TPWD 1981 F-30-R-6 #1820: Performance Report, Project F-30-R-6: Existing Reservoirs and Streams, Frio River Study

--- Page 1 --- Performance Report Job A, District I-D Objective: To recommend habitat improvement, fisherman information, fish Population manipulation, vegetation control, pollution control, fisherman 8ccess and facility development, and fishing regulations for existing and Proposed public Waters of Texas, various fishing techniques for harvesting them wil] serve to increase Utilization, II, Significant Deviation: None III, Cost: $3,600. IV. Prepared by Robert W. Zerr Date _ March 27, 1981 Assistant Management Supervisor 1 Rok naaal a a Program Director Sistant Program Director Project F-30-R Project F-30-R Approved by --- Page 2 --- mi DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The Frio River originates in the northeast corner of Real County and flows in a southeasterly direction about 265 miles to enter the Nueces River near the town of Three Rivers. The Frio River watershed drains 6,977 square miles. Major tributaries include the Dry Frio, the Sabinal River, Hondo Creek, the Leona River, San Miguel Creek, and the Atascosa River. The Frio River flows in a gorge through the Edwards Plateau Region for about 60 miles before entering the Coastal Plain. In crossing the Balcones Fault Zone, the river loses its perennial spring flows, as well as substantial amounts of flood runoff, through percolation into the Edwards aquifer. Consequently, flow downstream from the fault zone consists almost entirely of runoff. Prolonged droughts are common and flow rates vary from intermittent during drought periods to 2,000 cfs or more during periods of heavy rains. Average flow for the Frio River at Concan is 108 cfs. The topography of the study area is hilly, rough and broken with a shallow stony clay soil. A wide range of vegetation consisting of grasses, forbs, live oak, and shinoak brush occupy rangeland. Elm, live oak and other large trees are found in the bottom lands pordering stream channels. Water usage is primarily recreational with some irrigation of small acreages. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two water quality sampling stations were established and sampled during May and July (Fig. 1). Temperature and dissolved oxygen were measured with a YSI Model 57 meter and conductivity with a Model 133 SCT meter. A Corning Model 1487 pH meter was used to determine pH. Total hardness and alkalinity were determined with a AL-36-WR Hach kit. River flow rates were determined using 4 Model 2030 digital flowmeter. The width of the river was measured and the flow and depths measured at three points across the river. Three readings were taken at each point to insure accuracy. Flow rates were then determined using the following formula: (Ww) (D) (VA) (roughness constant on the bottom) = cubic feet per second. Visual observations of aquatic vegetation were made while conducting surveys. Information of fish habitat needs were noted and recorded. The fish communities of the Nueces River were sampled using seines and a backpack shocking unit. All common and scientific names used in this report are in accordance with A List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication No. 6 (Table 1). A 26-ft x 6-ft, %-inch mesh seine with a 6-ft x 6-ft bag was used in May and July. Average seine width was recorded for each station and multiplied times length of drag to determine the area sampled. Samples were preserved in 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory to be identified, counted and measured. Specimens collected were recorded as number per 1,000 £t2 of seine sample. --- Page 3 --- -3- A Smith-Root Type VII electrofisher backpack shocking unit was used during May and July. Collections were preserved in 10% formalin and returned to the laboratory to be identified, counted and measured. Fish collected were recorded as number per fifteen minutes shocking time. Public access and fisherman information needs were evaluated by determining if existing access, facilities and sources of information were adequate to promote maximum utilization of the fishery resource. Fish population information was used to determine needs for changes in harvest regulations. Any public hearings concerning regulation proposals were attended and justifications