TPWD 1965 F-2-R-12 #992: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-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-12 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS OF REGION 2-B Job No. B-22: Fisheries Reconnaissance Project Leader: R. L. White J. Weldon Watson Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D- J Coordinator “Assistant Director for Wildlife June 18, 1965 --- Page 2 --- ABSTRACT Reconnaissance work, in the form of netting and seining collections, was carried out on most of the waters of Region 2-B. Water quality studies and seining collec- tion data are not included in this report, but are on file at the State Fish Hatchery Laboratory, San Marcos, Texas. This job will be replaced by a study of public access to the waters of Region 2-B. --- Page 3 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of _ Texas. Project No. F-2-R-12 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-B Job No. ___B-22 Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance. Period Covered: _____ February 1, 1904 to January 31, 1905 000 Objectives: To determine gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. 1. To determine major changes in the balance between desirable and undesirable fish species and gross changes in abundance and con- dition of individual fish species. 2. To determine when indicated, major changes in ecological condi- tions including water quality, turbidity, and fish cover. 3: To determine when indicated, possible sources of pollution. 4. To determine trends in fishing pressure and harvest composition. 5. To insure the adequacy of existing fish harvest regulations. Procedures: Fish popvlations of selected waters were sampled principally by use of gill nets standardized for all Dingell-Johnson projects. These nets consist of six 25-foot sections ranging between one and three and one-half inch square mesh. Mesh size increases by one-half inch per section. Seine samples were made with 20-foot straight seines. Netting and seining collections were made at stations set up in the basic inventory of the concerned waters. An attempt was made to set up permanent collection stations on all of the waters of Region 2-B, to increase uniformity in collection methods. The lakes to be sampled were chosen by the project leader and the choice was dependent on current weather conditions, request for surveys, and known gross changes in habitat. Seine samples were made as time and weather permitted. Water samples were taken and analyzed for 05, COy, total hardness, chlorides, and pH. Samples, taken from each lake surveyed were collected from a vertical series, bottom to surface in 10-foot in- crements. The data collected in the::'field were checked monthly to determine any major trends in population ratio or relative abundance of species as well as general condition. Spot checks of creel and talks with camp operators aided in determining the fishing pressure and angler's success. --- Page 4 --- Findings: Table 1 is a checklist of the species mentioned in this report. The results of the seining collections and the water quality studies are not given in this report as there were no unusual species collected nor any unusual readings determined during the project segment. Lake Austin A netting trip was made to Lake Austin on October 13, 14, 15, 1964, and a total of ten experimental gill nets were set. No unusual trends or gross changes as compared with past data in the fish population were noted from this limited sampling. Results of the netting collections are given in Table 2, Lake Belton | On June 2, 3, 4, 1965; August 19, 20, 21, 1964; and December 17, 1964, a total of 26 experimental gill nets were set in Lake Belton. Table 3 shows the results of these netting collections. There has been a considerable increase in the number of smalimouth buffalo and riiver carpsucker collected in 1964 over past years. Small- mouth buffalo comprised 17.91 per cent by number and 42.04 per cent by weight of the total harvest by netting collections as compared to 4.43 per cent by number and 15.05 per cent by weight in 1963. River carpsuckers comprised 4.93 per cent by number and 7.52 per cent by weight in 1963 as compared with 19.24 per cent and 23.94 percent re- spectively in 