TPWD 1983 F-30-R-8 #1818: Performance Report: Statewide Fishery Management Recommendations, Job A: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations, Brazos River, 1982, Federal Aid Pro

--- Page 1 --- PERFORMANCE REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT Federal ‘it Project F-30-R-8 Statewide Fishery Management Recommendations Job A: Existing Reservoir and Stream Management Recommendations Brazos River, 1982 Robert L. Bounds Inland Fisheries Management Program Director District II-A Bruce T. Hysmith District Management Supervisor Charles D. Travis Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Ernest G. Simmons Robert J. Kemp Chief, Inland Fisheries Director of Fisheries January 15, 1983 --- Page 2 --- anf ahinenett Re + AOSP 0 ot T2k MOLTAROT SS | B-#-0 5 space Prot lethmgtonat © |p AHR Sema l hi ur i, \ Spry yy bo +E RsEet moe? | ’ f NGPOWIO fs Pi Fie) M7 2A tasaiee” ays rt ' 4 —— | | Te See Ae 9? Puts 38 LHe A SRA jik#aG? 7 OPA Pine wh oppo TS golpac gnl Be Tether e i Sone ideas ‘cae agree ahn? Sorry ‘poet “i -ghficlt JRb™ Tab. os a ool | "ye avijJlopea Te oe ite cart ely ap paciy aH | *« f - | iret Tria | fe deni | | | angina] | | of --- Page 3 --- Performance Report Job A, District II-A To recommend habitat improvement, fisherman information, fish population manipulation, vegetation control, pollution control, fisherman access and facility development, and fishing regulations for existing and proposed public waters of Texas. Twenty miles of the Brazos River below Possum Kingdom Reservoir, Palo Pinto County, Texas, was surveyed according to stream management manual procedures. Survey methods included water quality analysis, seining, gill netting, habitat and vegetation analysis, and assessing fisherman access and facilities. Major sport fishes included rainbow trout, channel catfish, white bass, striped bass, sunfishes (Lepomis sp.), spotted bass, largemouth bass, and white crapnie. Management recommendations included increased monthly minimum instantaneous flow from Morris Sheppard Dam and the introduction of smallmouth bass. Significant Deviation: None. Cost: $13,000.00 Objective: I. Summary: i III. IV. Prepared by: Bruce T. Hysmith John H, Moczygemba Assistant District Management Supervisor District Management Supervisor Don B. Miller John R. Ballard ish and Wi ife Technician Fish and Wildlife Technician Patrick W. Buchanan ish and W1 ife Technician Date: January 15, 1983 0 AL Bounds Roger L. McCabe D-J Management Coordinator Assistant D-J Management Coordinator --- Page 4 --- DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA The Brazos River is the third largest river in Texas (Pass 1981). It originates in west-central Texas as the Double Mountain, Salt, and Clear Forks of the Brazos, and flows southeasterly for approximately 840 mi to the Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 1). The river flows through most of the main land resource areas of the Texas-High Plains, Rolling Plains, North Central Prairies, Cross Timbers, Grand Prairie, Blackland Prairies, Central Basin, and Claypan Area, and drains about 42,800 miv. Oo This study was conducted on approximately 20 mi of the Brazos River in Palo Pinto County between Morris Sheppard Dam, which impounds Possum Kingdom Lake, and Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 4. The dam is controlled by the Brazos River Authority which produces power for the Brazos Electric Cooperative System. The area is confined to the North Central Prairies land resource area and included the major tributaries Garland, Ioni, Eagle, and Dark Valley Creeks. This section of the river is generally clear, has 13 major pools, numerous riffles, and many backwater flats. These physical features vary greatly with releases from the reservoir. At low flow ( = 20 cfs) many of the riffles and backwater flats dry up. During periods of high flow (=> 1,000 cfs) the river rises 2-3 ft. The streambed gradient is 2.7 ft/mi and depth ranges from 0.1 to 15 ft. Recreation is an important resource on this portion of the river. Topography in this section ranged from moderately wooded and grassy hills to thickly wooded or cultivated bottomland. Cedar, mesquite, and native grasses predominated surrounding hills. Cottonwood, cedar, persimmon, salt cedar, willow, and native grasses were abundant along the shoreline, while the bottom- land vegetation consisted primarily of pecan, cottonwood, oak, low shrubs, and native grasses. Mean annual rainfall in this immediate area is 28 in; in the headwaters of the Brazos River it is 16 to 20 in (Pass 1981). METHODS AND MATERIALS Sample stations were located at or near the confluence of each major tributary (Fig. 2) in compliance with Stream Survey Procedures, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Management Survey and Reporting Procedures, Each of the four stations were sampled quarterly from April 1981 through February 1982. Water samples were collected from a pool at each station at the surface, mid-depth, and immediately off the bottom (Figs, 3, 5, 7, and 9). A YSI Model 51-A oxygen analyzer was used to measure temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO). A Leeds and Northrup 7417 portable meter was used to measure pH. Specific con- ductance was determined by a YSI Model 33 S-C-T meter. Total alkalinity, total hardness, turbidity, and chlorides were determined with a DR-EL Hach Portable Engineers Laboratory. Transparency was measured with a Secchi disc. Depth, width, and current velocity were measured along a transect of a pool and of a riffle at each station (Figs. 3 through 9), A portable Lowrance Fish Lo-K-Tor or a yard stick was used to determine depth. A steel tape was used to obtain channel width. Current velocity was measured with a General Oceanics Model 2030 digital flow meter. Historical flow data were obtained from the Brazos River Authority. Substrate composition was determined from samples collected with a Wildco Model 196 bottom dredge along the same transects. The percent of stream in pools, riffles, and flats was noted. --- Page 5 --- Condition of fish habitat was noted and recorded during all collection trips. Bottom types, littoral zone development, abundance of aquatic vegetation, canopy density, and abundance of submerged cover (boulders or