,400 (acres) 744 Total volume (£t.?) 54, 000 (acre-feet) 1.24 Number collections 7 Average yards for each collection 178.6 --- Page 7 --- b. Work Completed for El Paso Valley and Hudspeth County (Lower Valley) Total number of yards of canal worked 13,045 Total surface area (sq. ft.) 316,470 (acres) 7.266 Total volume (ft.?) 484, 860 (acre-feet) 11.13 Number collections 69 Average yards for each collection 189.0 Work completed was much greater than that specified in planning. Results: Background Information Probably, El Paso has greater need for expansion of the fishery resource than does any part of the state. Over 314,000 persons reside in El Paso County, 267,687 of them in the city. This urban population makes the area the most heavily populated locality in the western half of the state. There are no large Texas reservoirs within 100 miles of the city. Previous investigations have resulted in successful management of Lake Ascarate, and have determined some of the attributes of the Rio Grande and of the canal system, A study of flood retention structures in the McNary area indicated possible development of those facilities for recreation. Other details of previous work are to be found in job completion reports B-15, Project F-5-R-8; B-14, Project F-5-R-3; 16a29, Project F-14-D-4; and 1l5a-11, Project F-15-D-2. The Irrigation Canal System Waters of the Rio Grande are impounded in reservoirs in New Mexico and released on demand to downstream locations to be diverted into a maze of irrigation canals and laterals. These structures transport water for full irrigation of 178,000 acres. Of this quantity 70,000 acres are irrigated in the Mesilla and El Paso Valleys and supplemental irrigation is provided for 18,330 acres in Hudspeth County. The study carried out under this job included investigations of approximately 90 miles of primary canals, 270 miles of secondary laterals, and nearly 457 miles of drainage canals. Descriptions of Component Parts of the Irrigation System Primary canals supply bulk water throughout the valley to farms and ranches where it is siphoned or released into laterals for final dissipation in fields. These canals average approximately 25 feet at the top and 20 feet at the bottom. Maximum carrying capacity is at 5-foot depth, The cross-section of the larger canals approximates an inverted trapezoid, Sides of canals are capped with grasses, primarily bermuda and St. Augustine, but lower portions are generally bare. Canal bottoms are covered with fine to medium sand or mud. Several larger canals as the Riverside Canal and the Franklin Canal exceed these dimensions. --- Page 8 --- Laterals are usually 3 feet to 5 feet at the top and from 1 foot to 2 feet deep. Their cross-section approximates a "U", although a few cement-lined laterals more closely resemble an inverted trapezoid. A few of the major laterals as La Union Lateral, Montoya Lateral and San Elizario Lateral greatly exceed these descriptions. Drainage canals have three functions. (1) Excess water supplied to fields from the canal system is removed through drains, (2) seepage and ground water is returned to the supply system or to the Rio Grande, and (3) flushing action of top soils removed excessive concentrations of harmful salts and these sus- pended materials are transported by drains and emptied into the Rio Grande, With few exceptions, drains maintain flow the year around. Water is supplied directly to the drain system under the auspices of the Bureau of Reclamation from various dams and flood retainer structures located in New Mexico and Colorado, and sub-~ surface flow and seepage supply drains. Due to an extended period of drouth being experienced within the Upper Rio Grande drainage area, particularly in northern New Mexico and Colorado, water storage for the Bureau's Rio Grande Project has been decreasing for more than 10 years. Should this trend continue, disasterous effects on aquatic life can be expected. Drains are from 15 to 40 feet wide at the top and from 5 to 25 feet wide at the bottom. Average depth is 8 to 10 feet. Water rarely exceeds an average depth of 2 feet. The topography and ecology of drains is kept in a constant state of flux due to alterations in water quality and a continuous program of repair and maintenance. Repeated maintenance is necessary to control rapidly growing salt cedar, accumulations of mud and silt, and erosion of banks and adjacent fields. Drain classification would range from recently renovated to mature. The renovated drains are barren and devoid of vegetation, both on the sides and bottom, and lack salt cedars. If these drains are allowed to stand unattended for some time, growths of grasses, primarily bermuda, cattails (Typha sp.) and filamentous algae appear in and along drains. These growths are supplemented within one year with growths of salt cedar which appear at the crown and descend the banks of