TPWD 1967 F-4-R-14 #1158: Job Completion Report: Evaluation of the Pre-impoundment Rotenone Treatment of Hubbard Creek Lake, Project F-4-R-14

--- Page 1 --- JOB COMPLETION REPORT “lle As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-4-R-14 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS OF REGION 2-A Job No. B-36: Evaluation of the Pre-impoundment Rotenone Treatment of Hubbard Creek Lake Project Leader: Charles T. Menn J. R. Singleton Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D-J Coordinator Director, Wildlife Services December 15, 1967 --- Page 2 --- Abstract The pre-impoundment rotenone treatment performed on Hubbard Creek Reservoir was not effective and failed to be of any advantage to the "game species" population in that lake. --- Page 3 --- Job Completion Renort State of Texas Project No. F-4-R-14 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the _ Waters of Region 2-A Job Now B36 Yitle: Evaluation of the Pre-Impoundment Rotepone Treatment of Hubbard Creek Lake Sn cn NE RR NI I ES Period Covered: _._....November 1, 1966 - December 31, 1967 Objective: This study was conducted in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of reservoir pre-~impoundment rotenone treatments. The lakes involved in this study were Proctor Lake and Hubbard Creek Lake. Techniques Used: Forty-two farm ponds and sloughs in the basin of the Hubbard Creek Lake were treated with rotenone at the rate of 1.5 ppm. Hubbard and Sandy Creeks were also treated at the same rate. These steps were taken in order to eliminate the existing fish populations in the basin area. (Project F-14-D-6, Job 16a37). There was no pre- impoundment fish kill treatment performed on Proctor Lake. Description of Lakes: Hubbard Creek Lake Hubbard Creek Lake is located about 6 miles northwest of Breckenridge, Stephens County, Texas. It was built by the City of Abilene and is controlled by the West Central Texas Municipal Water District. The earthen dam, across Hubbard Creek below the confluence with Sandy Creek, impounds 16,000 surface acres of water. The primary purpose of the lake is to supply water to Abilene and smaller surrounding cities. No efforts were made to provide recreational facilities. Construction was completed in the fall of 1962 and 2,000 surface acres of water were impounded that year. Soils on the watershed are primarily of clay-loam with underlying limestone. Shoreline vegetation is limited. Mesquite is the predominant tree while the shore- line supports bermuda grass, sunflowers and various range grasses and weeds. Proctor Lake Proctor Lake is located in the Brazos River Basin in Comanche County, 9 miles northeast of Comanche on the Leon River, a tributary to the Brazos River. ‘The dam was built by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and water conservation. Work on the dam was completed in the spring of 1963. Due to heavy rains on the watershed the lake was filled immediately. --- Page 4 --- -2- Lake Proctor has 4,600 surface acres of water which is supplied by Rush Creek, Sabanna River, and Leon River. Soils on the watershed are primarily sand with underlying clay. Peanuts and watermelons are the principle crops grown on the immediate watershed. The shoreline has a variety of trees, but consists mostly of large pecan trees interspersed with post oak. Bermuda is the predominant grass. Launching ramps, camp sites, picnic areas and paved roads, built by the Corps of Engineers make the lake very attractive and extremely accessible to the public. Stocking of Lakes After eradication was completed on Hubbard Creek Reservoir, heavy rains inundated 2,000 acres of fertile pasture land. The lake was stocked with 150,000 channel cat- fish, 37,000 blue catfish and 10,000 bass fingerlings. This stocking took place the last week of August. Subsequent stockings of both Proctor and Hubbard Creek