log-jams) were criteria for identifying fish habitat improvement needs. Species composition and distribution of aquatic vegetation were determined each trip. Aquatic er was identified according to Fassett (1940) and Correll and Correll 1975). Fish community was sampled with seines and gill nets. Seine collections were made in pool and riffle habitats at each station with a 25-tt bag seine constructed of 0.25-in nylon mesh. An estimated 2,500 ft of stream bottom was sampled at each site. Samples were preserved in 10 percent formalin for subsequent identification and enumeration. Pool habitat at each station was sampled with a single gill net set per trip. Monofilament gill nets 200-ft long and 8-ft deep were used. Mesh size increased by 0.50-in increments from 0.50- to 4-in at 25-ft intervals. Total catch was sorted, counted, and bulk weighed by species. Species identification followed Anon. (1968) and Eddy (1969). Common and scientific names used in this report were in accordance with Robins (1980). Individual weight and total length (TL) and stomach contents were recorded for selected species of sport fish. Scale samples were collected from white bass for age determination. Pectoral spines were taken from channel catfish for age and growth analysis. Information recorded with each scale and spine sample included: (1) sex, (2) TL in mm, and (3) weight in g. Scales were pressed on acetate slides and examined with a Bauch and Lomb Tri-simplex microprojector. Each scale was analyzed for the presence of annuli and the age of each fish was then noted. Spine samples were sent to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Heart-of-the-Hills Research Station for age determination and growth computation. Length-weight relationships for channel catfish were calculated by using the model: Log 4 Weight (g) = a + (b) Log 49 Length (mm) . Where: intercept of the regression slope of the regression. nou a b Coefficient of condition (K) was calculated using the following formula: Where: weight ing W L = length in mm. Public access and fisherman information needs were evaluated by determining if existing facilities and sources of information were adequate to support optimum utilization of the fishery resource. Fish population information was used to determine needs for changes in harvest regulations. --- Page 6 --- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Physicochemical Characteristics Data collected in this study show water quality in this section of the Brazos River will sustain fish life (Tables 1 and 2; Swingle 1949, Brown 1957, Lee 1971, and Bardach et al. 1972). However, the data do not illustrate the effects of hydroelectric generation on water temperature and flow regimes. Zimmerman et al. (1980) reported temperature fluctuations of 12-13 F per 24 hours in this section of the Brazos River during April, 1979 due to discharge. Depending on the frequency of occurrence, abrupt changes in temperature could alter spawning patterns, and affect egg incubation and/or fry development of fish fauna (Walburg et al. 1981 and Hubbs 1972). Fish Habitat Fish habitat in this section of the Brazos River included a stream bed of muck, detritus, clay, silt, sand, gravel, rubble, bed rock, and boulders. Primarily, muck, detritus, and clay were found in the lower stations farthest from the dam except for a portion about 1.5-2 mi upstream from FM 4 which was scoured bedrock. Since Possum Kingdom Reservoir acts as a sediment trap, the river immediately below the dam was clear, and had a stream bed composed primarily of gravel and rubble. The pool:riffle:flat ratio was 5:4:1. The pools were from 80 to 400 ft wide and had a 2.1-8.3 ft average depth (Table 2). Boulders and rocky bluffs in most of the pools provided cover for flathead and channel catfish, largemouth and spotted bass, and other sport fishes (Fig. 10). Shallow pools and back- water areas provided suitable spawning habitat for sport fishes (Fig. 10). The riffles with their dense growth of algae, pondweed, water star-grass, and sago pondweed provided habitat for a variety of forage fishes and invertebrates. Nursery areas were provided by riffles and backwaters. There were no areas on the river where there was a complete canopy, but partially shaded areas provided by black willow, cottonwood, oak, elm, cedar, and salt cedar trees extended 10 ft from the bank in many areas. Eleven species of aquatic vegetation were encountered during the survey (Tables 3 and 4). None were considered problematic. The most limiting factor for habitat seems to be volume of flow. Variation in flow regimes alters fish habitat and water quality (Neel 1963, Walburg et al. 1981). Water level fluctuates about 2-3 ft (Figs. 3 and 10) in this section of the Brazos River as a result of normal hydroelectric power generation. During low discharge (9-20 cfs), most riffles and many backwater flats, or approximately 49 percent of this section, is dewatered (Fig. 11). Monthly median flow from Morris Sheppard Dam for 1978-1981 varied from 20 to 2,393 cfs (Fig. 12). Flow- frequency distribution (Fig. 13), based on discharge from Morris Sheppard Dam, indicated over one-half (53 percent, 774 days) of the time during 1978-1981 (1,461 days) flow was <20 cfs; hence, a four-year median flow slightly less than 20 cfs. Therefore, from 1978-1981, 49 percent of the stream habitat was dewatered 53 percent of the time. A condition which our data indicated was insufficient to maintain adequate sport fish production. --- Page 7 --- Insect Community Numerous insect larvae (Trichoptera, Diptera, and Ephemeroptera) were observed during collections at all stations. Cloud and Stewart (1974a and 1974b) reported 30-40 species of insect fauna in riffle communities of this section of the river. Sport fishes were observed feeding at the surface on adult mayflies. These insects were an important food source in the river as reported by Forshage (1972). Fish Community Forage Fishes: The most predominant forage species were red shiner, blacktail Shiner, and inland silverside (Table 5). Threadfin shad were collected in spring during their spawning run, but apparently were not abundant in this section of the river during the rest of the year. Gizzard shad were found during all seasons, but were generally too large (average TL = 