1964. Game fish species, notably channel catfish, yellow catfish, largemouth black bass, spotted black bass, white bass, and white crappie, comprised 39.16 per cent by number of the total fish collected in 1963 as compared to 20.12 per cent in 1964. The per cents by weight for 1963 and 1964 were 42.06 and 13.99 respectively. The most notable decreases in the game fish category were in the channel catfish and white bass collected. The lack of sufficient fresh water entering the lake during the past two years has retarded the white bass spawn somewhat, and the population is just now begin- ning to show the effects. The abundant rainfall in the area in early 1965 may provide adequate water for a successful white bass spawn in the coming segment. Reconnaissance work on Lake Belton will be carried out under the state program in the coming segment to determine what, if any, devel-: opment work is needed on the lake. Lake Buchanan A total of 32 experimental gill nets were set in Lake Buchanan dur- ing trips made April 2, 3, 4, 1964. Table 4 illustrates the results of these netting collections. There were changes in the percentages of rough fish by weight and number over last year's collections, but none of significance. The low water level of the lake did not lend itself to the success of the fishermen on the lake. Some good catches --- Page 5 --- -3- of channel catfish were reported, but these were usually after slight rises in the lake. Fishing success for white bass, black bass, and white crappie were below normal. Lake Brady Seventeen experimental gill nets were set in Brady Lake on March 24, 25, 26, 1964 and on January 27, 1965. Although the watershed which lay in the lake basin was treated for a total fish eradication before impoundment of the lake began, rough fish already dominate the netting collections. Table 5 shows the results of netting on Lake Brady dur- ing this segment. The rough fish are assumed to have been washed down from the untreated upper ends of the watershed when the lake filled up. Additional reclamation work on the lake may be called for in the future. Canyon Lake Five experimental gill nets were set in Canyon Lake on November 11, 1964. The water level of the lake was up to the base of the dam when the collections were made. Table 6 shows the results of the net sampling. The fish collected were predominately rough fish, namely, gizzard shad. Plans call for stocking the lake in the spring of 1965 with walleyes, obtained from Iowa, followed by bass and catfish from the state hatchery system. Spot creel checks will accompany reconnaissance work in the coming Segment to determine the success of these stockings. Flatrock Lake A total of four experimental gill nets were set in Flatrock Lake, Kerrville, Texas on April 9, 10, 196%. Table 7 shows the results of this netting collection. The high gizzard shad and sucker population, characteristic of these small man-made lakes formed by low dams on rivers, was found here. There was no major change in the species collected as compared with past segments. Fishing for catfish and sunfish comprise the majority of the angling on this lake. Ingram Lake Fourteen experimental gill nets were set in Ingram Lake, Kerr County, on April 9, 10, 1964, and October 7, 1964. As in Lake Flat- rock, Ingram Lake yielded high numbers of rough fish with a fair number of catfish. Very few black bass were collected in sampling operations. In the fall of 1964, yearling bass were stocked in the lake from the state fish hatchery at Ingram. Because of the heavy use of the lake by water skiers, fishing pressure on the lake is quite low during the daylight hours. Fishermen are limited to sloughs and shoreline areas of the lake during the warm periods of the years as they yield to the boaters and water skiers. --- Page 6 --- ade Catfish and sunfish comprise the principal game fish collected as can be seen in Table 8. Lake Marble Falls Netting trips were made to Lake Marble Falls on February 27,28, 29; August 23, 24, 25; September 17, 18, 19 and November 24, 25, 26, 1964. A total of 40 experimental gill nets were set, and Table 9 shows the results of these sampling operations. There was not much change in the fishery complex of Lake Marble Falls as compared with the last