Lakes are tabulated in Table 1. Table 1 Stocking of Hubbard Creek Lake & Proctor Lake Hubbard Creek Lake Largemouth Channel Catfish Flathead Crappie Date Bass Catfish Blue Catfish _ White 8-62 10,000 2,000 ; 9-62 5,000 103,050 12,000 10-62 19,000 10,700 24,000 2,000 4-63 350,000 | 1,096 Totals 384 , 000 115,750 36,000 2,000 1,096 Proctor Lake Date Largemouth Channel ‘Catfish Flathead Crappie Bass Catfish Blue Catfish White 6-63 167,700 8-63 76,980 10-63 5,050 Totals 167,700 76,980 5,050 --- Page 5 --- -3- Gill nets were used to sample fish populations and were set at stations established during the initial (F-4-R-i1) segment of this job. The nets were 150 feet long and 6 feet deep with square mesh graduated from 1 inch to 3% inches, changing every 25 feet. Nets were set in the afternoon and raised the following morning. Netting trips were distributed more or less randomly over the segment periods. The yearly net footages for each lake are shown in Table 2, Table 2 Yearly Net Footages Hubbard Creek ~~ ~‘Lake— Segment hake Proctor 63-64 8,550 feet 6,350 feet 64-65 6,450 feet 6,000 feet 65-66 1,200 feet _1,200 feet Totals 22,200 feet 21,550 feet Scientific names of fish mentioned in this report are shown in a checklist (fable 3). ‘The checklist also categorizes the various species included in the terms "rough fish", “game fish" and "miscellaneous sunfish" as used in this report. Table 3 Checklist of Fishes Mentioned in This Report re se ca mL Rl SR da a RR IR RI ROE RN EP NON EARS ES A NE A, IEE REM Rough Fish Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio Carp Cyprinus carpio Black bullhead Ictalurus m Yellow bullhead Ictalurus natal! Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens --- Page 6 --- -4- Table 3 (continued) Checklist of Fishes Mentioned in This Report meee rn ee Game Fish Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides White crappie Pomoxis annularis Miscellaneous Sunfish Warmouth Chaenobryttus gulosus Green sunfish Lepomis cynellus Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis ee It should be noted that water analyses were made on each lake at an established station during the segments. Tests were made to determine dissolved oxygen, carbon dioxide, pH, and alkalinity. The results of these tests showed both lakes to be similar in water quality. Data: The netting data for segment 3, 1965-66, are shown in Tables 4 and 5. Netting data from previous segments can be found in the Job B-31 completion report F-4=R-12. Table 6 consists of the tabulated netting data for all three years in regards to per cent of number and per cent of weight. These are also graphically illustrated (Table 7). Table 6 Per Cent of Number and Weight Hubbard Creek Lake Per Cent of Number Per Cent of Weight 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 Rough Species 40.65 61.85 45.15 55.36 65.39 62.84 Game Species 35.51 32.20 34.41 41.95 34.06 35.21 Miscellaneous Species 23.84 5.95 20.44 2.69 0.55 1.95 --- Page 7 --- own NO AN | ee ee MAONNY nmaroOowd NDNODN A ee 8 HH NN AN z oy Lae (sa) + ee «@ ° COHMNN NON AWINA © wmonr ° BSEASAY was 06°¢ 08° ¥-O1 0 S6°? ole A OT*4-00°C 0 00° %-LS 0v°€-06 07° €-02 02° 2-04 OL°%-SZ TS°O-€7 9L°0-%99 asuey ud a . . T 1 vA Z T 0 0 ETS val $9 cyl O9£ L£LT 856 Tele MLE S22T 10€ 821 208 70L OVET (aa OLET evil austen “ay BE STI-82 S9 ev 09€ LLOI-0€ T8ET-SST 6502-094 6EC-79 8SZT-1S8 cEET-94 0 8EC-8S 8762-ST1 6SS1-06T 60€%-0%T OVE-OF Y27H- VBE 9OTI-1S8 osuey 3Y48Toy 001 401 Oct 991 ZEZ yLT OTE 187 Ole T6€ or N 9497 782 ZOE SEE 8ST 6£9 21S wu yq3use] “AY 65°07 tH0 ~00T /qz 10°0 OS I-76 6€°0 0 0 O€T 10°0 991 /z 10°0 Sz°L Zee T0°O OZE-00T Tel OZ4-S8T IT’€ 069-047 76°0 S8¥-S9T LET SYY-OSE €S°0 26°21 C8E-E2T ZT°O ) ) 0ZZ-071 £0°0 OIS-097 6L°Y 06€-S6T 79°0 SO%-09T S6°7 047-821 os° 0v6-SS¥ SL°T O€S~S0S O1°0 ww JON esury “ad O01 y33ue'] aeq *sqt LL°6T | | So —t aN nO ° . 