TPWD 1961 F-3-R-8 #687: Fisheries Reconnaissance: Angelina, Attoyac, and Neches Rivers, Texas, Job Completion Report, Project F-3-R-8, Job 3-18

Report of.Fisheries Investigations Fisheries Reconnaissance John N. Dorehsster Assistant Project Leader Dingall—JOhnaon Project F-3—R-8, Job 3-18 June 1, 1960 - January 31, 1961 H. D. Dodgen — Executive Secretary Taxas Game and Fish.Commission Austin, Texas Marion Tools Kenneth C. Jhrgens and William H. Brown Coordinator “Assistant Coordinators ABSTRACT A reconnaissance survey was conducted on the Angelina, Attoyac and Nachos Rivers in eastern Texas. Data included seining and netting collections as well as ecological data including water analysiso While no major overall changes were noted that could not be attributed to methods or procedure, there were several fish species collected which had not been previously collected from these waters. Conversely, there were many species collected before that were not collected during this survey. water quality was generally good though there was one area of pollution in evidence. Lack of good public access is the major prdblem on these waters. Some aquatic vegetation was present in certain areas but generally presents no prdblems. Job Completion Report State of . TEXAS Project No. F-3—R-8 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the waters of Region 5-B. Job No. B—18 - Title: Fisheries Reconnaissance Period covered: June 1: 1960 a January 312 1961. _OBJECTIVES To conduct limited investigations to obtain current information concerning gross changes in fishing conditions and factors influencing fish populations. INTRODUCTION This report covers the reconnaissance work conducted on two major river systems in the eastern part of Texas. The rivers are the Angelina system including the Attoyac Bayou and the Nachos River. The original basic survey conducted on the Angelina system was from March 1,1956 through February 28 1957. The Nachos River survey was conducted from June 1,1956 through November 30: 1957. The procedures are basically the same for both systems, however, the findings for each river are kept separate in this report. PROCEDURES Location of were and Methods Collection sites were established during the original basic surveys. .A total of 111 of these sites were revisited during this period. All previously estah1.ished stations were not visited due to various reasons. Broken down'by individna1 streams and methods there were 56 sites visited on the Angelina River excluding the Attoyac Bayou. These stations were seined with either a 26« by 6~foot bag seine wi th e %e1 inch mesh, or a 15- by h foot straight seine with a l/8winch woven mesh. Three sites which were previously designated as pollution stations were aiso rev visited on the Angelina drainage. There were 21 sites visited on the Attoyac Bayou drainage using the same seines as mentioned above. On the Nachos River there were 2h sites visited which were seined with the above equipment plus a 15— by h-foot bag seine with a 1/8—inch woven mesh which was received near the end of the jot. This type of seine appears to be very good for these types of waters. In addition, there were seven sites revisited which were netted with experimental type gill nets. The dimensions of these nets were 125 feet long, eight feet deep with mesh sizes of 1-, %—, 2-, 2%—, and 3-inches changing every 25 feet. All fish collected by seining were brought back to the laboratory for-identifi- cation. Limnological Data Limnological conditions noted were turbidity (Secchi disk), air and surface water temperatures and aquatic vegetation present. In addition, water samples were taken and analyzed in the laboratory for pH, methyl orange alkalinity and chlorides. FINDINGS Angelina River Table 1 lists each Species of fish collected from the Angelina River including the original survey and the reconnaissance survey. This table gives the common names, scientific names, the number of specimens collected on each survey and the number of times each species was collected. While there are no major basic changes in fish populations there were several species which appear to be more common in the river than before. Species such as Gambusia affinis increased in numbers from 257 to 731. In a survey of this type these figures are not significant but act only as an indicator as to which species of fish are present and only approximately how abundant. It is interesting to note that there were eight species of fish not previously collected from the Angelina River which were taken during this time. On the other hand there were 20 species collected previously which were not taken during the re- connaissance survey. There was a total of 59 species of fish collected during the basic survey and AS species collected during the reconnaissance survey. Combining the species from the first survey and the new species from the second survey there has been a total of 67 species of fish collected from the Angelina River excluding the Attoyac Drainage. 