drains. Within three or four years, drains have matured and are characterized by debris-filled mud bottom. When mature, drains support luxuriant growth of filamentous algae and cattails. Sides are covered with grass and salt cedar, The top of banks are crowned with salt cedar. The Rio Grande is a functioning part of the irrigation system for 73 miles. Stream flow is jointly controlled by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Interior of Mexico. Levees are maintained on both sides of the river at specific heights, widths, and distance from the channel. These have been established and maintained primarily as flood control measures, but ulti- mately serve to make the river into a tremendous canal. Within El Paso's city limits, gates extending across the river can divert its flow into the Franklin Canal for irrigation purposes. During the irrigation period the river below these diverting structures dries up and remains dry until water is drained back into the channel in Hudspeth County. During the remainder of the year, the river may or may not carry water, depending on municipal requirements and releases from a series of dams operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. It is the rule rather than the exception to find the riverbed dry for several consecutive months during the non-irrigation season. Normal flow descends and becomes sub- surface before entering the city limits and does not emerge until it reaches Hudspeth County. Maps of various subdivisions of the irrigation system are given in Figures 3 through 12. For a complete map of the system these segments may be removed and joined together beginning with Figure 3 and continuing in the order of their appearance through Figure 12. --- Page 9 --- Figure 1. Typical canal structure that releases flow into laterals or drainage canals Figure 2. Typical canal during period when water is being released. --- Page 10 --- *“atTqeroAey oie uotjJonpoad ysty owes pue AqtzTenb 1aq3eM ar9yM AdTTeA rzasddn oyL ‘¢ san3tTyg ae OOJIXAW MA _ a AS vw — BY . ‘ordANWO. SX 0 eae co o4 ges 7 ; . e ¢ / , 4%, 3. SONI Oe Ng. ( ; 2%, - 2 oe : / So A NS whe of ; o A Ba Sf £# | < * --- Page 11 --- i) of N JEL PASO CITY LiMirs: “Vf \ ? @ --~CAWAL OE _vESCA it ake “y MEXICO Cordova Island Figure 4. The irrigation system within the city limits. --- Page 12 --- / , 4 : | , EL PASO VALLEY | \ U N I T CE PASO COUNTY WATER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. |- |_4 Z yO fy > CLINT $p ORAINY ; ace QUEMADAS LBs aS LA gq FRANKLIN { COKFIN LAT 5 OORROUGH OR. a SP OR —*Y ¢/DEL MONTE LAT. J Ww, _ . BARRIAL ,’ Na . LAL /: SAN ELIZARIO, pe. ‘ed to Cane aa Ne SaaS ee i “ ee “ if MAIN Lar Fy on ° — =a > - Sr — BPE TIED tation 2 2 THF gugind bay ed INTE RTA POPLAR Tag ZO: Aa I sg see es \e Figure 5. The Mid-lower Valley, where pollution WOR aes “s 7 SS with insecticides is common. : ” : Site of experimental introduction of OTS a white bass. --- Page 13 --- OG NM = > = T4 NM Onn ™/\ aa H1L3dS \ osvd 1 i r. ¥y NnOd “Gouging station ~ Cou Lo CANAL WW. _— oT ee aot Son lgndcioa i pes Seen ee “FORNILLO ’ho sa BLQOALUPE vay ae . SUADALU Pg ° Bridge dite £206 Be Us ER INTE: Se UWiTEO ST" RCI : ST Ee od = eC PTE . DEPARTMENT OF . SSS Z : oes GUREAL* -. _—-PILOL RIO GRANDE. ad Ls ie LEGEND Main Conals —-—-— District Boundaries ge Main Laterals “<u Limit of Irrigable Areas : ————— Sub Laterals =——~="== Main Roads & Highwoys — ——-— Drains > Secandary Pande Figure 6. The Fabiens Area site of experimental stocking efforts. --- Page 14 --- I NG ae Po = a7 oN ‘ tS , Met $ Nos 2 - eee / “ft . w83 ev i x ~ ee 5 e Be ~ ee ets On a2 Jose —~LOOKe . Oka | 4, | D-Ru XK T ; | ys? ee me | lil iad IN. Hendricks NS : i | / = eames NN 4 --: oat Ty. Nie : B.L 4 Rose i ; p Cae Renal ox | % * 1 ! CaN | i x MH) Mrs a8 hag SIN es econ | Aaster Zoage a | RO. Herrin | ; 638 * Jenignecio Figure 7. The Non-productive Lower Valley. --- Page 15 --- me eee Sy —_ 7 | TT OO , a , | | \ ; ! | \ aa | J ae ( a) : : di iunyen a2. ] , 8, \ Pa \ XN ¢ ’ 7 y 4 \\ N o ae \ o \\ \ a Ronaid j ‘ | / i Miller F : | \ RAL bar, 5A gt . \ Figure 8. The Non-productive Lower Valley. --- Page 16 --- paw Onigans \ \ -- = ‘ = a | _ el * ager ees ye \ BE Wolker _ pt bE To ne ee 1 eis = ; egiasin*|* ~ ==>. TT coos veers, OTN 7 wie 4 ‘ / I iA Sn gine? Sebi BOE, «3 BE We \ and = ne s {3 Clarence ( . i 6 ’ y | ~ Keees gL ORIN, { Welllems \ | H 40 “al p Cane! Bde \ Leshe Hays Figure 9. The Non-productive Lower Valley. --- Page 17 --- To Sif RRA BLANCA orm f / staooen oe pins AREA Figure 10. The Non-productive Lower Valley. --- Page 18 --- a Pea te ; i: wr a a «o. —— a ~ -_——_ Bi 7-7 ; ‘ AL Jeff B\*Jones CA rats 4 9 — A 2 TS ESPERANZA geal SS — r Figure 11. The Non-productive Lower Valley. --- Page 19 --- | PERANZA 7 —— = ~ Sa £. Spinn ler Phe nailer MWULSIPETH COUNTY CONSERVATION & RECLAMATION LISTRICT NPL vised 9-/2-§/ SoA 4 ae POCD* . Figure 