TPWD 1967 F-5-R-14 #1126: Region 1-B Fisheries Studies: Population Control Recommendations, Segment Completion Report, Project F-5-R-14

--- Page 1 --- SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-5-R-14 REGION 1-B FISHERIES STUDIES Job No. 4 Population Control Recommendations Project Leader: Billy J. Follis J. R. Singleton Executive Director Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D-J Coordinator Director, Wildlife Services April 5, 1967 --- Page 2 --- ABSTRACT During this segment, 12 surveys were made on three lakes and three rivers in Region 1-B, including Moss Creek Lake, Valley Creek Lake, Elm Creek Lake, Main Concho River, San Saba River, and South Concho River. The criteria for considering treatment procedures were that rough fish per- centages exceed 80 per cent by either weight or number. Waters not currently meeting the criteria outlined were Moss Creek Lake, Valley Creek Lake and South Concho River. However, a selective treatment for gizzard shad was recommended for Moss Creek Lake to increase the extremely low harvest of the abundant game species in the reservoir. Rough fish exceeded the criteria, which would indicate the possible need for population control, in Elm Creek Lake, Main Concho River and San Saba River. How- ever, other factors and conflicting interests do not warrant such controls in these waters. --- Page 3 --- SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F-5-R-14 Name: Region 1-B Fisheries Studies Job No. 4 Title: Population Control Recommendations Period Covered: March 1, 1966 to February 28, 1967 Objectives: To determine those waters which would benefit from population control. Procedures: The survey schedule set forth in the job description for this segment was followed as closely as possible. There were minor deviations in the number of gill nets set and number of seining drags made due to water level fluctuation. A list of waters worked is given in Table 1. When more than one trip was needed, the sur- vey results were combined for that lake or stream. Surveys were not conducted on Spring and Dove Creeks because only the lower portions of these streams can be considered public waters. These portions are now, in essence, part of the Twin Buttes Reservoir which was surveyed under Job 5 of this segment. Netting was done with standard 150-foot gill nets with mesh sizes varying from 1 to 345 inches. Dimensions of the seines used are described along with their catches in the findings. All fish captured in nets were counted, weighed, and measured. A sample number of fish were examined to determine sexual development and condition ("K" factor). Fish taken in seines were counted and a length range was determined. A few speci- mens of each species were preserved in 10 per cent formalin solution and confirmed identifications were made in the laboratory. Water conditions, such as temperature, turbidity and hydrological data were recorded. This information will be reported only when pertinent to the findings. The statistics for each lake or stream were examined to determine which waters could be considered for partial or complete renovation under job description criteria. These criteria are that the rough or undesirable fish percentages surpass 80 per cent by either weight or number and that water levels permit economical chemical treat- ment. However, in some cases, conflicting interest and other factors do not warrant such controls. Table 1 Waters Surveyed in 1966 Name County Number of Visits Moss Creek Lake Howard 2 Valley Creek Lake Runnels 2 Elm Creek Lake Runnels 2 Main Concho River Concho - Tom Green 3 South Concho River Tom Green 1 San Saba River Menard - Schleicher 2 --- Page 4 --- A checklist of scientific names is presented so that common names may be used in this report. These names are specified in "A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada", Second Edition, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication Number 2, 1960. Longnose gar Gizzard shad Carp Plains minnow Golden shiner Emerald shiner Red shiner Sand shiner Blacktail shiner Bullhead minnow River carpsucker Smallmouth buffalo Gray redhorse Black bullhead Yellow bullhead Channel catfish Flathead