segment. Rough fish continue to dominate the harvest in both per cent by numbers and per cent by weight. Trotline fishing and still fishing for catfish comprise the majority of the fishing pressure on Lake Marble Falls. Town Lake On October 15, 16, and 17, 196%, a total of 15 §xperimental gill nets were set in Town Lake, Austin, Texas. Table 10° “shows the results of the netting collections. Despite high rough fish numbers, the lake seems to have fair channel catfish and white crappie populations. A considerable number of pole and line fishermen can be seen fishing the lake on almost any day of the year. Although sunfish probably make up the largest portion of the fishermen's creel, good stringers of catfish and cheppie are occasionally harvested. Lake Travis Thirty experimental gill nets were set in Lake Travis on July 15, 16, 17; October 29, 30, 31, 1964 and January 28, 29, 30, 1965. The results of these netting collections are found in Table 11. Although the water level of the lake approached an all time low, the fish population ratio of the lake did not appear to have been altered significantly over the past year. It is felt certain that the white bass population has been reduced somewhat over the past two segments because of the limited spawns resulting from lack of fresh water entering the lake. Substantial rains which fell in early 1965 may alleviate many of the problems of this nature in Lake Travis. Because of the good harvest of blue catfish in Lake Travis by fisher- men, and the apparent suitability of the species for the environment as determined from species collected, 10, 200[b Lue catfish fingerling from the San Marcos State Fish Hatchery were put into the lake dur- ing this segment. RIVERS Brushy Creek Three experimental gill nets were set in Brushy Creek, Williamson County, on May 15, 1964. The collection results are given in Table 12. Trotline and still fishing result in a slight harvest of sunfish and catfish by fishermen. --- Page 7 --- -5- Colorado River On May 16, 1964, and June 19, 1964, six experimental gill nets were set in the Colorado River, Mills and San Saba Counties, As can be seen in Table 13, the collections yielded a high percentage of rough fish. Despite the high rough fish population, fishing pressure, in the form of trotlines and throwlines, is quite heavy on the Colorado River. A number of white bass are harvested during the spawning season in the lower reaches of the river which divides these two counties. Guadalupe River Ten netting collections were made on the Guadalupe River, Kerr, Kendall and Comal Counties on April 10, 1964; March 22; and June 4, 1964. Fair catches of channel catfish in netting collections are illustrated in Table 14. Some yearling bass were stocked from the Ingram State Fish Hatchery in the Guadalupe River in the Ingram-Kerrville area. An attempt to bolster an apparently sagging black bass population in the river, this stocking operation will be further evaluated by future reconnaissance work. Sunfish and catfish comprise the majority of the fisherman's creel on the river. Llano River A total of eleven netting collections were made on the Llano River, Kimble, Mason, and Llano Counties on May 5, 6, and 12, 1964. Over 80 per cent of the total number of fish collected were rough fish as can be seen in Table 15. As with most of the rivers of Region 2-B, the harvesting of catfish by trotline and throwline provide the fishermen with the most success on the Llano River. Many areas of the Llano River were dry during the last segment, and reconnaissfince work was somewhat limited. Pedernales River Six gill nets collections were made on the Perdernales River, Gillespie and Blanco Counties on May 7,afid' 8, 1964. Results of the collections are given in Table 16. . Again, lack of adequate rainfall resulted in dry areas of the river, and reconnaissance work was limited. San Gabriel River On May 14, 1964, five experimental gill nets were set in the San Gabriel River, Williamson County. Gizzard shad and sucker type fish dominate the netting collection figures as can be seen in Table 17. --- Page 8 --- 26. Trotline fishing provides the anglers with some fair returns on cat- fish and sunfish. Use of gill nets i& legal in Williamson County for the taking