12. The Non-productive Lower Valley. oo 6 u v © = e) on ~~ 10) o- le --- Page 20 --- > saaeyg eqeq Aitptend> 197eM, (€) ‘“VoTSstTuwoD 197eM pue Azepunog [Teuot eur UY “E961 - SeTszeynqtal pue spuery oTY ey} worz sotdueg t07emM JO StTsAzTeuy Teotwsey),, ‘ZTE TequnN ute TING t97eM (7) -aanazpnotasy Jo quewiazedeq °s ‘fA ‘goTAIeg yoreasoy TeanqpnotTasy ‘ArojeAToOgeT AITUTTES “S “N °\y€96T 189A 94F aoy qoeforg apueray oTY ay. Fo suoTITpuoD soueTeg-1Tes pue uewIINh 2104 sAoqy apuerly OTY 9y} JO Uapang 3{[eS pue sesreyosTd,, ‘COT “ON qaodey yoreasoy ArtoVerOGeT Aatutztes °$ ‘NM (1) :8a0anos SuTMoTTOF ay} WorF peuTezqo s19M YAOM Sy. FO qoodse sty] uo ejeq *xaTdwoo pue atqetTszea ATower}Xe ote S19zeM esoy ATT eotweug TeyeM JO Soetqjaodorzg Teotwsyo *paptooer uaeq eAeY “do76 Se YSTYy se soanqeredway anq **4ogg pue “dol usemjeq ATTensn ore soanjerodwsaq zajemM ~A9WWNS ey Jo Jared JseqIOY 94 SutTInp SJIWTT [TeoT}TAD yoeer ATJUeNberF JUeUOD OpTXoTp uoqrzed pue ua8AXO podATOSSTp nue szTeued UT uey} suTetp ut zeysty AT UeNberZ 91e soinjertodwoj] a0}eM °AeaTO A[T@ATIETOA ST SaouUeJSUT dWOS UT pue pPTqin} SSeT ST SuTeip ut 197eM 9 ‘spotied Jetaq 103 ydeox *sayout g uey. ssatT ATTensn ‘ptqin} AjTowerxXe ST sTe19 eT pue steueo Atddns ut Jey. pue 12azeM ADATA ‘ATT eWION ‘UOSPAS YITM aeiBep Asset e OF pue ‘AjtTooTeA pue AjqtTjuenb *MoTF Fo soUerANDDNO YATM soueptoOI.Ie UT Area sua sds uoTIeSTAIT peyetoosse pue apuery OTY Oy} JO sz9azeM Jo soTISTrsqoOereYO Teortsdud STOJEM JO SotjAedorg Teorshyd ‘quowqaedeq 197eM OSed TF ay} pue ‘oanqtnotasy Jo quewqzazedeg *§g °n ‘SAtOJeAOGeT YorPaSOy Aqtutztes °$ a ‘juowqzedeq yaTeoy eqeqg ‘Aaaang TeoTsoToe) *§ “fH ‘UoTSSTWWIOD 197eM pue Azepunog TeuotzeuraqUy °§ “M OY} WorAZ poeuTejiqo oq ue. BIep TeotsoToipsy TeuoTITpPpy *yquow tod yoaz-a70e QOOSS UPYI SS2eT WopTes ST MoTA *spotied zeyqO ut ueYy ‘gaqueqdes oj yoreW ‘potied uotzestazat oy Sutanp zeqee13 st mo TZ ‘ATT eWION °ze0k oTBUTS e& UT Joez-a70e OTy‘*E¢Z pepeseoxe sey pue YjUOU aTBUTS eB UT Joes -a108 ONO ‘9g UeYy. 19}ea13 oq APU SUTeIp WOAZ MOTF STYL *“STeUPD aseuteip sow UI pouTequtew ATTensn sft MoTJ JUoueurzed ATaaTIeTer “poe zeqs Aqsnotaeid sy MeqsAS Teucg oseuTeIAq SUL >zeak yoeo shep O€ 4seaT ye 1ozy Aap ore STeueD [Te Aj[[ewsou pue ‘xeak ay} Fo ANo syjuoW g Sse Yonu se Arp are sqTeued swog ‘“MoTZ ou 03 yjuou zed qaaz-ar0e QOO'SZ SB Yonw Sse Wor SOTIPA STeURD Atddns y8nosy3 AOTY °(STeukes oSeuTerp oy} YySnorzy} pauanjer 197eM OpNToOUT Bep 197e] STUL) “¢ OTGeL UT St 7961 SUTANp osutT Ajunod yyedspny-osed TH oyy 7e qoeforg apuery OTY ey. Fo uotstatq AeTTeA OSeg TH 24} BUTARAT 19}7eM FO Aqtjzuenb AzTyuquow pue aunTOA [e302 e4L ‘+ 8TGe], UT pequesoid st suotqzeqs Aremtad je apueidg oTY ey} Jo MoT AT yuo! «°.eeF-o19e CESS /yI JO VBeABAe ZOGT-7EGT 94} JO Jud zed OG puke T96T ZO} ae8TeyoOSTp oy. Sot. 7 ST owMTOA SsTYyL “ueW TNH JA0qg 1B poq wWROTIS |Yy} OFUT peSIeYyOSTp 219M Jooyz-ar0e GO/‘E/ pue *ZO6T UT Sexe] potaqUs 191IeM Jo JooF-91e OT9‘909 ATeqeutxorddy ‘potaed cE6T-0681 24} IOZ oBerTSAe JOoF-o9108 OOO SESE ST ay} yo ques aod s/ ATuO sem Jnq Sa8ereAe ZO6T-YEGT 247 SAOGe JUDD tod ¢ sem qOoF-a198 OIS*EHVO*T JO MOTT ZOGT PUL “(E MTGeL) ATTenuue JooyZ-219k 9177 *766 soSerzoAe eore qoofoad uotqze3TAAT oy} SaAaque JT se apuetp oTYy sya jo MoTd Ho sks Ayddng pue spuery Oty ouL WSISAG UoTIeStaAa], poyetoossy oyi pue oepuery oTY oy? Fo K30 TO1pAq --- Page 21 --- -19- Table 3. The Rio Grande. Total annual discharge and electrical conductivity at Otowi Bridge, New Mexico, and Fort Quitman, Texas, 1934 - 1962 inclusive. Discharge, acre-feet Conductivity ECx10° at 25°C. Year Otwoi Bridge Fort Quitman Otowi Bridge Fort Quitman 1934 380,430 102,360 408 3410 1935 1,100,740 145,380 349 2440 1936 1,071,190 149,590 340 3270 1937 1,653,710 178,290 285 3270 1938 1,329,780 282,470 298 2750 1939 786,980 152,780 348 3340 1940 584,480 124,320 372 3510 1941 2,592,700 331,190 295 2610 1942 2,144,420 1,270,400 296 1370 1943 701,960 232,390 368 2620 1944 1,303,990 275,300 270 2730 1945 L,131, 550 207,710 280 3200 1946 533,990 129,450 372 3600 1947 763,730 90,780 362 3960 1948 1,228,360 77,400 289 4740 1949 1,322,650 133,600 302 4032 1950 620,430 123,530 354 4201 1951 387,080 25,690 378 4106 1952 1,408, 250 11,129 297 5770 1953 530,190 20,329 366 3674 1954 435,380 14, 886* 371 1975%* 1955 437,150 5, 888* 393 838%* 1956 359,470 6,057%* 367 778% 1957 1,464,040 4,843%* 327 443% 1958 1,508,110 37, 098% 339 831* 1959 424,510 13,226 399 2086 1960 797,700 50,193 324 3152 1961 786,650 17,220 339 6031 1962 1,043,510 73,705 318 3972 Average 994,246 147, 835 338 3059 a Largely storm water that originated below Caballo Dam. --- Page 22 --- -30- Table 4. The Rio Grande - 1962. Volume of water passing eight gaging stations. a Rio Grande at: 1962 Otowi Bridge San Marcial* Elephant Butte Caballo Dam acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet January 41,100 47,950 586 69 