for these proposals were discussed with the attending public, RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Physicochemical Characteristics No deviations from normal area water quality values were found which were considered detrimental to the fish community of the Frio River (Table 2). Fish Habitat Typical stream bed habitat in the study area consists of varying concentra- tions of bedrock, boulders, rubble, gravel, sand, silt and a variety of aquatic vegetation species (Table 3). Habitat seems optimum for reproduction and recruitment; however, the volume of water flow appears to be a primary limiting factor. Flow data for the years 1970 through 1979 illustrate the variations in stream flow (Fig. 2). Because of drought conditions during the survey period, flows varied from 36 cfs to flow rates that were immeasur- able (Table 4). Tributaries such as the Dry Frio and Sabinal Rivers were not flowing during the sample period. . Fish Communities Forage Fishes: A diverse forage base existed in the Nueces River. The bulk of the forage consisted of Texas shiner, blacktail shiner, stoneroller and young-of-the-year sunfish (Tables 5 and 6). Sport Fishes: Large numbers of sport fishes were collected. Sunfish were the most abundant with substantial numbers of channel catfish also being collected. Rough Fishes: No problematic rough fish populations were observed. Fisherman Information Distributions of information discussing existing sport fish populations and productive means and methods for harvesting them would increase public utilization. --- Page 4 --- ee Public Access and Facilities Road crossings provide adequate access to the Frio River. Additional access and facilities are provided by Garner State Park. Fish Harvest Regulations Current regulations are adequate. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Physicochemical Characteristics Surveys revealed no problematic water quality parameters; therefore, no recommendations are necessary. Fish Habitat Existing habitat is adequate to sustain the fishery in the river; therefore, no recommendations are made, Fish Communities Diversity and quantity of sport fishes within the Frio River are adequate; therefore, no recommendations are made. Public Access and Facilities Access to the Frio River appears adequate; therefore, no recommendations are made, Fisherman Information Distributions of information promoting utilization of existing fish popula- tions are recommended. Fish Harvest Regulations Existing regulations are adequate; therefore, no recommendations are made. --- Page 5 --- LITERATURE CITED Young, Willard C., Bobby G, Whiteside, Glenn Longley and Neil E, Carter, 1973, The Guadalupe~San Antonio-Nueces River Basin Project. Review of existing biological data, phase I, Aquatic Station, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, 400 pp, Armstrong, Ellis L., Leon W. Hill, 1971, Nueces River Project, Texas. Vol. II, Bureau of Reclamation, 26 pp. Dietz, M. ¢, Elgin, 1956, Basic survey and inventory of fish species present, as well as their distribution in the Nueces River, its tributaries and watershed, lying within Edwards, Real, Uvalde and Kinney Counties, Texas, Job completion report. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, 17 pp. Water Resources Data for Texas, 1970-1979, United States Department of the Interior, U. s, Geological Survey, Austin, Texas. 9 vols. --- Page 6 --- Nueces lake F2 ie UVALDE COUNTY Uvalde Inge lake Texas, 1980. Figure 1. Collection and sampling sites, Frio River, --- Page 7 --- 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 Cubic Feet Per Second 250 200 150 100 50 Figure 2, Flow regimes, station at Concan, Frio River, Texas, i970 through 1979, --- Page 8 --- 1,525 700 W 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 Cubic Feet Per Second 250 200 150 100 50 ONDJIFMAMIJASONDIJIFMAMIJASONDJIFMAMJJAS ONDIJIFMAMJIJAS 1974 1975 1976 1977 Figure 2 (cont.). --- Page 9 --- 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 350 300 Cubic Feet Per Second 250 200 150 100 50 ONDIJIFMAMJJASONDIFMAMJIJTJASOND 1978 1979 Figure 2 (cont.). --- Page 10 --- Table 1. Checklist of fish species collected from the Frio River, Texas, 1980. Scientific Name Common Name Notropis leutrensis Notropis amabilis Notropis venustus Dionda episcopa Campostoma anomalum Notropis stramineus Ictalurus natalis Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Gambusia affinis Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis gulosus Lepomis megalotis Lepomis punctatus Micropteus salmoides Etheostoma lepidum Cichlasoma cyanoguttatum Red shiner Texas shiner Blacktail shiner Roundnose minnow Stoneroller Sand shiner Yellow bullhead Channel catfish Flathead catfish Mosquitofish Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Warmouth Longear sunfish Spotted sunfish Largemouth bass Greenthroat darter Rio Grande perch --- Page 11 --- Table 2. Water quality data from the Frio River, Texas, 1980.