1 I; gives the locations of the collection stations revisited and Table 3 shows the ecological data as a matter of record. A few of these stations had changed in character due mostly to new'bridge construction or lake construction. The chemical and physical property of the water was generally about the same as before. Public Use. During the visits made to the collection sites on this reconnaissance survey there were no fishermen, either sports or commercial, observed. There are two commercial camps located on the river and one of them appeared to be abandoned at the time. Facilities such as host launching ramps would be a great asset as it is all but impossible to put a boat in at most of the roads crossing the lower section of the river. Pollution. There are two areas of either active or potential pollution on the Angelina River. The active pollution is the effluent of the Southland Paper Mill, near Lufkin. The temperature of this black water taken several miles from the plant outlet is 95 degrees F. compared to 73 degrees F. of a nearby parallel .13.. stream. With the coming of McGee Bend Dam and Reservoir on the Angelina River below the outfall, more pressure should be put on the paper mill to improve the quality of their effluent before it enters the river. The potential pollution is in the Striker Creek area where the chloride content of the water is much higher than other waters from the Angelina System. This is from the East Texas oil fields. Vegetation. There were only eight collections sites visited that had aquatic vegew tation other than black willow, Salix ni ra, which is fairly common. Sagittaria gpf was found on five occasions, sawgrass, Zizaniopsis miliacea, was found three times, parrot feather, Mygiophzllum gp., twice, yellow water lily, Nuphar‘gp., white water lily, Nygphaea gp,, and broad leaf pondweed, Potamogeton gp., once each. Attoyac Drainage This is spoken of as the Attoyac Drainage because most of the collection stations were located on the tributary streams. Table A lists the species of fish collected from the Attoyac Drainage in a similar manner as Table 1. During the reconnaissance survey there were five species collected which were not previously taken bringing the total numbers of species collected from this drainage up to 66. However, 36 of these species were not captured during this survey making a total of only 30 species taken. This can'be attributed to the fact that the original basic survey was much more intensive than the reconnaissance survey. The major changes noted were the failure to catch any black bullhead catfish, Ictalurus males, during the second survey. Also, black and white crappie, Pomoais nigromaculatus and P. annularis, which were common the first time were not found at this time. 'Other species were generally in about the some numbers or relative abun» dance as before. Table 5 gives the geographical locations and Table 6 gives the ecological data of the collection stations. The chemical properties of the water were surprisingly similar to the qualities determined during the first survey. Public Use. This stream is seldom used by fishermen and then they are usually colored people who fish with cane poles and worms or crawfish. Attoyac Bayou itself would possibly provide good fishing if it were easier to get to from public highways. Pollution. There was no indication of any pollution on this stream. Vegetation. Aquatic vegetation was found at three collection sites. The following vegetation was Observed in a borrow ditch at one location: liasardis tail, Saururus cernuus, sawgrass, Ziaaniopsis miliacea, white water lily, Nygphaea fig}, and musk grass, Chara gp. At another location the following were found: cattails, Tvbha latifolia, and coontail, Ceratophyllum demersum. At a third site yellow water lily, Nuphar gp., was observed. At several locations black willow, Salim nigra, was found. Vegetation presents no problem on this drainage. a... Neches River Table 7 lists each