February 65,640 69,320 66,780 66 March 70,440 47,370 111,600 120,420 April 249,500 161,900 114,700 69,740 May 233,800 190,600 118,900 70,650 June 88,180 35,560 118,700 119,740 July 36,030 12,820 92,260 108,140 August 27,310 4,060 57,430 132, 190 September 26, 860 6,400 9,860 30,640 October 23,480 11,230 504 103 November 90,900 68, 080 403 92 December 90,270 90,640 200 91 een eee Total 1,043,510 745,930 691,923 651,941 a a Rio Grande at: El P 1962 Leasburg Dam (Couschesne! County Line Fort Quitman acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet January 2,830 5,009 0 1,770 February 1,100 3,694 0 488 March 101,970 46,503 0 402 April 64,380 35,856 463 943 May 59,770 34,687 0 £259 June 104, 030 52,128 0 817 July 105,220 63,855 4,531. 6,513 August 116,070 62,994 651 3,405 September 39,910 41,187 21,362 28,816 October 6,680 13,307 11,143 13,438 November 2,990 8,833 5,692 8,146 December 3,660 8,100 4,757 7,708 ee Total 608,610 376,153 48,599 73,705 en * Main (River) Channel plus Conveyance Channel, --- Page 23 --- -21- Table 5. 1962. The volume of water leaving the Rio Grande Project at the El Paso-Hudspeth County Line as measured at the Rio Grande at Island Station, the Waste Channel at Fabens, the Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto and the Tornillo Drain Outlet, Rio Grande at Waste Channel Tornillo Canal 1962 Island Station at Fabens at Alamo Alto Sane tation at Fabens at Alamo Alto acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet January 3,859 2,260 0 February 617 435 > March 470 1,160 272 April 454 3,820 938 May 239 2,990 98 June 329 3,850 178 July 6,232 6,160 2,830 August 882 5,310 1,260 September 14,714 8,130 10,480 October 1,258 6,800 1,730 November 2,242 7,890 0 December 2,687 4,330 1,730 Total 33,983 53,135 19,521 A 1962 Tornillo Drain Total leaving Outlet Rio Grande Project acre-feet acre~feet January 1,810 7,929 February 1,700 2,757 March 2,680 4,582 April 3,510 8,722 May 3,200 6,527 June 3,610 7,967 July 4,670 19,892 August 4,410 11, 862 September 4,140 37,464 October 3,010 12,798 November 2,240 12,372 December 2,570 11,317 mt Total 375550 144,189 ee ee A --- Page 24 --- aD = Water Pollution Control Division, Texas State Department of Health. (4) "Monthly Reports from Sewage Treatment Plant''. Public Service Board, City of El Paso and records of El Paso Water Utilities. The purposes for which these reports were written result in data being expressed in different terms. In order to provide the means of converting data to standards more familiar to fishery personnel the following definitions are included: (1) To convert milligram equivalents to parts per million by weight, multiply each ion by its appropriate conversion factor. These factors are: Ca, 20; Na, 23; Mg, 12.16; C03 plus HCO3 (expressed as C03), 30; S04, 48; Cl, 35.5; and NO3, 62. (2) To convert tons per acre~foot to parts per million multiply tons per acre-foot by 735.5. (3) Electrical conductivity is a relative indication of the concentration of dissolved solids in natural waters. A study of recent data per- taining to stations on the Rio Grande watershed indicates that the relationship may be expressed within 10 per cent by the following equations: (a) Tons per acre-foot equal .0008878 (EC x 106 at 25° C) if below 7,520 micromhos. (b) Tons per acre-foot equal .001052(EC x 106 at 25° C) - 1.235 when conductivity ranges between 7,520 and 22,000 micromhos. Because a thorough understanding of the chemistry of these waters is vital to comprehension of future appraisal of existing and potential game fish pro- duction for the area, the three principal subdivisions of the system will be examined separately. A summation of basic trends will close this section. Rincon Valley Division is the upper division of the project. It extends downstream from Caballo Dam to Leasburg Dam, a distance of about 45 miles. Quantity of water used consumptively is the difference in discharge of the Rio Grande at Caballo Dam and at Leasburg Dam. Salt balance is assumed to be the difference in the salt burden of the river at Caballo Dam and at Leasburg Dam. As shown in Table 3, water quality is excellent for this subdivision. There is a slight build-up in total dissolved solids from 438.19 p.p.m. to 498.63 p.p.m. Chlorides increase from 46.50 to 62.48 p.p.m. and sodium increases from 65.09 p-p.m. to 80.96 p.p.m. A thorough perusal of data from this region failed to note any significant departure from these averages. Mesilla Valley Division is the second division and extends from Leasburg Dam to the American Dam at El Paso, a distance of about 63 miles. Total quantity of water used consumptively in this division is taken as the difference in dis- charge of the Rio Grande at Leasburg Dam and at Courchesne, just above the American Dam in El Paso. The salt balance of the division is assumed to be the difference in the salt burden of the Rio Grande at Leasburg