catfish Mosquitofish White bass Warmouth Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Spotted bass Largemouth bass White crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Findings: Moss Creek Lake Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Hybognathus placita Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis atherinoides Notropis lutrensis Notropis stramineus Notropis venustus Pimephales vigilax Carpiodes carpio Ictiobus bubalus Moxostoma congestum Ictalurus melas Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Gambusia affinis Roccus chrysops Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis humilis Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis megalotis Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Located in Howard County, 9 miles East of Big Springs, is a 145-acre lake originally built for municipal water supply. This reservoir is now used for recreational purposes managed by the city of Big Springs. The Colorado River Municipal Water District has control of the water rights and sells limited amounts of water to oil companies for pumping operations. This years' survey shows game fish are abundant and have a good "K" (condi- tion) factor (Table 2). Largemouth bass fingerling and other small Centrarchid were very abundant. Food competition amoung these small fishes may become critical. The main problem, however, is the large number of gizzard shad, (40 per cent of fish netted). This species has steadily increased in number since the selective --- Page 5 --- Table 2 Survey Results of Moss Creek Lake July 14 and October 6, 1966 Results of 8 gill nets re —rerce Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. "Ke" Gizzard shad 65 40.38 13.83 «21 7.71 1.32 Carp 17 10.56 60.49 3.55 33.75 3.00 Golden shiner 1 62 .14 14 - 08 2432 River carpsucker 2 1.24 4.50 2.25 2.51 3.17 Black bullhead 11 6.83 1.83 . 16 1.02 1.84 Channel catfish * 25 15.53 45.84 1.83 25.57 1.84 Flathead catfish * 2 1.24 18.42 9.21 10.28 2.15 White bass a 13 8.08 25.72 1.97 14.36 2.92 Bluegill % 9 5.59 .59 . 06 33 2.91 Longear sunfish * 1 62 07 .07 04 3.20 Redear sunfish # 4 2.48 38 09 el 2.90 Largemouth bass * 5 3.11 6.86 1.37 3.83 2.30 White crappie * 6 3.72 «D7 .09 231 1.97 Totals 161 100.00 179.24 100.00 Game Fish * 65 40.37 98.45 54.93 Rough Fish 96 59.63 80.79 45.07 Seining results (2 drags with a 100' by 8! by %-inch mesh seine and 16 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) Species Na ssSsSsSsSsSss Species Number Size Range in Inches Gizzard shad 217 4-7 Plains minnow 1 2% Golden shiner 20 24-5 Red shiner 35 1-2 Bullhead minnow 3 1-2 Black bullhead 5 4s Channel catfish 1 6 Mosquitofish 27 1-23 Warmouth sunfish 4 25-4 Green sunfish 1 2 Orangespotted sunfish 24 2-3 Bluegill 138 1-4% Longear sunfish 58 2-44 Redear sunfish 66 2-4 Largemouth bass 109 15-9 2-6 5-5 White crappie 63 = Logperch 15 23- Total 787 --- Page 6 --- treatment of the lake in 1958 (Job 16-a-14, Project F-14-D-3). Fishing success, which was excellent after the shad eradication, has also decreased. The "Evaluation of Impoundment Renovation" study, Job 8, Project F-5-R-13, revealed that the catch per man-hour was less than one-half fish per person per hour in 1965. From this job, it was recommended that Moss Creek Lake receive a selective kill of gizzard shad. This was not accomplished due to per~ sonnel changes. Conclusions and Recommendations: Controlling agencies have been consulted and plans are being made for a selective shad control on Moss Creek in the Fall of 1967. The rainfall and re- sulting water influx will be the deciding factor. A job description will be submitted under the Statewide Rough Fish Control Project for this lake when plans can be finialized. Valley Creek Lake This 210-acre lake is the water supply for the city of Ballinger in Runnels County. Only a small portion is restricted by the city and the remainder is used for recreation. This reservoir was visited on March 9 and again on September 27, 1966. It was almost full on both occasions. Seven nets were set and 16 seining drags were made (Table 3). The netting results are very similar to those of last years survey. Gizzard shad accounted for 56 per cent of fish netted