of rough fish, and this method of harvest is used by some of the residents of the county. San Marcos River Three experimental gill nets were set in the San Marcos River, Hays County on April 14, 1964. Results of the netting are given in Table 18. Because of its accessibility to project headquarters, the San Marcos River will be used for a fish production study in the coming segment. San Saba River On May 17, 1964, five experimental gill nets were set in the San Saba River, San Saba County. The results of these collections are given in Table 19. Reconnaissance work on the San Saba River will be continued under the state program in the coming segment. Recommendations: Prepared by: Date: June 18, 1965 Reconnaissance work has been carried out on all of the rivers, streams, and lakes of Region 2-B over past segments. This work has provided project personnel with a general, but fairly accurate, concept of the fishery complex of these waters. One of the biggest problems facing the angler in this area is the lack of public access to these waters, especially rivers. It is recommended that this job be discontinued until the amount and location of public access to the waters of Region 2-B can be determined. R. L. White a Project Leader (Coordinator) JOHN E. TILTON Regional Supervisor --- Page 9 --- -7- Checklist of Fishesivs Scientific Name Common Name Lepisosteus oculatus Spotted gar Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Moxostoma:.congestum Gray redhorse Cyprinus carpio Carp Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner Notropis venustus Blacktail shiner Notropis lutrensis Red shiner Wctalurusi punctatus Channel catfish ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish Ictalurus melas Black bullhead catfish Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish Fundulus notatus Blackstripe topminnow Gambusia affinis Mosquito fish Mugil cephalus Striped mullet Roccus chrysops White bass Micropterus treculi Guadalupe bass (Texas Spotted Bass) Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Chaenobryttus gulosus Warmouth Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish Lepomis megalotis Longear sunfish Pomoxis annularis White crappie Percina caprodes Log perch Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum Cichlasomas cyanoguttatum Rio Grande perch --- Page 10 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus furcatus Pylodictis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS TABLE 2 LAKE AUSTIN Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 2 1.02 37 18.88 40 20.41 39 19.90 2 1.02 13 6.63 1 0.51 7 3.50 4 2.04 1 0.51 1 0.51 m 2.04 L 0.51 6 3.06 17 8.68 13 6.63 8 4.08 | 196 100.00 WEIGHT 10. 16, 249. 96. 10. 23. 22. 44. 6. Q, 19 00 54 41 75 24 00 37 75 25 ~31 63 .63 PavAs) 8.08 499. 80 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 25 3. 49. 19. 100, 04 20 93 29 pe Us) »65 - 40 ~87 °35 -05 . 06 13 04 «L5 «33 +54 £62 00 --- Page 11 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus oculatus Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS = 9s TABLE 3 LAKE BELTON Netting data 1964 —- PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 23 3.38 13 1.91 53 7.78 122 17.91 131 19.24 7 1.03 17 2.50 22 3.23 7 1.03 56 8.22 13 1.91 14 2.06 5 0.73 8 1.17 6 0.88 140 20.56 13 1.91 25 3.67 6) 0.88 681 100.00 WEIGHT 25.03 45.63 16.70 447.57 254.83 Te ded 70.50 46.69 22.58 58.17 4.08 24.59 1.26 7.46 18.25 1,064.53 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 2.35 4.29 1.57 42.04 23.94 0.67 6.62 4.39 2.12 0.94 0.09 --- Page 12 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio _ Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS = 10 TABLE 4 LAKE BUCHANAN Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER __ BY _NUMBER 128 10.45 306 24,98 54 4.41 427 34.86 L 0.08 55 4.49 18 1.47 13 1.06 94 7.67 28 2.29 13 1.06 2 0.16 38 3.10 19 1.55 28 2.29 L Q.08 WEIGHT 391, 101. 365. 1,023. 83. 21. 108. 64 39. dL 18. 2,247. 10 50 27 89 44 44 27 OL 256 64 00 269 . 