Dam and at Courchesne. Again water quality for the subdivision is excellent for game fish production, and few significant deviations were noted in detailed examination of data as compared with the average figures that follow. The build-up of total dissolved solids nearly doubles, increasing from 498.63 p.p.m. to 823.50 p.p.m., and --- Page 25 --- ~ 95 x there is a corresponding increase in chlorides from 62.48 p.p.m. to 123.90 p.p.m. Sodium increases from 80.96 p.p.m. to 151.57 p.p.m. El Paso Valley Division is the lowermost of the three major divisions of the Rio Grande Project. It extends, wholly on the United States side of the Rio Grande, from the American Dam to the El Paso-Hudspeth county line, a dis- tance of 47 river miles. The quantity of river water used consumptively in this division is taken as the difference in the discharge of the Rio Grande at Courchesne, and the total quantity of water crossing the El Paso-Hudspeth county line. Salt balance of the division is assumed to be the difference in salt burden of the Rio Grande at Courchesne and the total quantity of salt crossing the El Paso-Hudspeth county line. The trend toward increasing salinity accelerates with each sampling station. Total dissolved solids increase from 823,50 p.p.m. to 2,765.13 p.p.m. Chlorides increase from 123.90 p.p.m. to 843.48 p»p.m, Sodium increases from 151.57 p.p.m. to 544.87 p.p.m. In this division average annual figures do not adequately reflect the true impact of this chemical influence on game fish production. The actual effect is much worse than in- dicated. This is because salt concentration is unstable and remains constant only for short periods of time. Two extreme occurrences are presented to illustrate drastic changes that apparently occur hundreds of times within a year in localities of the lower division. In only four days, between July 8 and July 11, 1962, dissolved solids recorded at Fort Quitman increased from 809.37 p-pem. to 8,064 p.p.m. During the same year in lower portions of Tornillo Canal, chlorides increased from 497.71 p.p.m. to 3,586.21 p.p.m. in less than 10 days. In view of these abrupt and drastic changes, it is remarkable that fish life continues to exist in the extremity of the division. General trends that are apparent from data are: (1) The chemical char- acteristics of dissolved constituents of water in the Rio Grande change with each diversion and drainage return. (2) In practically all instances these changes were increases in magnitude in the downstream order from Otowi Bridge, approximately 65 miles upstream from Albuquerque, to Fort Quitman a distance of nearly 315 miles. This closely follows the pattern of previous years. (3) In the downstream order from Otowi Bridge, El Paso to Fort Quitman, calcium percentage decreased from 60.6 to 34.9 to 28.2. Magnesium percentage decreased slightly. Sodium percentage varied from 24.0 to 63.2 to 61.3. Bicarbonate percentage decreased from 62.5 to 27.3 to 11.1. Sulfate percentage increased slightly. Chloride percentage increased from 4.3 to 27.7 to 55.9. These changes are similar in direction and magnitude to those shown in previous data. (4) The salt burden increased in each station in Texas, The El Paso to County Line balance was unfavorable but was favorable when corrected for the diversion into Mexico in the Acequia Madre. The balance between County Line and Fort Quitman was unfavorable as it has been for many years. (5) The long-term effect of this usage on the water quality of the lower division will be to increase salinity in both soils and water. There is apparently no way of reversing this trend, --- Page 26 --- aDhe Table 6. The Rio Grande - 1962. Volume of water and weighted mean composition of dissolved constituents passing seven gaging stations. Rio Grande at: Otowi San Elephant Caballo Bridge Marcial** Butte Dam Discharge, acre-feet 1,043,510 745,912 691,923 651,941 Conductivity, ECx10° at 25°C. 318 558 614 662 Sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR)* / 1.5 1.9 Jed. Per cent sodium (SSP) 24 35 41 43 Dissolved solids t.a.f. 28 .50 253 58 Calcium Ca meq./1. 1.97 3.02 2.72 Zadd Magnesium Mg i -50 71 . 89 99 Sodium Na am .78 2.00 2651 2.83 Bicarbonate HCO3 " 2.05 2.94 2.59 2.65 Sulfate SO4 " 1.08 os 2.70 Qetl Chloride Cl " 14 aa «99 1.31 Nitrate NO3 a -O1 + -O1 O01 TO ™™C™~tCCRGGC Grande at: ™™~“—*S~S~*~C~C~C~C~C~CS Leasburg El Paso County Fort Dam (Courchesne) Line Quitman Discharge, acre-feet 608,610 376,153 73,705 Conductivity, ECx10© at 25°C. 755 1,226 Sampling 3,972 Sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR)* 2.5 339 Dis- 9.0 Per cent sodium (SSP) 48 53 continued 61 Dissolved solids tasks . 66 1.09 3.66 Calcium Ca meq./1. 2.77 4,32 11.84 Magnesium Mg " 1.07 1.47 4.41 Sodium Na f 3.52 6.59 25.69 Bicarbonate HCO3 i 2.27 3.44 4.71 Sulfate SO4 " 3.49 5.67 14.02 Chloride Cl " 1.76 3.49 23.76 Nitrate NO3 uw . 02 Ol . 