species of fish collected from the Neches River during both surveys. There were six species collected which were not collected previously bring» ing the total species collected from the Neches River up to 72. There were only AZ species collected during the reconnaissance survey. However, during the reconnais~ sance survey the river level was up considerably above the level during the original basic survey. Also, previously there were collections made in the salt water section of the river which were not made during this time. In addition, the original survey was made during the summer months while the reconnaissance survey was made during the fall. This latter factor influenced the failure to catch many species which were quite abundant before. There were several private lakes included in the basic survey which were not included at this time. Table 8 gives the geographical location of the sites revisited and Table 9 the ecological data. The chemical properties of the water were more “normal" for East Texas than before. The pH, alkalinity, and chlorides were lower and more uniform during this time. Public Use. The Neches River is more widely used by the fishing public than the Angelina and Attoyac. There are several commercial camps located at the major highway crossings as well as private camps situated along the river. However, during the time of reconnaissance survey, which was late fall, there was no fishing activity observed. Pollution. There was no active pollution observed at this time. However, the areas of pollution noted on the basic survey were not visited during the re— connaissance survey. Vegetation. There was no aquatic vegetation Observed other than black willow, Salim nigra, along the Neches River at this time. The water had backed up onto non-aquatic grasses and weeds which was not a normal situation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While a survey of this type prdbably does not indicate a true status of a fish population, especially in streams, it has provided a means of adding additional fish species to the previously compiled checklist. Also it provides an up-to-date indicam tor of the water quality over a comparatively short period of time. No recommendations are made for fish management other than to provide better access in the form of permanent boat launching facilities at the major highway crossings. This could possibly be a function of the State Highway Department using fees collected from host registration. Prepared by Jehn H. Dorchester Approved by. , r 527#L4P7L/.D/’é*zyfé:#~’ Assistant Project Leader Dirac or Inland Fisheries Division Date April l8z 1961 -5... Table 1. A checklist of Angelina River fish species. 1] Basic Survey Reconnaissance Common name a Scientific name (1956-57) .1960) .. a Times Numbers Times collected Spotted gar ' Lepisosteus productus 2 2 l l Longnose gar L, osseus 1A 2 . O Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense O l l Gizzard shad Q, cepedianum 260 15 155 8 Grass pickerel Esox americanus 12 10 A 3 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus 13 l 0 River carpsucker Carpiodes carpio O l 1 Gray redhorse Moxostoma copgestum 25 6 A 2 Blacktail redhorse M, poecilurum 5 5 O Spotted sucker .Minvtrema melanops 2 l 7 6 Lake chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta 6 2 2 2 Greek chubsucker E, oblongus l l 3 3 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas A7 13 123 13 Greek chub Semotilus atromaculatus 1 l O Pugnose minnow Opsopoeodus emiliae 30 A O Speckled chub Hybopsis aestivalis 38 3 10 6 Suckermouth minnow Phenocobius mirabilis O 6 3 Emerald shiner ” Notropis atherinoides 55 9 5 3 Texas shiner .: E, amabilis 1 1 O Ribbon shiner g. fumeus 629 30 101+ ll Brazos River shiner E, brasosensis l3 2 O Weed shiner . fl, texanus . 37 5 360 8 Chub shiner N, potteri 62 5 A0 5 Longnose shiner _ fl, sabinae 6 l O Pallid shiner _ N, amnis 193 10 O Spottail shiner ,fl. venustus . 265 27 A88 33 Redhorse shiner fl, lutrensis 9 5 3 2 _ Sand shiner g. stramineus 2140' _ 2A 155 1.6 Blackspot shiner .fl. atrocaudalis 379 13 O .Mimic shiner fl, volucellous 2A3 19 15A 23 Silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis l7 2 O Parrot minnow Pimephales vigilax 150 23 A20 28 Channel catfish 'Ictalurus punctatus lO 6 32 5 Black bullhead ;, males 0 ' 2 2 Yellow bullhead lg. natalis 2 l 2 2 Flathead catfish Pylodictus olivaris l l O Tadpole madtom ' Schilbeodes gyginus _ 1 l O Freckled madtom s, nocturnus 3 2 O Redspot topminnow Fundulus chrysotus 189 3 AA A Blackstripe topminnow '43. notatus . O 168 26 Blackspot topminnow E, olivaceus A09 _ A5 3 1 Common mosquitofish Gambusia affinis . 