which is an in- crease of about 6 per cent over last year. River carpsucker dominated the weight percentage with 28 per cent. Game fish (mainly channel catfish, largemouth bass and white crappie) were present in fair numbers accounting for almost 27 per cent by number and 32 per cent by weight of fish netted. Seining produced an abundance of small forage fish, the majority of which was gizzard shad. Conclusions and Recommandations: This lake does not currently qualify for a chemical treatment; however, sev- eral factors warrant periodic sampling. The Soil Conservation Services is presently in the process of constructing 21 retention dams on the Valley Creek watershed above this reservoir. It is believed that these floodwater retarding structures will have considerable influence on the present fish population of Valley Creek Lake. The water level stabilization and the decreasing turbidity may prove to be more beneficial to the problematic species than to the game fish, although this remains to be seen. Elm Creek Lake This 25-acre lake was created several years ago when the city of Ballinger, Runnels County, built a small dam on Elm Creek for municipal water supply. Now it is used only for recreation am limited irrigation. The city owns public access from the dam to the first low water crossing, a distance of about one mile. Above this crossing the shoreline is privately controlled, but the public can fish by boat. --- Page 7 --- Table 3 Survey Results of Valley Creek Lake March 9 and September 27, 1966 Results of 7 Gill Nets Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. mM Longnose gar 2 .72 5.18 2.59 3.74 44 Gizzard shad 158 56.62 20.71 .13 14.98 1.66 Carp 3 1.08 23.66 7.89 17.10 2.76 River carpsucker 30 10.75 39.12 1.30 28.28 2.56 Channel catfish * 13 4.66 19.98 1.54 14.44 1.75 Flathead catfish * 1 36 .21 .21 16 1.56 Warmouth * 1 .36 . 09 . 09 . 06 3.08 Bluegill * 9 3.22 .65 .07 47 3.35 Longear sunfish * 2 72 12 . 06 . 09 2.98 Largemouth bass * 6 2.16 10.09 1.68 7.29 2.98 White crappie * 43 15.41 13.48 231 9.74 2.79 Freshwater drum 11 3.94 5.05 46 3.65 2.18 Totals 279 100.00 138.34 100.00 Game Fish * 75 26.89 44.62 32.25 Rough Fish 204 73011 93.72 67.75 Seining results (4 drags with a 100' by 8' by %-inch mesh seine and 12 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) Species Number Size Range in Inches Gizzard shad 711 3-7 Red shiner 1 1% Blacktail shiner 2 2-3 Bullhead minnow 34 1%-2 River carpsucker 2 12-14 Mosquitofish 125 1-2 Warmouth 2 4-5 Orangespotted sunfish 1 4 Bluegill 132 5-4 Longear sunfish 5 3-5 Largemouth bass 6 4-7 White crappie 9 3-5 Total 1030 --- Page 8 --- Five nets were set during the two visits made. Only eight seining drags could be made due to shoreline obstructions. Rough fish, primarily longnose gar, gizzard shad, and river carpsucker, dominated the netting results with 75 per cent by number and 94 per cent by weight (Table 4). White crappie was the major game fish collected but had an average weight of only 0.17 of a pound. Seining pro- duced only six species with mosquitofish being the most prominant. Conclusions and Recommendations: Renovation procedures are not justifiable at this time. Preliminary plans are being made by the cities of Winters and Ballinger to construct a larger re- servoir on Elm Creek to provide their public water needs. If these plans materia- lize, it may be feasible to chemically treat, not only Elm Creek Lake, but the major bodies of this watershed. This would include New Winters Lake, the new proposed reservoir, Elm Creek Lake and the segments of Elm Creek between these impoundments. This lake should be carried under this job for the next segment in order to have current data available if a watershed treatment becomes appropriate. Main Concho River The main Concho River travels some 56 miles from its origin in San Angelo, through Tom Green and Concho Counties, to its confluence with the Colorado River. In this distance, it is retarded by about 19 small dams. These structures vary from 4 to 12 feet in height and back water up the river bed from % to one mile. These small impoundments supply water for irrigation. Due to this with- drawal and the three large reservoirs