00 «74 33 250 38 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 17.40 4,52 16.25 45.56 0.11 Sie JA. 0.95 4.81 2.87 0.76 0,03 0.07 100.00 --- Page 13 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepdianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Notmigonus crysoleucas Ictalurus punctatus Ictalurus melas Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS «L1- TABLE 5 BRADY LAKE Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 20 2.70 217 29.32 20 2.70 124 16.76 20 2.70 36 4.86 14 1.89 142 19.19 54 7.30 4 0.54 36 4.86 15 2.04 12 1.62 26 3.52 740 100.00 PER CENT WEIGHT BY WEIGHT 18.08 3.78 167.02 34.91 85.87 17.95 63.32 13523 51.43 10.75 6.57 Le 37 15.16 3.17 31.35 6.55 18.44 3.85 0.64 0.13 5.85 1.22 1.94 0.41 2.69 0.56 ___ 10.12 2.12 478.48 100.00 --- Page 14 --- -12- TABLE 6. CANYON LAKE Netting Data 1964 PER CENT PER CENT SPECIES NUMBER BY NUMBER —_SCOWETLCAT = CBY WEIGHT Lepisosteus osseus 5 4.06 12.25 12.11 Dorosoma cepedianum 104 84.55 53.70 53.09 Moxostoma:; congestum 3 2.44 3.87 3.83 Carpiodes carpio 2 1.63 5.44 5.38 ictalurus punctatus 6 4.88 9.13 9.03 Pylodictis olivaris 1 0.81 15.44 15.26 Micropterus treculi a ___1,63_ ee ome ree oe TOTALS L23 100.00 101.15 *, 400 -00 --- Page 15 --- -13- TABLE 7 FLAT ROCK LAKE Netting Data 1964 PER CENT PER CENT SPECIES NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT BY WEIGHT Lepisosteus osseus 5 4.59 18.95 18.34 Dorosoma cepedianum 50 45.87 19.69 19.05 Moxostoma congestum 35 32.10 49.99 48.37 Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 0.92 0.19 0.18 Ictalurus punctatus 5 4.59 9,01 8.72 Micropterus treculi 1 0.92 0.31 0.30 Micropterus salmoides 3 2.75 1.44 1.40 Chaenobryttus gulosus 1 0.92 0.25 0.24 Lepomis cyanellus 1 0.92 0.13 0.13 Lepomis microlophus 3 2.75 2.88 2.79 Lepomis macrochirus 2 1.83 0.25 0.24 Lepomis megalotis 1 0.92 Jo.06 0.06 Pomoxis annularis L 0.92 0.19 0.18 TOTALS 109 100.00 103.34 100.00 --- Page 16 --- ~{A- TABLE 8 LAKE INGRAM Netting Data 1964 PER CENT PER CENT SPECIES NUMBER _ BY NUMBER WEIGHT BY WEIGHT Lepisosteus osseus 21 5.21 48.90 10.18 Dorosoma cepedianum 174 43.18 87.28 18.16 Moxostoma congestum 118 29.28 218.07 45.38 Cyprinus carpio LL 2.73 48.58 10.11 Notemigonus crysoleucas 1 0.25 0.13 0.03 Ictalurus punctatus 20 4.96 60.43 12.58 Ictalurus melas 1 0.25 0.69 0.14 Ictalurus natalis 6 1.49 2.00 0.42 Micropterus salmoides 8 1.98 5.13 1.07 Chaenobryttus gulosus 9 2.23 1.90 0.39 Lepomis cyanellus 2 0.50 0.44 0.09 Lepomis microlophus 4 0.99 - 1.57 0.34 Lepomis macrochirus 17 4.22 2.19 0.45 Lepomis megalotis 7 1.74 2.56 0.53 Pomoxis annularis 4 0.99 0.64 0.13 TOTALS 403 100.00 480.51 100.00 --- Page 17 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS 215s TABLE 9 LAKE MARBLE FALLS Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 4 0.80 115 23.00 90 18.00 119 23.80 13 2.60 32 6.40 10 2.00 7 1.40 13 2.60 6 1.20 5 1.00 4 0.80 1 0.20 24 4.80 8 1.60 35 7.00 14 2.80 500 100.00 WEIGHT 13.26 69.31 373.75 240.05 59.69 4,37 4.25 3.32 0.68 14.19 14.60 885.31 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 1.50 7.83 42.22 27612 6.74 3.16 5.49 1.04 0.49 1.65_ 100.00 --- Page 18 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus oculatus Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Mugil cephalus Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum TOTALS -16- TABLE: 10 TOWN LAKE Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 2 0.76 1 0.38 77 29.29 15 28.52 10 3.80 6 2.28 28 10.65 3 1.14 1 0.38 3 1.14 1 0.38 1 0.38 10 3.80 1 0.38 13 4.94 20 7.60 1 4.18 263 100.00 WEIGHT 1.69 1.69 74.15 165.83 19.32 41.50 34.21 18.19 3.25 0.13 0.31 1.45 0.06 17.44 3.57 391.85 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 0.43 0.43 18.92 42.32 4.93 10.59 8.73 4.64 0.07 100.00 --- Page 19 --- -17- TABLE 11 LAKE TRAVIS Netting Data 1964 PER CENT PER CENT SPECIES NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT BY WEIGHT Lepisosteus osseus 2 0.29 6.88 0.50 Dorosoma cepedianum 222 32.50 108.36 7.89 Ictiobus bubalus 138 20.20 619.92 45.16 Carpiodes carpio 90 13.18 195.99 14,27 Moxostoma congestum 8 Led 10.07 0.73 Cyprinus carpio 36 5.27 143.83 10.48 Ictalurus punctatus 23 3.37 13.74 1.00 Ictalurus furcatus 12 1.76 12.75 0.93 Pylodictis olivaris 27 3.95 190.68 13.89 Roccus chrysops 26 3.81 26.22 1.92 Micropterus treculi 27 3.95 13.63 0.99 Micropterus salmoides 3 0.44 3.01 0.22 Lepomis cyanellus 3 0.44 0.39 0.03 Lepomis macrochirus 10 1.46 1.07 0.08 Lepomis megalotis 3 0.44 0.25 0.02 Pomoxis annularis 26 3.81 15.56 1.13 Aplodinotus