03 * SAR is defined as SAR = Nat/ (Catt + Mgtt)/2 ** Main (River) Channel plus Conveyance Channel. --- Page 27 --- -25- Table 7.-1962. Volume of water and weighted mean composition of dissolved constituents of the water leaving the Rio Grande Project at the El Paso-Hudspeth County Line as measured at the Rio Grande at Island Station, Waste Channel at Fabens, Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto, and Tornillo Drain Outlet. Rio Grande at Waste Channel Tornillo Canal Island Station at Fabens at Alamo Alto eSNG OtAatION Oct Fabens at Alamo Alto Discharge, acre-feet 33,983 53,135 19,521, Conductivity, ECx10° at 25°C, 1375 3209 1630 Sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR)* 5.0 9.2 6.0 Per cent sodium (SSP) 60 66 63 Dissolved solids t.a.f. 1.23 291 1.44 Calcium Ca meq./1. 4.02 7.47 4.47 Magnesium Mg " 1.50 3.68 1.47 Sodium Na ” 8.28 21.69 10.26 Bicarbonate HCO3 u 2.98 3.03 2.66 Sulfate SO4 " 6.16 14.13 751, Chloride enh " 4.82 16.06 6.20 Nitrate NO3 " -10 .02 04 Tornillo Drain Total leaving Outlet Rio Grande Proj. Discharge, acre-feet 37,550 144,189 Conductivity, ECx10® at 25°. 4784 2973 Sodium-adsorption-ratio (SAR)* 11 8.5 Per cent sodium (SSP) 65 65 Dissolved solids teas ff. 4.31 2.68 Calcium Ca meq./1l. 1255 7.57 Magnesium Mg " 4.49 3.08 Sodium Na " 32.15 L971 Bicarbonate HC03 " 2.64 2.87 Sulfate S04 " 17.02 12.11 Chloride cl " 29.87 15.67 Nitrate NO3 " .O1 . 04 a *SAR is defined as: SAR = Nat / (Gat + Meh 2 --- Page 28 --- -26- Table 8. The Rio Grande - 1962. Relative composition* of the dissolved constituents in the water leaving the Rio Grande Project. Rio Grande at Waste Channel Tornillo Canal Island Station at Fabens at Alamo Alto Calcium Ca vA 29.1 22.7 27.6 Magnesium Mg " 10.9 11.2 9.1 Sodium Na " 60.0 66.1 63.3 Bicarbonate HCO3 a 21.2 9.1 16.2 Sulfate SO4 mu 43.8 42.5 45.8 Chloride GI " 34.3 48.3 37.8 Nitrate NO3 " a7 el .2 Tornillo Drain Total leaving Outlet Rio Grande Proj. Calcium Ca vA 25.5 24.9 Magnesium Mg " 9.1 10.2 Sodium Na " 65.4 64.9 Bicarbonate HCO3 m 5.3 9.3 Sulfate SO, nm 34.4 39.5 Chloride Cl " 60.3 51.1 Nitrate NO3 " 0 wl i ——— * Cations as per cent of sum of cations and anions as per cent of sum of anions. --- Page 29 --- «27 = Table 9. The Rio Grande - 1962. Volume of Water and tonnage of salts and constituents passing Texas Stations. Leasburg Leasburg Dam Dam to El Paso El Paso Gain or Loss Discharge, acre-feet 608,610 -232,457 376,153 Dissolved solids tons 401,683 +8,324 410,007 Calcium Ca n 45,936 -1,659 44,277 Magnesium Mg u 10,771 ~1,625 9,146 Sodium Na " 67,010 +10,527 77,537 Bicarbonate HC0O3 " 56,390 -3,575 52,815 Sulfate SO, u 138,736 +571 139,307 Chloride Cl " 51,647 +11,650 63,297 Nitrate NO3 " 1,026 -709 317 Total ions " 371,516 +15,180 386,696 ER El Paso to El Paso cC County Line** ounty Line Gain or Loss Discharge, acre-feet 376,153 ~231,964 144,189 Dissolved solids tons 410,007 -23,580 386,427 Calcium Ca u 44,277 -14,536 29,741 Magnesium Mg " 9,146 -1, 801 7,345 Sodium Na " 77,537 +11,358 88, 895 Bicarbonate HC0O3 " 52,815 -35,924 16,891 Sulfate SO, " 139,307 ~25,255 114,052 Chloride Cl " 63,297 +45, 644 108,941 Nitrate NO3 u 317 +169 486 Total ions " 386,696 -20,345 366,351 ** The volume of water and the tonnage of salts passing the El Paso-Hudspeth County Line are the sums of the values for the Rio Grande at Island Station, Waste Channel at Fabens, Tornillo Canal at Alamo Alto, and Tornillo Drain Outlet. --- Page 30 --- -28- Biological Characteristics of the Rio Grande and Associated Waters of the Irrigation System Vegetation In addition to large quantities of filamentous algae and cattails, muskgrass (Chara sp.) was common but sporadic in the upper valley. These plants were abundant in many drains of the lower valley. Waterbuttercup (Ranuculus sp.) was found in two locations of Nemexas drain, and sago pondweed or another species of Potamogeton was encountered in Mesa and Mesa Spur drains. Duckweed (Lemna sp.) was found in many drains, particularly in the Riverside Intercept Drain, and sedges (Carex) were found in marshy areas. Animal Life Invertebrates From various water samples, plankton net collections, and observations numerous invertebrates were recorded. Positive identification to species of many of these was impossible with existing facilities. These are identified only to class or family level. Protozoans include Amoebea, Paramoecium, Euglena, Ceratium, Volvox, and Gonyaulax. Of colenterates, only fresh water Hydra were found. Associated with vegetation were bryozoans and several species of ROTIFERA belong to orders Bdelloidea and Monogonota. Other aschelminths were of the class GASTROTRICHA and possibly from the order CHASTONOTOIDEA. Mollusca were three species of snails (GASTROPODA, order Pectinibranchia), and a fresh water mussel (Anodonta sp.) was collected. Annelids were found belonging to class HIRUDINEA. The most important invertebrates were