8 ooonMno Ne oo 08°9 Am~vnn~ te mawortmMo On DAMA Ten “34 O0T eg °ON 00°00T wn fon) ° et No on oo ano eo. ee ooono T2°Se s0°O Se°9 IT°ST 97°F 69°9 SS°? 48°79 oo o€°o 82° Ce ST°E £0° 472 97°? 67°8 0s°0 “TUTE jo quag 39g £e°18yT 8L° 8S 9T°0 LT°82 0 10 Te°o 9° T2s 62°0 90°46 L8°€C? 80°99 50°66 BL°LE 6°06 0c'6 0 coy 98° VE €S° 9% 86°SSE €S°9€ S9O°Sel cord TYSTSM "sq [eIOL 00°00T 97°07 St*O ST°0? 0 £0°O £0°0O TH° Ee £0°0 S8°oT o7°L £9°0 £7°8 86°0 ST°S# elt o9°ET oer o7°8 60°91 6S°@ 12°0 aequny jo queg aeg VenT de Oo N | eH OMNMN uey3 sseqy /] yez0L TeIOL qns ystjuns ieasu07 ystjuns 1TT8enytg ysjyjuns avepsy ystjyuns usei9 yqnomies Ysfsung snosue] Tacs tn 064 T O02 901 6 OZT val vas oT 61 Of OeT 622 Le aequay TeI0L TeIOL qng etddezs yoeqg atddezs aqTyy sseq yQnomasie7] YsTyJ3eo prey.eTs Yystyieo Tauuey YSTFIEO ent” Setoeds suey) TeIOL qng uUnip te emMysery PesuT ING MOT TIA pesyy Ing A,oeT” dae9 aeyonsdigg 1sATy oyTesygnq You, Tews peys paezzy) 288 asousu0y 188 peqjods Setoods ysnoy Sapoeds (€1T-U-y-1) 9961-S96T BUTIIEN Yoorpn paeqqny *y eTqeL --- Page 8 --- oO © r ~AmMomea a” 00°9-c0"E eH? 7-0S°2% OS *y-S5°7 rN Wet ° | HWM oO Oo WNW H ° et Ht NN © fon) e ia] 1 wy ey co mM OF ° adeot st O | ce"? 82° E-ce 1 Sz°z Z7*°t-S0°Z cO°z oS Z-97'T 1v°Z O°E-ST°Z Z8°Z et €-ST'°I 96°% BYES HZ yE°1 9E°E-E4°T ) 0 69°0 Z8°0~64"°0 DeEaAy esuey wa wis LY 89 ZOT LEZ S8L TE6E yOL Vor L0é 46 eLe SSS STL 8S S621 AUZTOM “Ay 06-0€ OLT-O0% 077-87 089-82 Z90E-S9 €8L9-8602 T6L4-07 8SLT-87 97Z-O0€T T¥E-09 S99¢-S¢ 496-S77 YI8I-24% O08-HE 0 O¥27-012 agury IyZTOM £0T SZI SET TéT tz 1S€ 80€ €82 $0Z 6ST Zee $92 682 9ET €¢s wu ya3uaq “Ay 0 S71-06 0 €8l-O1T OLT-SOT OZE-OOT 09%-0ST OLS~S8Y 009-O0¥VT OZ4-S7T €¢e-E81 €7e-6¥T O08¥-O€T OVE-OLT 0047-092 O9T~STT 0 089-O1€ wu eguey yzsuey 09° 2 Oo N °. | oN “ oo N oe . ooo0o°o fsa) ri . at rt “4 aeg . ooonnwornr Mt OMN OW 7 ooorwrnoonm “ N ° JEN I OOT *sqT 8I°le N a | oa N ooono Or or ° VE°9T NADMNATODM NAN OOH co Oo e 9 » # 6 © © OONnNnoOoNnNHRF OW TON "3d OOT aeg “on 00°O0OT 8H Ty 86°9T OL*?T 97° T ve"OT ey is TS*4T €2°0 76°0 62°9 29° LE 69°S Te*T 96°0 Tq FSH yo qued tag I8°TLAT Se°6T 0 66° VEL £8°00Z S6° 722 £6°SZ OZ°E8T LS"LTO1 %0 Loz Oly €Z°91 SS*IIt 62° 684 98°00T BE°1Z 0 ZI°LT TYSTSN "sq TeIOL (€1-a-H-4) 9961-S96T BUTIIEN ByRT I0RI0Ig 00°00T S72z oT! HLT 0 0 EL O9T 0 0 9€°0 8 Lt°0 9 TRIOL TeIOL qns ysfguns Araszuo0T ystyuns [TTsen{g ystjuns avapey ystyuns usei9 yynowzemM YsTyuns snosuel [sosth 06°LE 1¢8 L°9Z 009 6L°S O€T yT*O ¢ GZ°S Sit HE HS Oze1 90°91 09€ 07°00 . 6 Ly°€ BZ 90°9 9eT C8°LT 007 S8°e 99 geek L£91 0 0 97°C 9 “Taquny aTequnny jo quag tag [BI0], TeIoL qng etddez> aatyM sseq Yynowesieq Yystyieo preyweyTs ystyjeo Teuwuey) Sepoods owes T#30L qns wnip AsaJeMyserg PRSUTING MOTTEA PRs4TINg 4oRTE daeg aeyonsdies rAsaTy opTesgng YWNow] {Pug peus paezzty 2e8 ssousu07 223 paqqzodg So}foedg ysnog Sayoeds °S PTL --- Page 9 --- Per Cent of Number Figure j — Hubbard Creek Lake coe i * i] ~~ : | NN. | 3 : 9 Cateteteceleceras Oo 3 330 & ge nee 3 fe aN 5 | DN Ns & NS MMMOoOo Hoes . 2 EO sr }'WYOOY: He va LEWIS; Sa aE a a eovoesceree peeeeressereversseeeeeesereorrene Geoccoecroercerseesevoorevoscocsed § === == = = =—=§--_s we veeevrerecverorerrrrererorseresvcoses ves) COO OOOO Os COCHHOC OEE L OH EHO HOOT HORE DEEF DO. 'OCTHOTO ORO OHOT ESD OSH ES ER OEE Sovcccesseseoesossooseet tH PO Bee e ore eseescoseereseres pee eee OE OOHHDEOOCOOEOLe eo i OR pe Ceeeseesenezercesosevece 229800099960 PCHHHOTHECHREHOSLEOO LEED HOSE ECHOLS PCCHOCTE COO RHO H EEE EE EO SHEE ELECR "COCOCHHOHHROHE RTO LOOSE SAO HE HH SOFHES COCCHO RETO HEALER O DEDEDE T OF OD SOHOCKRO OHO EAEEBEEESETETABEOOeLAD Te TN TCSSETECH CHOSE KT CE DEE T EOE: SCORHTAESEHOTCHEETOFOSSEOOEDD Soeesoeeoeseseeorveseoss: GL « I) Z. ; LJ Z i AA L2G SHKSCHTO HOHE CHO OORERE EDEL EEO EDEHOED VOCCORE CEE OO FOE RE LEH O DOSE EC EDEL OOS DeCOCHE SOLED OLE BEDE DED EOD ELD ODE ELE8 COTTHSE HET OORO CHOC OSS ERD ER BAEae 60O0 FSO CORREO DOCOEOODO004 CHOCHHODE OEE OO FLEODOSOOGE GOCCOHDOOLOROEOSHHOD ODODE 60%.