grunniens 26 3.81 10.16 0.74 Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum —1_ 0.15 ___0.31 0,02, TOTALS 683 100.00 1,372.82 100.00 --- Page 20 --- SPECIES Dorosoma cepedianum Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis macrochirus TOTALS -18- TABLE 12 BRUSHY CREEK Netting Data 1964 NUMBER 25 38 PER CENT BY NUMBER 29.07 44.19 3.49 WEIGHT 10.88 50.56 16.82 6.50 0.50 0.25 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 12s 26 56.96 18.95 7.32 0.56 0.28 --- Page 21 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Roccus .chrysops Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS -19- TABLE 13 COLORADO RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER _BY_NUMBER 67 34. 36 56 28.72 7 3.59 46 23.59 9 4.61 3 1.54 3 1.54 1 0.51 —_—- _ 1.54 _ 195 100.00 PER CENT _____ WEIGHT _—_—_—_s&BY _WEJIGHT 258.37 58.94 36.24 227 41.62 49 79.98 24 13.64 il 2.37 54 2.88 . 66 0.56 13 2.70 __0.62_ 438. 36 100.00 --- Page 22 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Ictalurus punctatus Eylodictis olivaris Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus bepomes eyene lis Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis TOTALS - 2Q0- TABLE 14 GUADALUPE RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT 42 13.59 71.45 121 39.16 120.20 27 8.74 77.54 66 21.36 99.73 26 8.41 60.00 4 1.29 14.44 7 2.26 4.32 3 0.97 1.32 1 0.33 0.19 7 2. 26 1.44 3 0.97 0.50 1 0.33 0.25 1 0.33 1.88 309 100.00 453.26 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 15.76 26.52 17.11 22.00 13.24 3.19 9.96 0.29 0.04 0.05 0.41 100.00 --- Page 23 --- SPECIES Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomixis annularis Aplodinotus grunniens TOTALS -21- TABLE 15 LLANO RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER LS 3.22 281 60. 30 87 18.67 8 1.72 9 1.94 35 7.52 2 0.43 1 0.21 1 0.21 2 0.43 5 1.07 3 0.64 16 3.43 1, 0.21 466 100.00 WEIGHT 44. 275. 12. 49. 54. 54 80 .00 75 Ol 06 275 -50 pp es | 231 83 ~76 PER CENT BY WEIGHT _ 7.99 49.47 20.09 2429 8.79 9.70 0.13 0.09 0.02 0.23 0.15 0.14 --- Page 24 --- SPECIES Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus: punctatus Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lempomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis TOTALS =~ 22 TABLE 16 PEDERNALES RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT 90 62.50 140.46 3 2.08 17.94 7 4.86 5.18 1 0.70 1.81 1 0.70 0.19 5 3.47 0.83 25 17.36 9.52 2 1.39 0.12 10 6.94 1.79 144 100.00 170.84 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 82.22 10.50 3.03 0.07 1.05 “100.00 --- Page 25 --- a9 92 TABLE 17 SAN GABRIEL RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT © , PER CENT SPECIES NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT BY WEIGHT Lepisosteus osseus 13 12.04 18.96 19.92 Dorosoma cepedianum 12 11.11 10.15 10.66 Carpiodes carpio 42 38.89 32.96 34.62 Moxostoma congestum 10 9.26 727 7.63 Cyprinus carpio 3 2.78 7.62 8.00 Ictalurus punctatus 6 5.55 7.25 7.61 Pylodictis olivaris L 0.93 4.37 4.59 Micropterus treculi 1 0.93 | 0.19 0.20 Micropterus salmoides 4 3.70 4.06 4,27 Chaenobryttus gulosus 4 3.70 0.88 0.92 Lepomis cyanellus 1 0.93 © 0.25 0.26 Lepomis macrochirus 2 1.85 0.38 0.40 Lepomis megalotis 9 8. 33 0.88 0.92 TOTALS 108 100.00 95.22 100.00 --- Page 26 --- SPECIES Lepisosteus osseus Carpiodes carpio Moxostoma congestum Ictalurus punctatus Lepomis macrochirus TOTALS SPEC IES Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Ictalurus punctatus Micropterus treculi Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Aplodinotus” grunniens TOTALS -24- TABLE 18 SAN MARCOS RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 27 22.32 78 64.46 2 1.65 5 4.13 3 2.48 4 3.31 119 100.00 TABLE 19 SAN SABA RIVER Netting Data 1964 PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER 55 26.70 70 33.98 20 9.71 47 22.81 2 0.97 4 1.94 1 0.49 2 0.97 2 0.07 2 0.97 1 0-49 206 | 100.00 WELGHT 89.07 45.89 6.31 9.49 8.26 0.44 159.46 WEIGHT 142.58 49.45 61.56 42.01 9.25 8.75 0.19 0.25 1.44 316.48 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 55.68 28.69 3.95 5.93 5.16 0.28 100.00 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 45.05 15.63 19.45 13.27 2.92 2.76 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.24 0.46 100.00