the numerous arthropods. Of these, crayfish were the most abundant of larger forms. Of the class INSECTA, the following were encountered in abundance noted: mayflies - Ephemera sp. and Callibaetis sp. - frequent and numerous. dragonflies and damsel flies - Anax sp., Epicordulia sp., Aeschna sp. - frequent, other species not positively identified. stone flies - Perlista sp., Acroneuria sp. - rare, taken in lower valley only. waterboatman - Family CORIXIDAE - occasional. backswimmer - Family NOTONECTIDAE - numerous. water striders - Family VELIIDAE - rare. water striders - Family GERRIDAE - frequent. water striders - Family MESOVELIIDAE - rare. giant water bug - Family BELOSTOMATIDAE - occasional. diving beetles - Family DYTISCIDAE - numerous. caddisflies - Halesus sp. ~- rare. mosquitoes - Culex sp. ~ very numerous. Dobson flies - Neuroptera - found in association with emergent aquatic vegetation CRUSTACEA collected included: fairy shrimp - Branchinecta sp. - frequent. water fleas - Daphnia pulex - numerous, especially in cold weather. copepod - Cyclops sp. ~frequent. amphipoda - Hyalella sp. - rare, only in lower valley. crayfish and shrimp - Cambarus sp. - numerous in all areas. water fleas - Cypris sp., Eucypris sp. - occasional. --- Page 31 --- -29- Vertebrates With the exception of fish, few vertebrates were collected or observed. Bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frogs (Rana pipiens) were observed, and the toad (Bufo compactilis) was collected. The only reptile directly associated with the system was the Texas soft shell turtle (Trionyx ferox emoryi). The principal mammal of importance was the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and rats of the genus Rattus were abundant. Fish Populations References are made throughout the remainder of this report to several species of fish. The following list has been prepared to assure correct identi- fication. Common and scientific names are as approved by the American Fisheries Society. Common Name longnose gar gizzard shad Mexican tetra blue sucker river carpsucker gray redhorse carp golden shiner speckled chub Rio Grande chub longnose dace suckermouth minnow Rio Grande shiner bluntnose shiner Chihuahua shiner red shiner roundnose minnow fathead minnow Mexican stoneroller channel catfish blue catfish black bullhead flathead catfish plains killifish Pecos River pupfish mosquitofish tidewater silverside white bass largemouth bass warmouth green sunfish redear sunfish bluegill longear sunfish white crappie Scientific Name Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Astyanax mexicanus Cycleptus elongatus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Hybopsis aestivalis Gila nigrescens Rinichthys cataractae Phenacobius mirabilis Notropis jemezanus N. simus N. chihuahua N. lutrensis Dionda episcopa Pimephales promelas Campostoma ornatum Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus furcatus I. melas Pylodictis olivaris Fundulus kansae Cyprinodon sp. Gambusia affinis Menidia beryllina Roccus chrysops Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus L. microlophus L. macrochirus L. megalotis Pomoxis annularis --- Page 32 --- -30- Fish Populations of the Supply Canal System As noted, supply canals and laterals play only a secondary role in providing a sustained fishery resource. Perhaps their most important function is that of supplying water to drains. Only one sample could be obtained from a canal, and that collection, being a rotenone sample from an isolated pool at the end of the Riverside Canal, is obviously unrepresentative of fish ,popu- lations for most of the canal system. Only fingerling-sized fish were obtained. A very few channel catfish and largemouth bass fingerlings and small sunfish made up this collection. Visual checks of canals drying up following the irrigation season indicated a predominance of carp. Also observed were numerous river carpsucker and gizzard shad. A few channel catfish were present. These observations were confirmed in creels of persons fishing in canals. Fish Populations of the Drainage Canal System Excluding minnow populations, 76 rotenone collections provided data from 6,394 fish of 14 species. Five species of minnows including golden shiners, Rio Grande chub, red shiner, fathead minnow and mosquitofish were taken from these collections. As statistically demonstrated in tables that follow, game fish production for the entire irrigation canal system is extremely meager. Presently employed stocking efforts appear ineffective. In 1962, more than 100,000 largemouth bass fry, 30,000 channel catfish fingerling, 10,000 redear sunfish and more than 200 adult largemouth bass, channel catfish and flathead catfish were released into the system. The results of rotenone collections that extended over nearly 8% miles of drainage canals resulted in killing only 3 channel catfish, none of which were of