- 0 0 0 ad (o) ie) --- Page 10 --- -8- Table 6 (continued) ene Proctor Lake Per Cent of Number Per Cent of Weight 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 1963-64 1964-65 1965-66 Rough Species 40.71 51.08 54.34 41.87 45.46 57.43 Game Species 54.97 42.73 37.90 57.15 53.64 41.48 Miscellaneous Species 4,32 6.19 7.76 0.98 0.90 1.09 rn ee Discussion: To better understand the data and draw some conclusions several indices must be chosen. Several interesting facts can be seen by comparing such factors as per cent of numbers and per cent of weight (Table: 6 and Figure 1). The graph comparing per cent of numbers for both lakes shows several things: 1. Although Hubbard Creek Lake received pre-impoundment rotenone treatment, the total per cent of "rough species" in this lake for the first year was almost equal to the "rough species percentage" of Proctor Lake which was not treated before stocking. 2. The per cent of "game species" in Proctor Lake was greater than the percentage in Hubbard Lake during the first year. However, it must be noted that the per cent of "miscellaneous spgcies" for the first segment were greater in the treated lake, Hubbard. — Numbers 1 and 2 seem to indicate that the pre-impoundment rotenone treatment had little or no influence on the fish populations in Hubbard Creek. ana aaREERS nee nnn ne 1/ If a rough fish - game fish comparison is used to determine effectiveness of pre-impoundment rotenone treatments, the role of the "miscellaneous species" cannot be overlooked. It must be realized that there is a possibility that the "miscellaneous fish” may occupy part of the habitat of either the game or the rough population. Since the'miscellaneous species" could influence either population, it is assumed that their affect will not greatly bias this study. --- Page 11 --- aOis 3, The data for the second year are perhaps the best indicators of the effective- ness of pre-impoundment treatment. The "miscellaneous species" percentage is almost equal for both Proctor and Hubbard and this allows a straight game fish-rough fish comparison to be made. The rough species were considerably more abundant in Hubbard and the percentage of game species was greater in Proctor which was not treated. These facts indicate that pre~impoundment treatment was not effective in Hubbard Lake. 4. Data from the third segment also showed that Proctor had a more favorable "same species" composition. From the graph of per cent of weight, the same general trend can be seen throughout all three segments of this study. Hubbard Creek Lake revealed a greater rough fish percentage for the three segments while Proctor Lake showed a greater game fish percentage. This trend should have been reversed had pre-impoundment rotenone treatments been effective. A check of the netting success (number per 100 feet of net) shows that while Hubbard Creek Lake had more nets run on it, the catch success (53.35 fish per 100 feet of net) was lower than it was on Proctor (81.94 fish per 100 feet of net). This balancing effect would tend to offset any bias due to heavier netting on one lake. Conclusion: From the data gathered and the all over picture of this study it is evident that pre-impoundment rotenone treatments did not have any beneficial effects on Hubbard Creek Lake. In fact, Proctor Lake seemed to have a better over all picture than Hubbard did. An honest effort was made to eliminate all bias from this study and in view of this fact it can be concluded that there is no benefit or advantage to pre-impoundment rotenone treatments. a inal Project Leader Coordinator Prepared by: Charles T. Menn Approved by: £0 -_ Date:______ December 15,_ 1967 FRED _G. LOWMAN Inland Fisheries Supervisor