11 in) to be used except by the largest predators (flathead catfish and striped bass). Other species of forage included bullhead minnow, mosquitofish, and small bluegill and longear sunfish. Sport Fishes: Sport fishes comprised 28 percent of the fish community in the Study area. Relative abundance of sport fishes ranged from 18 percent in April to 37 percent in February (Tables 6 through 9). While there was seasonal variation in total gill net catches, the numbers of sport fishes remained fairly stable. Predominant sport fish included channel catfish and white bass. Other sport fishes collected were flathead catfish, striped bass, white bass x striped bass hybrid, sunfishes (Lepomis sp.), spotted bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie. Channel catfish was by far the most frequently collected sport fish comprising 18 percent of total catch and 63 percent of sport fishes (Fig. 13). They were found most often at Stations 1 and 2 which were closest to the dam. According to Walburg et al. (1981) they were often abundant in the warm tailwaters of turbid main-stem or tributary rivers, but are uncommon or absent in clear, cold tailwaters. Two reasons for this non-conforming behavior in the Brazos River could be better habitat and greater abundance of preferred food, Generally, upstream from station 3, the river is characterized by deeper pools, shorter riffles, and a greater abundance of green algae than below Station 3, Seasonal mean weight varied from 2.8 1b in the spring to 1,1 1b in the winter with an overall mean of 1.5 1b (Tables 6 through 9). Growth of channel catfish in the Brazos River (Tabie 10) was equal to or faster than growth in other waters (Table 11). Length weight regression was --- Page 8 --- computed to be: Log 4g Weight (g) = -6.4 + 3.6 Log yo Length (mm). The calculated slope of the length-weight regression (3,6) was compared (t-test) to isometric growth (3.0). Channel catfish in the Brazos River grow significantly (P< 0.01) faster in weight than in length. Good growth was further substantiated by an excellent K of 1.278 which was greater than the range of mean K (0.75-1.12) reported by Carlander (1969). Seining did not indicate an abundance of young-of-the-year (YOY) channel catfish (Table 5) which suggested low reproduction, Recruitment since 1978 is cio been low to non-existent as no Age I and II fish were collected Table 10). Channel catfish are omnivorus (Carlander 1969 and Miller 1966) and in this study green algae (Chlorophyceae) was the predominant food item; occurring in 79 percent of the 56 fish stomachs examined. Frequency of occurrence for unidentified fish remains was 16 percent, and 13 percent for insects. Flathead catfish did not appear in the study area until spring and summer (Tables 6 through 9) and then only in the lower sections (Fig. 14). Mean weight was 7.9 1b. White bass were found throughout the study area (Fig. 14), but were absent in spring gill net collections (Tables 6 through 9). Contrary to angler reports, our data indicated white bass were low in abundance. Although YOY white bass were not collected, the presence of ripe females and flowing males in December suggested a reproducing population, White bass may be recruited from Lakes Possum Kingdom and Granbury. Mean weight of white bass was 0.75 1b and the oldest fish collected was Age II. Angler catches of striped bass have been reported throughout the study area. Our data, however, indicates these fish concentrate in the upper portion nearest the tailrace (Tables 6, 7, and 8). Mean weight of striped bass caught in gill nets averaged 4.2 1b. Spotted bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie were extremely low in abundance in this section of the Brazos River (Tables 6, 7, and 9; Fig. 14). YOY spotted and largemouth bass were collected during the summer in Dogleg Riffle at Station 3, YOY spotted bass were more abundant than YOY largemouth bass (Table 5), YOY white crappie were not collected. Sunfishes collected included bluegill, longear sunfish, and green x longear sunfish hybrids (Tables 6 through 9). Rough Fishes: Rough fish were not considered problematic. Smallmouth buffalo were the most frequently collected rough fish (Tables 6 through 9; Fig. 15). Less common were carp and river carpsucker. Golden redhorse were captured during February. In general, our data indicated a single-species (channel catfish) sport fishery in this segment of the Brazos River, The reduction of habitat caused by low stream flow, and extreme fluctuation in water temperature can --- Page 9 --- limit the abundance of many sport fish species (Neel 1963, Hubbs 1972, and Walburg et al. 1981). Certainly forage did not appear to be a problem since this portion of the river contained an abundance of minnows and insect larvae (Cloud and Stewart 1974a and 1974b and Zimmerman et al. 1980). Seasonal and flow-induced immigration of white and striped bass, and the introduction of catchable rainbow trout in the tailrace below Morris Sheppard Dam during November - March, provides a temporary enhancement to the fishery. However, we feel the existing sport fishery should be permanently enhanced to provide _ year-round fishing. Public Access and Facilities Public access to this section of the Brazos River is limited to a 1 mi portion of the river between Morris Sheppard Dam and the Texas Highway 16 bridge and the FM 4 bridge crossing. There are numerous private access points and access can be gained in many cases with permission of the land owner. The only facility is a small camp area with toilets provided by the Brazos River Authority immediately below the Morris Sheppard Dam. Canoe and float trip enthusiasts utilize the river frequently between March and October. Heavy use of the area near the Texas Highway 16 bridge coincides with our “put-and- take" rainbow trout program. Although trash recepticals are provided near the highway 16 bridge access, toilet facilities are not available. Throughout the year other anglers utilize the tailrace and the large pool adjacent the Possum Kingdom State Fish Hatchery, especially for white bass and striped bass. Fisherman Information Due to the "put-and-take" rainbow trout fishery and the use of the Brazos River by canoeists and float trip enthusiasts, the recreational and fishing opportun- ities on the river are well known within a 100-mi radius. Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and local news papers publicize angler catches and rainbow trout stocking. Fish Harvest Regulations Changes in fish harvest regulations in this section of the Brazos River are not needed. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Physicochemical Characteristics To alleviate the abrupt temperature changes and the high water level fluctuation in the study area, minimum flow should be increased (Table 12). According to Lyons (1979) recommended monthly minimum flow in this section of the Brazos River (U.S.G.S. Station No. 08089000, at FM 4, Palo Pinto County, exes) should vary from 42-403 cfs with maximum flow occurring May-September. Our recommended monthly minimum instantaneous flow (discharge) at the Morris Sheppard Dam (Table 12) is based on an average between an upstream monthly minimum instantaneous flow and a downstream monthly minimum instantaneous flow. This average flow was selected to compensate for non-recorded inflow from tributaries between the U.S.G.S. gaging station at South Bend, Texas and Morris Sheppard Dam, and for the influence of runoff from tributaries between the dam and the U.S.G.S. gaging station at FM 4. --- Page 10 --- Fish Habitat An increase in monthly minimum instantaneous flow (Table 12) in this section of the Brazos River would allow for increased sport fish production by reclaiming all or a portion of the estimated 49 percent of the stream course dewatered during low flow (*20cfs). At the recommended flows an estimated 85 to 100 percent of the stream course wouid be watered most of the time, as opposed to 51 percent under current flow regimes (1978-1981). Fish Community The sport fishery in this section of the Brazos River would be enhanced through the implementation of recommended flow regimes. Additionally, the introduction of smallmouth bass would further enhance the fishery through increased species diversity. Smallmouth bass prefer a stream with a gravel or rocky bottom, clear, cool water, riffles, boulders, and pools over 4-ft deep (Emig 1966). In spite of extreme fluctuations in water temperature, this section of the river meets most of these requirements. Smallmouth bass might prove more suitable than native black basses to the existing environment. Because of increased utilization and public interest, the annual rainbow trout "put-and-take" stocking program should be continued. Public Access and Facilities Existing access and facilities are generally adequate for present public usage, however, chemical toilets should be installed at the high use area near the Texas Highway 16 bridge, Fisherman Information Fisherman information should be publicized through local and Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex newspapers. Fish Harvest Regulations Existing fishing regulations are adequate at this time; therefore, no recommendations are made. --- Page 11 --- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Messrs. Curtis Mitchell, Lloyd McCoy, Charles Overton, and H. L. Rochelle across whose land we gained invaluable access to certain sections of the river. We also wish to recognize John Garland, Brazos River Authority, and Tom Cloud and Ed Lyles, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for providing discharge records and stream flow data. A special thanks to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Game Wardens Wayne Chappell and Rick Medford for their assistance throughout this study. 9a --- Page 12 --- Set Yen?! | YOO vt co Patt trcee ld) wetes a ee reanod al tkelovaf baate: e Mt) Ow o2ae - gp i Soe | yl troniuA vay peu wii tAgy adn & aosadse. th onibbveyva ye% ,saertae StF) 5) T> pm Aer sittan Anabyeel onee toeetrs ot3'G OW bro saent caK ntl eras Suess i yri-fale 4% ha) e Lie aie yee + Bh Ae mul hi | bs men fe t eet 4 or ‘ 1 yt ey add e Eat hid a --- Page 13 --- REFERENCES CITED Anonymous. 1968. Laboratory key to the fishes known to occur in the inland waters of Texas. Department of Wildlife Science, Texas A. & M. University, College Station, Texas. 31 pp. Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology. Volume 1. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 752 pp. Cloud, Thomas J. and Kenneth W. Stewart. 1974a. The drift of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) in the Brazos River, Texas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, Volume 47(3):379-396. Cloud, Thomas J. and Kenneth W. Stewart. 1974b. Seasonal fluctuations and periodicity in the drift of caddis fly larvae (Trichoptera) in the Brazos River, Texas. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. Volume 67(5):805-811. Correll, D. S. and H. B. Correll. 1975. Aquatic and wetland plants of southwestern United States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 2 Volumes. 1,//7 pp. Eddy, S. 1969. The freshwater fishes. Second Edition, William C, Brown Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa. 286 pp, Emig, John W. 1966, Smallmouth bass. Pages 354-366 In: Alex Calhoun (Editor) Inland fisheries management. California Department of Fish and Game. 546 pp. Fassett, N. C. 1940. A manual of aquatic plants. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New York. 382 pp. Forshage, Allen A, 1972. Investigation of a portion of the Brazos River. Federal Aid Project F-4-R-18, Job B-42. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 13 pp. Hubbs, C. 1972. Some thermal consequences of environmental manipulations of water. Biological Conservation 4:185-188, Hysmith, B, T., J, H. Moczygemba, D. B. Miller, and J, R, Ballard, 1982. Existing reservoir and stream management recommendations: Lake Palo Pinto, 1981, Federal Aid Project F-30-R-7. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 38 pp. Lyons, Barry W. 1979, Existing reservoir and stream management recommendations, statewide minimum streamflow recommendations. Federal Aid Project F-30-R-4. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 28 pp. Miller, Edward W. 1966. Channel catfish, Pages 440-463 In: Alex Calhoun (editor) Inland fisheries management, California Department of Fish and Game, 546 pp. --- Page 14 --- Parks, James 0. 