acceptable size. Two redear sunfish, and only 49 largemouth bass were recovered, and no flathead catfish were found. No evidence of survival of white bass released in the lower drainage system was discovered, Utilizable game fish, according to project standards, were only 1.76 per cent of the total number of game fish captured, and these fish comprised only 3.30 per cent of the total weight. Bullheads are included in utilizable game fish recovered. Game Fish Production of the Mesilla (Upper) Valle The more favorable water quality of the upper valley is reflected in a higher relative abundance of game fish. However, the apparent abundance of game fish (73.69 per cent numerically) may be misleading. None of the bluegill (41,02 per cent numerically) were sufficiently large to possess utility. On the contrary, these fish were obviously stunted. Only 42 of 869 green sunfish exceeded 100 grams in weight, although the species made up 30.08 per cent of collections. Bluegills were found only in the Upper Montoya Drain. In 200 yards of this drain, 1,185 were collected. Most of these fish were less than 1 inch long. The most important game species for the upper valley was largemouth bass. Thirty-four of 39 fish captured were sufficiently large to possess immediate utility. These fish averaged .87 pound. Although game fish repre- sented approximately three-fourths of the number collected, rough fish dominated weight statistics. Gizzard shad, river carpsuckers, gray redhorse suckers, carp, and golden shiners made up 79.71 per cent (485.54 pounds) of the 609.14 pounds of fish in collections. --- Page 33 --- -31- Table 10. Utilizable Game Fish Analysis a. Composite of Upper and Lower Valleys Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight black bullhead 5 0.07 2.98 0.17 0.60 largemouth bass 43 0.68 36.55 2.12 0.85 warmouth 2 0.03 1.26 0.08 0.63 green sunfish 57 0.89 14,45 0.84 0.25 white crappie 6 0.09 1.60 0.09 0.27 Subtotal 113 1.76 56.84 3.30 Total 6,394 Lf l9.37 Minimum utilizable weights established in report F-5-R-10, Job B-32 Supplement, Inventory of Fish Species in Lake Nasworthy and its associated waters. Omundson 1/24/63. b. Upper Valley Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight black bullhead 2 0.06 1.40 0,22 0.70 largemouth bass 34 1.18 26.35 4,33 0.78 warmouth 2 0.07 1.26 0.21 0.63 green sunfish 42 1.45 10,22 1.68 0,24 white crappie 6 0.21 1.60 0.26 0.27 Subtotal 86 2.97 40.83 6.70 Total 2,889 609.14 c. Lower Valley Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight black bullhead 3 0.08 1.58 0.14 0.53 largemouth bass 9 0.26 10.20 0.92 1.13 green sunfish __ 15. i si 43 4.23 _0.38 0.28 Subtotal oF 0.77..~—S«216. 01 1,44 Total 3,505 1,110.23 --- Page 34 --- «32s Table 11. Per cent Composition by Numbers and Weight of Fish taken from drains. a. Composite of Upper and Lower Valley Drain Systems Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight gizzard shad 1,328 20.76 410.85 23.89 0.31 river carpsucker 202 3.16 241.16 14.03 1. 19 gray redhorse 6 0.10 1.06 0.06 0.18 carp 2,265 35.42 901.06 52.40 0.40 golden shiner 8 0.13 0.07 0.01 0.01 fathead minnow 2 0.03 0.00 - = Subtotal 3,811 59.60 1,554.20 90.39 channel catfish 2 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.06 black bullhead 95 1,48 12.50 0.73 0.13 largemouth bass 49 0.77 37.09 2,16 0.76 warmouth 2 0.03 1.26 0.07 0.63 green sunfish 1,242 19.43 101.51 5.691 0.08 redear sunfish 2 0.03 0.41 0.02 0.21 bluegill L285 18.53 10.69 0.63 0.01 white crappie 6 0.10 1.60 0.09 0.27 Subtotal 2,583 40.40 165.17 9.61 Total 6,394 100.00 1,719.37 100.00 b. Upper Valley Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight gizzard shad 549 19.00 112.62 18.48 0.21 river carpsucker 72 2.49 93.31 15.32 1.30 gray redhorse 6 0.21 1.06 0.18 0.18 carp 127 4.39 278.52 45.72 2.19 golden shiner 6 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.01 Subtotal 760 26.31 485.54 79.70 channel catfish 1 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.06 black bullhead 27 0.93 5.12 0.84 0.19 largemouth bass 39 1d 26.76 4.40 0.69 warmouth 2 0.07 1.26 0.20 0.63 green sunfish 869 30.08 78.11 12.83 0.09 bluegill 1,185 41.02 10,69 1.75 0.01 white crappie 6 0.21 1.60 0.27 0.27 _ Subtotal 2,129 73.69 123.60 20.30 Total 2,889 100.00 609.14 100.00 a --- Page 35 --- c. Lower Valley =33- Per Cent Per Cent by Total by Average _ Species Number Number Weight Weight Weight gizzard shad 779 22,22 298,23 26.86 0.38 river carpsucker 130 3.71 147.85 13,31 1.14 carp 2,138 61.00 622.54 56.08 0.29 golden shiner 2 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.02 fathead minnow 2 0.05 Q.00 0.00 0.00 Subtotal 3,051 87.04 1,068.66 96.25 channel catfish 1 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.05 black bullhead 68 1.94 7.38 0.66 0.11 largemouth bass 10 0.29 10.33 0.93 1.03 green sunfish 373 10.64 23.40 2.11 0.06 redear sunfish 2 0.06 0.41 0.04 0.21 Subtota…