** Ch Core Total Specific Total Temp D.O. Alkalinity Conductance Hardness Station Date (Cc) (ppm) pH (ppm) (umhos/cm) (ppm) eee F-1 5-14-80 21.5 6.5 8.5 222.3 420 188.1 F-1 7-02-80 52.5 10.2 8:2 222.3 450 171.0 F-2 5-14-80 21.0 6.2 8.4 171.0 400 171.0 *Station F-2 was dry due to drought conditions and no sample was collected. **Samples were taken from water less than one meter deep. --- Page 12 --- Table 3. Aquatic vegetation by station, Frio River, Texas, July 2, 1980. Percent of Total Acres Waterbody Problematic Station Scientific Name Occupied Occupied Yes No F-1 Myriophyllum sp. 0.5 30 x Potamogetan sp. 0.3 15 x Najas sp. €< 0.1 1 x Hydrocotyl sp. <0. <1 x F-2* - - ” * *Station was dry at the time vegetation survey was conducted. --- Page 13 --- Table 4. Stream channel characteristics and flow regimes, Frio River, 1980. SESS Mean Width Mean Depth Flow Volume Date Station (ft) (ft) (cfs) seem na La a ee rae 5-14-80 F-1 31.0 0.8 35.69 5-14-80 F-2 19.8 1.0 16.38 7-1-80 F-1 28.5 0.9 26.86 7-1-80 F=2 = - - OOO eee --- Page 14 --- Table 5. Seine sampling statistics, two stations, Frio River, Texas, May and July, 1980. a Total number of each inch group per 1,000 ft? 5 Species 1 2 3 4 >5 May Mosquitofish 2 1 Blacktail shiner 4 27 10 Texas shiner 10 EL2 Longear sunfish 1 3 4 1 Largemouth bass 2 Rio Grande perch . 1 July* Mosquitofish 4 Texas shiner 6 241 Blacktail shiner 32 Sand shiner 1 Redbreast sunfish af 3 1. Spotted sunfish iL 1 Largemouth bass 3 cane ee ee *Station F-2 was dry due to drought conditions and no sample was collected. --- Page 15 --- Table 6. Electrofishing statistics, two stations, 15 minute sampling periods, Frio River, Texas, May and July, 1980. i ca Weight of Fish Mean Number of Fish Per 15 Minutes Weight Species Per 15 Minutes (1b) (1b) i acemrenriontienal iat Et _ May Red shiner 9 0.02 002 Blacktail shiner 24 0.09 004 Roundnose minnow 13 0.05 -004 Stoneroller 26 0.18 -007 Yellow bullhead 3 0.10 033 Channel catfish 12 0.30 -025 Flathead catfish 1 0,22 220 Redbreast sunfish 14 0.24 -O17 Green sunfish 1 0.01 -010 Warmouth 1 0.04 -040 Longear sunfish 27 1.12 041 Largemouth bass 1 0.16 - 160 Rio Grande perch 5 0.04 -008 --- Page 16 --- Table 6 (cont.). —_ rr eeeeeeeeeeeSeSSSSSSssFhFhFeFeFSSSSSSSSSSSShesesesesese Weight of Fish Mean Number of Fish Per 15 Minutes Weight Species Per 15 Minutes (1b) (1b) eee July* Red shiner 6 0.04 0.007 Blacktail shiner 6 0.03 0.005 Stoneroller 6 0.04 0.007 Yellow bullhead 1 0.02 0.020 Channel catfish 14 0.33 0.024 Flathead catfish 5 0.58 0.116 Redbreast sunfish 2 0.04 0.020 Longear sunfish 26 0.93 0.036 Largemouth bass 1 0.19 0.190 Greenthroat darter 1 < 0.01 0.001 Rio Grande perch 1 0.09 0.090 sn eee ee eee *Station F-2 was dry due to drought conditions and no sample was collected. --- Page 17 --- 5-Year Management Plan for the Frio River 1981-1985 Management Recommendations: Year Activity Man-Days 1981 1. Habitat Enhancement--None recommended. 0 2. Distribute information discussing existing sport 2 fish populations and productive means and methods for harvesting them. 3. Population Manipulation--None recommended. ¢) 4. Vegetation Control--None recommended. 0 5. Pollution Control--None recommended. 0 6. Fish Harvest Regulations--None recommended. 0 1981 Total 2 aa arse cere scsmnonclila 1982 - 1985--No activity recommended. --- Page 18 --- Statewide Fishery Management Recommendations pb A: Existing Reservoir and Stream Manatement Recommendation Frio River, 19580 lat Robert L, Bounds Inland Fisheries Management Program Director District I-D Wilfred J. Dean, Jr. District Management Supervisor Charles D, Travis Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texaé Simmens Robert land Fisheries Director of Fi