1981. Existing reservoir and stream management recommendations: Lake Kickapoo, 1980. Federal Aid Project F-30-R-6, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 23 pp. Pass, Fred (Editor). 1981. Texas Almanac 1982-83. A. H. Belo Corporation, Dallas, Texas. 640 pp, Robins, C. R., Chairman. 1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Fourth Edition, American Fisheries Society, Washington, D. C, 150 pp. Walburg, Charles H., Jerry F. Novotny, Kenneth E. Jacobs, William D. Swink, Terry M. Campbell, John M, Nestler, and Gary E, Saul. 1981. Effects of reservoir releases on tailwater ecology: a literature review. Environmental and Water Quality Operational Studies, Technical Report E-81-121. U. S. Army. 216 pp. Zimmerman, Earl G., Keith A. Anderson, and Stuart W. Calhoun. 1980. Impact of discharge from Possum Kingdom Reservoir (Texas) on genic adaptation in aquatic organisms. Research Project Completion Report QWRT Title I Project B-227-Tex. Department of Biological Sciences, North Texas State University, Denton, Texas. 93 pp. 10 --- Page 15 --- Study Area "ah eee Figure 1. Brazos River and drainage basin, Texas, 1981-82. --- Page 16 --- "Z8-L86L ‘Sexe, ‘AzuNO) OFULd OLed “AGAL 4 SOZRAG SALOAASSSY WIOPHULA iNSSOg MO[Sq JUSWSS Sj iw-OZ E Ui SUdLZePS Sjdwes yo USLZeoo] “¢Z oun (2 °e3S) or yaeu) LUO] i) yaeug obey ay, = v W4 { | 7875) yaeu) pueluey \ (4LOAUaSay wWopbuly wnssod) en | weg pueddays siuuow 12 --- Page 17 --- “igure 3. Station 1, pool habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River at the confluence of Garland Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. Note the water mark on the sand bar in the center. (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) --- Page 18 --- Figure 4, Station 1, riffle habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazas River at Pipeline Shoot below Garland Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) 14 --- Page 19 --- Figure 5. Station 2, pool habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River at the confluence of Ioni Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) Les --- Page 20 --- Figure 6. Station 2, riffle habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazo; River below the confluence of Ioni Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texa;, February, 1982. Note the exposed and partially exposed stream bed to the left and in the background. (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) 16 --- Page 21 --- Figure 7. Station 3, pool habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River below the confluence of Eagle Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. (TPWD Photo: B. T. Hysmith) 17 --- Page 22 --- Figure 8. Station 3, riffle habitat at low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River at Dogleg Riffle below the confluence of Eagle Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. Note the exposed and partially exposed stream bed. Stream width at this point and at this time was less than one-half the width during discharge (351 cfs). (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) 18 --- Page 23 --- Figure 9. Station 4, pool habitat (upper center) and riffle habitat (lower left and center) during low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River at the confluence of Dark Valley Creek, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. Note the exposed streambed to the left. About one-half of the riffle is dewatered. (TPWD Photo: B. T. Hysmith) --- Page 24 --- Figure 10. Fish habitat represented by boulders and rocky bluffs (A) and backwaters (B) at low flow (discharge 20 cfs), Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. Note the water-mark on boulders in (A) and the exposed gravel bar in (B). (TPWD Photos: B. T. Hysmith and J. R. Ballard) 20 --- Page 25 --- Figure 11. Upstream of Station 2 at the confluence of Ioni Creek (center) during low flow (discharge = 20 cfs), Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. Note the dewatered riffle to the left and exposed stream bed in the background. During discharge (351 cfs) water from the Brazos River backs up into Ioni Creek and flows across the exposed riffle. (TPWD Photo: J. R. Ballard) 2] --- Page 26 --- “AYLAOYINY ABALY SOZRUg BY} WOU pauLeyqo spuoddu aseajau uazeM "1OKR1l-O/e1 ©Spyvalr fAauNAN n41ALl1 4d Alod fn ninddane criinw wart foerat mart uninam L1iuailM —~—. = ~~ ow — . -— = a! bk — “a ' i. a A | tania i Se Lo me L861 0861 6261 8/61 GQNOSVPFrWVYWAfGNOSVFFWVYW4draNOSVFrWYWdranosvfrrwy Wi & €6€'7 ea) yqUuoy] Ol 0S OOL (S49) MOL4 00S 000° | 00S*L 22 --- Page 27 --- 70,000 "AZLAOYNY ABALY SOZe4g BY} WOU PaULeJqO Spuodau asealau uazeM *L86L-B/6L *SeXdaL *AJUNOD) OJULd OL eq Sweg pueddays SlLuuoW WOuJ (SJ9) SHueySip JO UOLYNGLuysSLp ADUaNbaus-MO] 4 (S$9) MOL4 10,000 5,000 “ey, aunbly 002 00S 008 skeqg uaquny 23 --- Page 28 --- “28-LB6L ‘sexal SA}UNOD OULg OL ed ‘ABALY SOZeUg *SUOL}D9{[09 YoU { {LH Wouy SaYSLJ Juods Jo UOLZeYS Aq |adUda4UNDD0 jo Aduanbau4 aiddeus sseq sseq sseq yst4yeo ystjyzeo Sd!YyM = YNowabuey payqods sseq aylymM padtuys = peayzeiy Lauuey9 bectl pede l bpbechl veel beck veel bp éel 7 ’ OL 02 O€ ‘pL aunBly satoeds UOL}eIS Jaquiny [P20] 24 --- Page 29 --- "28-186L “Sexe, *AjUNOD OJUL_ OLed “U9ALY SOZeUg *SUOL}D9| [09 JaU [ {LH WOU} Saysly YyBNou yo UuoLyeYS Aq adUeUUNDDO Jo ADUaNbau4 ‘Gy, aunBL4 OLessng YypNow| | ews peys puezZz19 4e6 asoubu07 saLoads btOCE é L Bef é L UOLZRRS OL = a 0c = 5 oC Dm s O€ Ov 25 --- Page 30 --- Ove OLE 50S Ovt 0S2 OLE OSS cov O0€ 00S OSS OSb O9€ 06€ OSS Els (wdd ) ssaupuey Le7O] SLY 0€S OVS 082 O2p OSD S201 O92 GS 069 cc9 GEZ 00S 98P 00Z OSZ (wdd ) sap l4oly9 m wm ww #4 wo wm w OL (Md) AYLPLqun 6bvl L802 0862 bre 0091 8861 GL6¢e eSte cfc6L 0681 O€82 8Lb2 0L02 LL9OL 0042 Sv9C (wo /soywn ) aoue}oNpuoy dLyLoads LOL €OL 6LL OLL OOL OCL OLL OOL OLL O21 OLL OLL SOL LLL SOL SLL (widd ) OLY Ley0] 8°8 (Obl O°OL - 28-9120 L"8 S‘él 0°8 O00°9E L8-9L-eL BL 6'8 Spe 00°8€ L8-0€-20 O°8 2°6 O°6L = 00°be L8-72-S0 p 8°38 6O'SI< GEL 09°S2 28-81-20 os $8 ll 0°6 Ge" Lv L8-9L-2L Ai PS 0°02 = 0S°0S L8-0€-20 L°8 = GOL S*0¢ 00°8 L8-€2-v0 € G8 9°?L O°OL § GL°Le 28-91-20 28 aes Olt ‘Sev le L8-vL-2l L*8 BE S°6L 0S°82 L8-62~-20 6°L 9°8 O'ZL = 00°9 L8-Lé-v0 é G°8 2°UlL =6OOL Se Ge c8-91-20 6° 9°8 =OTEL = G2"0E L8-vL~-2l Le 0°S O"Le 00°9S L8-6¢2~-20 6° 9°L O’el 00°81 L8-Le-v0 L Hd (wdd) (9) (UL) ayeq