which collect all the run-off from the upper watershed, the Main Concho River flows only during periods of heavy rainfall on the immediate watershed. Three collection trips were made to the Main Concho River at different loca- tions. Thirty six seining drags and 9 gill net sets were made. The netting results (Table 5) show that rough fish accounted for 90 per cent by number and 96 per cent by weight of the sample. Longnose gar alone comprised almost 30 per cent of both weight and number. Conclusions and Recommendations: The competition for food and space and the drastic water level fluctuation appears to be too great for game fish production. Although the criteria for re- novation is exceeded, a chemical treatment of the Main Concho River cannot be justified. The immediate reinfestation of rough fish and very limited public fishing access prohibits this type of management. San Saba River The San Saba River rises in eastern Schleicher County where several inter- mittent spring-fed streams run together. It then continues about 46 miles through Menard County before leaving Region 1-B. In the upper portions it is generally clear and supports a moderate to heavy growth of aquatic vegetation. There is con- siderable withdrawal for irrigation during the spring and summer which usually terminates the flow except during local rains. --- Page 9 --- Table 4 Survey Results of Elm Creek Lake March 9 and September 27, 1966 Results of 5 Gill Nets Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. "RM Longnose gar 27 10.97 77.05 2.85 32.07 -40 Gizzard shad 116 47.16 63.72 255 26.53 1.96 Carp 2 . 82 6.24 3.12 2.60 2.36 River carpsucker 20 8.13 42.69 213 17.77 2.64 Smallmouth buffalo 7 2.84 27.35 3.91 11.40 3438 Black bullhead 6 2.44 3.43 .57 1.43 2.64 Channel catfish * 3 Le22 4.14 1.38 1.72 1.93 Bluegill # 1 241 . 08 . 08 03 3.71 White crappie * 56 22.76 9.90 .17 4.12 3.15 Freshwater drum 8 3.25 5.60 .70 2.33 2.55 Totals 246 100.00 240.20. 100.00... © Game Fish * 60 24.39 14.12 5.87 Rough Fish 186 75.61 226.08 94.13 Seining results (8 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) Species Number Size Range in Inches Longnose gar 2 LO-L2 Gizzard shad 9 6-8 Emerald shiner 3 2-2% Bullhead minnow Al 14-245 Mosquitofish 203 1-2% Bluegill 81 b-4 Total 339 --- Page 10 --- Table 5 Survey Results of Main Concho River August 26, October 13 and December 15, 1966 Results of 9 Gill Nets Per Cent Total Wt. Ave. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. 7 Longnose gar 136 29.89 228.70 1.68 28.62 237 Gizzard shad 79 17.36 70.64 . 89 8.84 2.00 Carp 5 1.10 18.85 3.77 2.36 2.56 River carpsucker 155 34.07 313.86 2.02 39.28 2.57 Smallmouth buffalo 28 6.16 135.55 4.84 16.96 3.15 Gray redhorse 1 .22 2.43 2.43 231 2.21 Channel catfish * 6 1.31 15.25 2.54 1.91 1.77 Flathead catfish * 1 i22 5.18 5.18 . 64 1.60 Warmouth * 2 44 .20 10 03 3.64 Green sunfish * 1 222 32 32 04 3.89 Bluegill * 19 4.18 2.33 12 29 4.13 Longear sunfish * 2 44 31 15 04 4.16 Largemouth bass * 1 422 «27 o2/7 .03 2.37 White crappie * 13 2.86 3.10 24 .39 2.87 Freshwater drum : 6 1.31 2.11 235 .26 2.22 Totals 455 100.00 799.10 100.00 Game Fish * 45 9.89 26.96 3637 Rough Fish 410 90.11 772.14 96.63 Seining results (12 drags with a 30' by 6' by %-inch mesh seine and 24 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) Species Number _ Size Range in Inches Gizzard shad 41 15-6 Carp 5 10-14 Plains minnow 3 1-2 Red shiner 1541 1-2 Blacktail shiner 2 1-2 Bullhead minnow 272 15-2 River ‘carpsucker 1 6 Mosquitofish 43 1-2 Warmouth 1 3 Green sunfish iS 25-5 Orangespotted sunfish 44 14-34% Bluegill 188 14-4 Longear sunfish 7 2-4 Largemouth bass 7 25-6 White crappie __ 2 3-6 Total 2172 --- Page 11 --- A total of 20 species were taken from the San Saba River during the two collection trips. Rough fish dominated the netting collection with 89 per cent by number and 96 per cent by weight. White crappie and channel catfish were the most prominent desirable species taken in gill nets. The seining collection (Table 6) produced numerous forage species. Also, 36 small largemouth bass and 17 spotted bass were taken with seines. Conclusions and Recommendations: Although the game fish population in the San Saba