257 33 731 27 Pirate persh Aphredoderus sayanus l l 1 1 Brock silversides lebidesthes sicculus' .~: 75 15 18 3 Spotted bass Armpit-ems anathema. 90 31 31 13 r Table 1. (continued) Largemouth bass warmouth Green sunfish Spotted sunfish Redear sunfish Bluegill sunfish Orangespotted sunfish Yellowbelly sunfish Longear sunfish White crappie Black crappie Banded pigmy sunfish Blackside darter Dusky darter River darter Logperch Arkansas sand darter Western sand darter Bluntnose darter Slough darter Redspot darter Freshwater drum Total species M. salmoides Chaenobryttus gulcsus Lepomis cyanellus . punctatus . microlophus . acrochirus IpIL—Ilplelele Pomoxis annularis E, nigromaculatus Elassoma zonatus Hadropterus maculatus H, scierus H, shumardi Percina caprodes Ammocrypta vivax A. clara Etheostoma chlorosomum E, gracilie E, grahami Aplodinotus grunniens s4 NOHNQCDI—JLDO :- [—4 h) POW-QC“ HOWWHU} UJHKOWRJIUH-P' PO sns' HiCDUJC>CDUJCDCDVDhJCDFJU1n3kJC) F0 43:” ms‘mm HERBS-J 042‘ mm -~J[\) l—‘H W Table 2. Static number -7... Location of collection stations on the Angelina River. County Rusk Rusk Rusk Cherokee -Cherokee Cherokee Nacogdoches Angelina Angelina Angelina Nacogdoches Angelina Angelina Angelina Angelina Rusk Rusk Rusk Rusk Rusk Rusk Rusk Cherokee Cherokee Cherokee. 'Angelina San Augustine San Augustine 'San Augustine: _Sabine Sabine San Augustine San Augustine; Angelina Jasper Jasper JaSper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Jasper Name of water Brumley Creek Scoober Creek Johnson Creek Mud Creek Caney Creek ' Twin Creek Angelina River Angelina River _ Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Jarrell Creek Ham Creek Trib. E Fork Ang. R. E. Fork Angelina R. E. Fork Angelina R. Trib. to Angelina R. _ Angelina River . Mud Creek j Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Ayish Bayou Ayish Bayou .Ayish Bayou Bear Creek Bear Creek Ayish Bayou Angelina River Rocky Creek Angelina River - Indian Creek 3 Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Angelina River Location 3 mi SW Henderson on US 79 7 mi SW Henderson on US 79 10 mi SW Henderson on US 79 3 mi SW Troup on FM 3A7 3 mi S Troup on SH 110 2% mi w New Summerfield on SH 110 9 mi E Alto on SH 21 9 mi N Lufkin on US 59 1A mi E Lufkin, ; mi downstream from SH le 1A mi E Lufkin, 31in idownstream from SH 10: 1A mi E Lufkin,? 3 mi downstream from SH 10: 1A mi E Lufkin, A mi downstream from SH 10: 1A mi E Lufkin, 5 mi downstream from SH 10: 1A mi E Lufkin, 6 mi downstream from SH 10: 1A mi E Lufkin, 8 mi downstream from SH 10: 8 mi SE Henderson on as 26 32 mi NE Mt. Enterprise on as 26 A mi SW'Mt. Enterprise on County Road 3 mi N Cushing on FM 225 6 mi NW Cushing on County Road 32 mi E Reklaw on US 8A 3 mi E Reklaw on US 8A 1 mi SW Reklaw on US 8A 12 mi E Rusk on FM 3A3 5 mi NE Wells on County Road 16 mi N Lufkin on SH 7 A 1mi N San Augustine on County Road mi N San Augustine on County Road 10 mi SSW San Augustine on SH 103 3 mi WNW Pineland on County Road 3 mi WSW Brookland on County Road _ 5 mi WSW Brookland on County Road 8 mi WSW Brookland on County Road ' 6 mi NE Zavalla on County Road 10 mi W Jasper, 1 mi downstream from SH 63 72 mi W Jasper on SH 63 _‘9 mi W Jasper on FM 17A5 . 12 mi NW Jasper, 1 mi upstream from Ayish E l mi NW Jasper, mouth Ayish Bayou 9 mi NW Jasper, 2 mi downstream from Ayishf 11 mi NW Jasper, 2 mi ENE Eberneaer Road 10 mi NW Jasper,l§-mi S Eberneser Road 12 mi WNW Jasper, 2fi-mi upstream from SE 63 9 mi W Jasper, 2 mi upstream from FM 17A5 11 mi W Jasper, half way between FM 17A5 and SH 63 Table 2. (continued) 53 Rusk Shawnee Creek 6 mi S Henderson, off of FM 225 5A Rusk Bernhardt Creek 7 mi 8 Henderson on FM.225 55 Rusk Bernhardt Creek 3 mi NW Laneville on County Road 56 Rusk Shawnee Creek 3é-mi NE Laneville on County Road 57' Rusk Angelina River 5 mi SW Laneville on FM 1662 58 Rusk Striker Creek 1 mi SW'New Salem on FM 839 60 Rusk Beaver Run 2 3/A mi SW Carlisle on FM 13 61 Smith Gilley Creek 9 mi W Troup on FM 8A8 62 Smith Mud Creek 3 mi W Troup on SH 110 63 Smith West Mud Creek 3% mi NE Bullard on FM 3AA 6A Smith Shakleford Creek A 3/A mi NNE Bullard on FM 3A6 P—2 Angelina Trib. to Willis Creek 1 mi W Moffett on FM 8A2 P-3 Angelina Willis Creek 1 mi W'Moffett on FM 8A2 P-A Angelina Angelina River 2%-mi NNE Moffett below-M111 Creek 3' P - pollution stations