UOL}eIS “O ‘ad = duo, 9S1q LY999$ . “286L-L86L ‘Sexal *AzuN0D OJULg OL ed *SUAALY SOZeUg ‘eZeP LeOLWAaYDOILSAYd UazZeM-ade4uNS “L aLqel 26 --- Page 31 --- Table 2. Stream channel characteristics and flow ns gas Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, 1981-82. ; ne cE TIE nen ny nny Un P90 Riffle Mean Mean Width Depth Flow Width Depth Flow Station Date (ft) (ft) (cfs) (ft) (ft) (cfs) ] 04-21-81 150 3.4 41.3 50 0.9 26.3 07-29-81 * 160 8.3 860.5 75 1.2 "F84sS 12-14-81 * 160 5.0 129.6 75 1.9 271.9 02-16-82 150 6.4 34.6 50 1.3 8.8 2 04-22-81 80 3.1 20.1 80 0.5 ‘21.9 07-29-81 80 4.3 105.3 80 0.5 71.0 12-14-81 * 80 3.3 161.6 150 0:9 222.5 02-16-82 80 3.9 14.0 80 g.5 53.8 3 04-23-81 100 3.8 75.2 114 0.3 100.7 07-30-81 100 6.1 373.3 120 0.4 148.2 12-16-81 * 100 4.3 100.6 122 0.6 110.7 02-18-82 100 7.1 63.9 50 1.2 8.1 4 05-24-8] 375 2.8 293.0 75 1.0 131.6 07-30-81 375 3.1 261.6 75 1.0 224.8 12-16-81 * 400 4.0 1,267.2 85 0.8 184.8 02-18-82 375 are | 21:3 75 0.6 30.4 ou * Discharging from Morris Sheppard Dam generating station. 27 --- Page 32 --- Table 3. Aquatic vegetation checklist, all stations, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, April 1981 - February 1982. Common Name Black willow Cottonwood Buttonbush Salt cedar Spikerush Needlerush Water willow Water star grass Sago pondweed Pondweed Algae Scientific Name Salix nigra Populus sp. Cephalanthus occidentalis Tamarix sp. Eleocharis sp. Eleocharis acicularis Justicia americana Heteranthera sp. Potamogeton pectinatus Potamogeton sp. Chlorophyceae 28 --- Page 33 --- Table 4. Aquatic vegetation by station, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, April 1981 - February 1982. ———— Station Per cent of station Number Common Name Scientific Name area occupied ] Black willow Salix nigra 5 Cottonwood Populus sp. 5 Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis ] Salt cedar Tamarix sp. 1 Spikerush Eleocharis sp. 1 Sago pondweed Potamogeton pectinatus 20 Algae Chlorophyceae 30 2 Black willow Salix nigra 10 Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 5 Salt cedar Tamarix sp. 5 Water star grass Heteranthera sp. 5 Pondweed Potamogeton sp. 10 Algae Chlorophyceae 30 3 Black willow Salix nigra 5 Cottonwood Populus sp. ] Salt cedar Tamarix sp. ] Spikerush Eleocharis sp. T Needlerush Eleacharis acicularis ] Water willow Justicia americana ] Pondweed Potamogeton sp. 10 Algae Chlorophyceae 30 4 Black willow Salix nigra 10 Cottonwood Populus sp. 10 Salt cedar Tamarix sp. 5 Pondweed Potamogeton sp. 5 Algae Chlorophyceae 30 29 --- Page 34 --- Table 5. Seine sample statistics, 8 sample sites (pool and riffle), Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, 1981-82. _ Total number of each 2 inch group per 1,000 ft Species 7 2 3 4 5 >5 Total Spring Gizzard shad - - - ~ - 0.20 0.20 Threadfin shad - - - 0.45 0.05 - 0.50 Silver chub - - - 0.05 - - 0.05 Red shiner 0.30 5.40 0.05 - - - 5.75 Blacktail shiner - 0.15 0.45 0.20 - ~ 0.80 Bullhead minnow - 0.70 - ~ - - 0.70 Mosquitofish 5.40 0.50 - - - - 5.90 Inland silverside - ~ - 0.05 - ~ 0.05 Spotted bass - - - 0.05 ~ - 0.05 Longear sunfish 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05 ~ 0.35 Dusky darter - “ 0.05 - ~ ~ 0.05 Total 5.75 6.80 0.70 0.85 0.10 0.20 14.40 Summer Red shiner - 2.45 0.20 - “ - 4.35 Blacktail shiner - 0.20 - 0.65 - - 0.85 Bullhead minnow - 0.05 - - - - 0.05 Mosquitofish 0.10 0.10 ~ - - - 0.20 Inland silverside 0.40 1.05 0.25 ~ - ~ 1.70 Bluegill - ~ 0.05 - - - 0.05 Longear sunfish - 0.10 0.10 0.05 ~ ~ 0.25 Spotted bass - ~ 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.390 Largemouth bass ~ - 0.05 0.10 - - G.15 Total 0.50 3.65 0.80 0.85 0.05 0.05 5.90 Fall Threadfin shad - 0.10 - - ~ - 0.19 Speckled chub - 0.05 - - - ~ 0.05 Red shiner 0.35 1.55 0.05 - - - 1.95 Blacktail shiner 0.05 7.30 3.60 0.15 ~ - 11.10 Mimic shiner - 0.05 - - - - 0.05 Bullhead minnow 0.10 3.15 0.05 ~ - - 3.30 Mosquitofish 0.10 ~ - - - - 0.10 Inland silverside - 4.50 5.30 0.20 - - 10.00 Longear sunfish ~ - - ~ 0.05 0.05 Total 0.60 16.70 9.00 0.35 0.05 ~ 26.70 30 --- Page 35 --- Table 5. (Continued) Total number of each . inch group per 1,000 ft Species ] 2 3 4 5 >5 Tota! Winter Red shiner 5.00 5.60 0.15 - - 10.75 Blacktail shiner 0.20 9.40 2.85 - - - 12.45 Bullhead minnow 0.15 1.65 - - - 1.80 Channel catfish - - - - 0.05 - 0.05 inland sitlverside - 5.55 6.50 - - - 12.05 Bluegill 0.05 - - - - - 0.05 Qrangethroat darter - 0.10 - - ~ - 0.10 Logperch - - - - 0.05 - 0.05 Dusky darter - - 0.05 - - 0.05 Freshwater drum - - - 0.05 0.05 Total 5.40 22.30 9.55 - 0.10 0.05 37.40 3] --- Page 36 --- Table 6. Gill net sampling statistics, four net nights, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, April, 1981. Ol Total Weight per Mean Total Number per Weight 200 ft. of net Weigh: Species Number 200 ft. of net (1b) (1b) (1b) a See oer ea ee EN mene NTT Tae Spotted gar 1 0.25 1.0 0.25 1.00 Longnose gar 21 5.26 35.2 8.80 1.68 Gizzard shad 29 7.25 15.2 3.80 0.52 Threadfin shad 7 1.75 0.1 0.03 0.01 Carp 4 1.00 6.4 1.60 1.60 Blacktail shiner 3 O:75 0.1 0.03 0.03 River carpsucker 2 0.50 4 0.30 0.60 Smallmouth buffalo 24 6.00 109.4 27535 4.56 Channel catfish * 9 2.20 25.4 6.35 2.82 Flathead catfish * 3 0.75 eT af 6.93 9.23 Striped bass * 2 0.50 11.5 2.88 5.25 Bluegill * 2 0.50 0.4 0.10 0.20 Longear sunfish * ] 0.25 el 0.03 0.10 GS x LE sunfish hybrid * 1 0.25 0.1 0.03 0.10 Largemouth bass * ] 0.25 0.6 0.15 0.6C White crappie * ] 0,25 0.2 0.05 0.2C Total 111 21429 234.6 58.65 Sport Fishes 20 5.00 66.0 16.50 Rough Fishes 91 22.75 168.6 42.15 * Sport Fish 32 --- Page 37 --- Table 7. Gill net sampling statistics, four net nights, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, July, 1981. Total Weight per Mean Total Number per Weight 200 ft. of net Weight Species Number 200 ft. of net (1b) (1b) (1b) Longnose gar 3 0.75 18.9 4.73 6.30 Gizzard shad 13 3625 5.8 1.45 0.45 Carp 3 O75 5.4 1.35 1.80 River carpsucker 4 1.00 Ze 0.53 0.53 Smallmouth buffalo 19 4.75 48.6 12.115 2.56 Channel catfish * 13 S25 Bhat 5.28 1.62 Flathead catfish * ] 0.25 7.0 1.75 7.00 White bass * 1 0.25 1.2 0.30 1.20 Striped bass * ] 0.25 1.8 0.45 1.80 Warmouth * ] 0.25 9.1 0.03 0.10 Longear sunfish * ] 0.25 0.1 0.03 0.10 Spotted bass * 1 0.25 0.2 0.05 0.20 Largemouth bass * 2 0.50 1.1 0.28 0.55 Freshwater drum 