River is limited, fishing success is equal to or better than other rivers in Region 1-B. Due to the desirable habitat for game fish and the abundance of small forage species present, some effort should be made to resolve a suitable management practice for this potentially pro- ductive water. South Concho River The South Concho River originates in South Tom Green County at Anson Springs. These are fairly stable springs with a discharge of about 8 c.f.s. to 12 c.f.s. throughout most of the year. This clear stream continues for approximately 4 miles until it is retarded by Christoval Dam located in the county park at Christoval. This small impoundment is used for public recreation and irrigation. From this point the South Concho flows about 10 miles until it reaches Twin Buttes Reservoir. Several small dams are located in this segment of the river which pro- vides water for the increasing irrigation withdrawals. Table 6 Survey Results of San Saba River August 24 and September 20, 1966 Results of 7 gill nets Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number __ by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. bal ay Longnose gar 29 9.86 67.62 2.33 15.95 .40 Gizzard shad 121 41.16 58.86 48 13.88 1.72 Carp 6 2.04 31.31 5.22 7009 2.36 River carpsucker 62 21.08 95.81 1.54 22.60 2042 Smallmouth buffalo 29 9.87 127.56 4.40 30.10 3.10 Gray redhorse 8 2.72 10.99 1.37 2.59 2.05 Channel catfish * 4 1.36 8.56 2.14 2.02 1.99 Bluegill * 3 1.02 28 08 . 06 3.51 Redear sunfish * 1 »34 .1l wll 02 3.29 White crappie * 25 8.50 9.13 36 2.17 2.97 Freshwater drum 6 2.05 13.68 2.28 3.22 2 whe Totals 294 100.00 423.87 100.00 Game Fish * 33 11.22 18.04 4.27 Rough Fish 261 88.78 405.83 95.73 --- Page 12 --- -10- Table 6 Continued Seining Results (4 drags with a 100' by 8' by %-inch mesh seine, 10 drags with a 30' by 6' by %-inch mesh seine and 14 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) Species Number Size Range in Inches Longnose gar 1 18 Gizzard shad 116 14-8 Sand shiner 316 14-24% Blacktail shiner 4319 1-3 Channel catfish 1 4 Mosquitofish 232 1-24 Redbreast sunfish 7 2-4 Green sunfish 2 3-5 Bluegill 157 1-5 Longear sunfish 14 2-4 Redear sunfish it 3% Spotted bass 17 1-6 Largemouth bass 36 3-6 White crappie 8 2-4 Logperch 2 3-3% 5229 Total Only one survey was made on the South Concho because the lower portion is connected with Twin Buttes Reservoir. Game fish had a slight edge in the per cent number of fish netted in this relatively small sample (Table 7). However, the majority of game fish taken were sunfish of unutilizable size. Carp dominated the weight of the netting sample with almost 58 per cent. The seining collection was also small with only 270 fish taken in 16 drags. Table 7 Survey Results of South Concho River September 22, 1966 Results of three gill nets Per Cent Total Wt. Avg. Wt. Per Cent Average Species Number by No. Pounds Pounds by Wt. "RN Gizzard shad 1 1.96 «15 215 33 Carp 4 7.84 26.00 6.50 57.83 Yellow bullhead 17 33.33 7.25 43 16.12 Channel catfish * 1 1.96 1.25 1.25 2.78 1.71 Bluegill * 18 35.30 1.90 sil 4.23 3.86 Longear sunfish * 2 3.92 17 . 09 38 3.90 Redear sunfish * 2 3.92 47 24 1.04 3.48 Largemouth bass * 5 9.81 6.65 1.33 14.79 2.50 White crappie * 1 1.96 1.12 1.12 2.50 3.60 Totals 51 100.00 44.96 100.00 Game Fish * 29 56.87 11.56 25.72 Rough Fish 22 43.13 33.40 74.28 --- Page 13 --- -ll- Table 7 Continued Seining results (16 drags with a 20' by 6' by 1/8-inch mesh seine) a Species Number Size Range in Inches Mosquitofish 157 14-24% Green sunfish 15 2%-5 Bluegill 39 1-45 Longear sunfish 13 15-4 Redear sunfish 28 24-4 Largemouth bass 18 3-8 Total 270 Tota, Conclusions and Recommendations: When and if Twin Buttes Reservoir reaches normal capacity, the majority of South Concho River will be included in the lake. The remainder of this river will then offer very little potential as a fishery with the increasing withdrawal for irrigation and the limited public access. It is recommended that this water be checked in conjunction with a survey of Twin Buttes Reservoir during the next segment. Prepared by: Billy J. Follis AA / AP COV A Project Leader Coordinator Date: April 5, 1967 Leo D. Lewis Inland Fisheries Supervisor