2 0.50 19.5 4.88 9.75 Total 65 16.25 132.9 33.23 Sport Fishes 21 5.25 32.6 8.15 Rough Fishes ae 11.00 100.3 25.08 * Sport Fish 33 --- Page 38 --- Table 8. Gill net sampling statistics, four net nights, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, December, 1981. [ssn EE EEE EE IIIS Total Weight per Mean Total Number per Weight 200 ft. of net Weight Species Number 200 ft. of net (1b) (1b) (1b) Longnose gar 9 2.25 50.1 12.53 5.57 Gizzard shad 14 3.50 4.0 1.00 0.29 Carp 2 0.50 3.7 0.93 1.85 River carpsucker 3 0.75 1.4 0.35 0.47 Smallmouth buffalo 15 3.75 42.3 10.58 2.82 Channel catfish * 7 1«28 8.0 2.00 1.14 White bass * 7 TefS 5.0 Lato 0.72 Striped bass * 1 0.25 355 0.88 3.50 Striped bass hybrid * ] 0.25 5.9 1.48 5.90 Bluegill * ] 0.25 0.1 0.03 0.10 Longear sunfish * 1 0.25 0.1 0.03 0.10 Freshwater drum ] 0.25 0.1 0.03 0.10 Total 62 15.50 124.2 31.05 Sport Fishes 18 4.50 22.6 5.65 Rough Fishes oe 11.00 101.6 25.40 a * Sport Fish 34 --- Page 39 --- Table 9. Gill net sampling statistics, four net nights, Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas, February, 1982. nn Total Weight per Mean Total Number per Weight 200 ft. of net Weight Species Number 200 ft. of net (1b) (1b) (1b) Longnose gar 4 1.00 19.5 4.88 4.88 Gizzard shad 21 5.25 5.5 2.13 0.40 River carpsucker 8 2.00 4.5 1.133 0.56 Smallmouth buffalo 20 5.00 102.3 25.58 5.12 Golden redhorse 2 0.50 1.2 0.30 0.60 Channel catfish * 29 7.25 31.8 7.95 1.10 White bass * ] 0.25 0.5 0.13 0.50 Bluegill * 1 0.25 0.2 0.05 0.20 Spotted bass * ] 0.25 2.0 0.50 2.00 Largemouth bass * ] 0.25 0.6 0.15 0.60 Logperch ] 0.25 Tr.+ - 0.03 Freshwater drum ] 0.25 0.5 0.13 0.50 Total 90 22.50 171.6 42.90 Sport Fishes 33 8.25 35.1 8.78 Rough Fishes 57 14.25 136.5 34.12 * Sport Fish + Trace is used for amounts less than 0.05. 35 --- Page 40 --- pl°9Ls Le" pop OL°8LY LL*29€ €9° 962 €£°622 6€°ZEL “Aout Lenuue JO UNS €8° LS L9°Sb 69° 9S 85°S9 02°29 v6" L6 6€°ZEL "uouL Lenuue abeusry 68°08 L9°O€ 05°29 br e9 02°49 $6° 16 6€°ZEL S}UaWeASUL abeuaAy 86° 8ES 60°8St 8b Leb 86° 6SE tS" 962 pe 622 6€°ZEL QL payyblam-bae pur 6°8ES L*L8b S*9bt L°S8E €° 082 orale 6°S2L é pZ6l L L°8tv L°68€ eee 8° 982 G°802 L’vSl € SZ6L 9 6° 9b 6° L6E L°80€ 9° Ove L£°Lél é 9/61 S O° 6vE L* L6é 8° Ove 8°6EL Z LL61 v S*LLE G* eee 9°EcL é 8261 € L861 0 : ' 89h IE (Wl) WAIST 1819] ; spun) a0, aby "28-L86L ‘sexe, ‘AZUNO) 07ULd OLed ‘UdALY SOZPUG AY} WOUJ pazZIa,[09 ySLjqeo LauUeYD Jo (um) SyZbua, [e307 pazelNd,ed-yDeq aheuary “OL PL9eL 36 --- Page 41 --- Table 11. Growth of channel catfish in the Brazos River, Palo Pinto County, Texas and other waters. Total Length (mm) at Year 3 é 5 Water oo —————— Brazos River, TX 137 1 Lake Palo Pinto, TX 107 Lake Kickapoo, TX 2 199 Grand Lake, OK 3 76 Lake Texondd! 137 Little River, ov * 94 Lake Lawtonka, OK 4 104 Six Streams in OK 4 107 Verdigris River, OK ‘ 84 i 1 (Hysmith et al. 1982) 2 (Parks 1981) 3 (Miller 1966) 4 (Carlander 1969) 2 229 205 244 145 221 198 196 196 140 297 316 211 272 277 284 279 198 37 360 335 269 318 330 351 348 246 427 405 333 353 452 4|7 409 302 6 458 457 401 373 467 472 351 7 539 457 521 495 406 --- Page 42 --- Table 12. Recommended monthly minimum instantaneous Tlow (cts) on the Brazos River at the Morris Sheppard Dam, above Possum Kingdom Reservoir (PKR) near South Bend, Texas and beiow PKR near Palo Pinto, Texas Brazos River [Morris Sheppard Brazos River Month near South Bend* Dam ** | near Palo Pinto* January 24 39 | 54 February 23 | 33 | 42 March 31 | 48 65 April 4] | 58 74 May 179 197 | 215 June 260 | 332 | 403 July 66 194 322 August 42 | 135 227 September 68 | 119 170 October 49 \ 71 / 92 November 35 \ 45 54 December 27 \ 37 / 46 \ * * Based on recommended minimum flow fi Sone X75), ** Average between first and third columns. 38 --- Page 43 --- 5-Year Management Plan for Brazos River between Texas Highway 16 and Farm Road 4 1983-1987 River Description: The Brazos River is the third largest river in Texas. It originates in west-central Texas as the Double Mountain, Salt, and Clear Forks of the Brazos and flows southeasterly for approximately 840 mi to the Gulf of Mexico. The river flows through most of the main land resource areas of the Texas-High Plains, Rolling Plains, North Central Prairies, Cross Timbers, Grand Prairie, Blacklapd Prairies, Central Basin, and Claypan Area, and drains about 42,800 mi‘. This study was conducted on approximately 20 mi of the Brazos River in Palo Pinto County between Morris Sheppard Dam, which impounds Possum Kingdom Lake, and Farm-to-Market Road 4 (Fig. 1A). The dam is controlled by the Brazos River Authority which produces power for the Brazos Electric Cooperative System. The area is confined to the North Central Prairies land resource area and included the major tributaries Garland, Ioni, Eagle, and Dark Valley Creeks. This section of the river is generally clear, has 13 major pools, numerous riffles, and many backwater flats. These physical features vary greatly with releases from the reservoir. At low flow (= 20 cfs) many of the riffles and backwater flats dry up. During periods of high flow ( >1,000 cfs) the river rises 2-3 ft. The stream gradient is 2.7 ft/mi and depth ranges from 0.1 to 15 ft. Recreation is an important resource on this portion of the river. Topography in this section ranged from moderately wooded and grassy hills to thickly wooded or cultivated bottomland. Cedar, mesquite, and native grasses predominated surrounding hills. Cottonwood, cedar, persimmon, salt cedar, willow, and native grasses were abundant along the shoreline, while the bottomland vegetation consisted primarily of pecan, cottonwood, oak, low shrubs, and native grasses, Mean annual rainfall in this immediate area is 28 in; in the headwaters of the Brazos River it is 16 to 20 in, Major sport fishes included rainbow trout, channel catfish, white bass, Striped bass, sunfishes, spotted bass, largemouth bass, and white crappie, Physicochemical Characteristics Basically, water quality in this section of the Brazos River was compatable with fish life. Two exceptions to this generalization were frequent and drastic fluctuations in water temperature, and variation in flow regimes resulting from hydroelectric power generation from Morris Sheppard Dam, To alleviate this, the monthly minimum instantaneous flow (discharge) from Morris Sheppard Dam should be increased (Table 1A). Monthly minimum jnstantaneous fiow in this section of the Brazos River (U.S.G.S. Station No. 08089000, at FM4, Palo Pinto County, Texas) should vary from 42-403 cfs with maximum flow occurring May-September. Our recommended flow at the Morris Sheppard Dam (Table 1A) is based on an average of upstream monthly minimum instantaneous flow and a downstream monthly minimum instantaneous flow. This average flow was selected to compensate for non-recorded inflow --- Page 44 --- from tributaries between the U.S.G.S. gaging station at South Bend, Texas and Morris Sheppard Dam, and for the influence of runoff from tributaries between the dam and the U.S.G.S. gaging station at FM 4. Fish Habitat The river immediately downstream from the Texas Highway 16 bridge is a cool, clear water stream with a bottom of sand, gravel, rubble, and boulders. As it progresses towards the FM 4 bridge, it becomes more turbid, and the bottom contains more muck, detritus, and clay. About 1.5 to 2 mi upstream of FM 4 the river bottom is scoured bedrock. The most limiting factor for the fishery is the volume of flow which is insufficient to maintain stream habitat for tes pebgy sport fish production. An increase in monthly minimum instantaneous flow (Table 1A) in this section of the river would allow for increased sport fish production by reclaiming all or a portion of the estimated 49 percent of the stream course dewatered during low flow (€20 cfs). At the recommended monthly minimum instantaneous flows, an estimated 85 to 100 percent of the stream course would be watered most of the time, as opposed to 51 percent under current flow regimes (1978-1981). Fish Community With the exception of channel catfish, the sport fishery for this section of the Brazos River is very poor. Seasonal and flow-induced immigration of white bass and striped bass, and the introduction of catchable rainbow trout in the tailrace below Morris Sheppard Dam during November - March, provides a temporary supplement to the fishery. However, we believe a more permanent solution would be in the best interest of angling recreation in this section of the river. The sport fishery in this section of the river would be enhanced through the implementation of recommended flow regimes. Additionally, the introduction of smallmouth bass would further enhance the fishery through increased species diversity. Smallmouth bass prefer a stream with a gravel or rocky bottom, clear, cool water, riffles, boulders, and pools over 4-ft deep. In spite of extreme fluctuations in water temperature, this section of the river meets most of these requirements. Smallmouth bass might prove more suitable than native black basses to the existing environment. Because of increased utilization and public interest, the annual rainbow trout "“put-and- take" stocking program should be continued. Public Access and Facilities Public access to this section of the Brazos River is limited to a 1 mi portion of the river between Morris Sheppard Dam and the Texas Highway 16 bridge and the FM 4 bridge crossing. There are numerous private access points and access can be gained in many cases with permission of the land owner, The only facility is a small camp area with toilets provided by the Brazos River Authority immediately below the Morris Sheppard Dam. Canoe and float trip enthusiasts utilize the river frequently between March and October. Heavy use of the area near the Texas Highway 16 bridge coincides with our “put- and-take" rainbow trout program. Although trash recepticals are provided in this area, chemical toilets should be installed. Throughout the year other anglers utilize the tailrace and the large pool adjacent the Possum Kingdom State Fish Hatchery, especially for white bass and striped bass, --- Page 45 --- Fisherman Information The fishing opportunities of this section of the Brazos River are well known through local and Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex newspapers. Additiona! fisherman information should be publicizea. Fish Harvest Regulations Existing fishing regulations are adequate at this time, and no regulation changes are needed. Management Recommendations Year Activity Man-days 1983 Present plan to Brazos River Authority (BRA). Zz Physicochemical characteristics 1. Initiate action with BRA to regulate water releases from Morris Sheppard Dam according to Table lA. ] Fish habitat 1. Same as Item 1 Physicochemical characteristics, Fish community 1. Stock 250,000 smallmouth bass fingerlings. 4 2. Check for survival of fingerlings. 12 3. Continue rainbow trout stocking program. Public access and facilities 1. Encourage the installation of chemical toilets at. Texas Highway 16 bridge by the Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation or Palo Pinto County. 2 Fisherman information 1. Publicize fisherman information, ] Fish harvest regulations No action needed. L Year Activit Man-days 1984 Physicochemical characteristics No action needed. Fish habitat No action needed. --- Page 46 --- Year Activity Man-days Fish community 4s 1. Stock 250,000 smallmouth bass fingerlings. 2. Check for survival of smallmouth bass. 20 3. Continue rainbow trout stocking program. Public access and facilities 1. Follow up on chemical toilets. ] Fisherman information 1. Publicize fisherman information. 1 Fish harvest regulations No action needed. ros TOTALSs—“‘(‘CSOSUUUUUUUU 6 Year Activity Man-days 1985 Physicochemical characteristics No action needed. Fish habitat No action needed. Fish community 1. Stock 250,000 smallmouth bass fingerlings. 4 2. Check for reproduction and survival of smallmouth bass. 10 3. Evaluate the impact to the fish community of streamflow regimes recommended and implemented in 1983. 20 4. Continue rainbow trout stocking program, Public access and facilities No action needed. Fisherman information 1. Publicize fisherman information. ] Fish harvest regulations No action needed. Ma Tr ~— |. SSIETT 3s --- Page 47 --- Year Activity . Man-days 1986 Physicochemical characteristics No action needed. Fish habitat No action needed. Fish community 1. Check for reproduction and survival of smallmouth bass. 20 2. Continue rainbow trout stocking program, Public access and facilities No action needed. Fisherman inf…