TPWD 1965 F-2-R-12 #997: Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Inks, Job No. B-24(a): Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-B

JOB COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-2-R—12 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS OF REGION 2-B Job No. B-24(a): Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Inks Project Leader: R. L. White J. Weldon watson Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D—J Coordinator Assistant Director for Wildlife June 23, 1965 ABSTRACT Inks Lake, Burnet County, Texas, has been the object of reconnaissance work for the past ten years. Efforts to improve the fishery complex of the lake have included two selective treatments for the control of gizzard shad. Despite periodic increases in the black bass population over the years, rough fish continue to dominate the data collected in seining and netting operations. The past segment revealed the black bass population to be about average as compared to past segments. Until more efficient management methods can be devised for the lake, this job will be terminated. JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of ____Texas Project No. Figan12___ Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2-3 Job No. Bm24 (a) Title; Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Inks Period Covered; February 1, 1964 w JanuanAa3l 1965 _ OBJECTIVES: 1. To determine the fish Species present in Inks Lake and their relative abundance. 2. To determine particularly the relative abundance of largemouth bass following the massive stocking of 1958 through 1962. 3. To determine if the largemouth bass is reproducing in Inks Lake. PROCEDURE: Reconnaissance work has been carried out on Lake Inks, Burnet County, Texas for the past ten years beginning with the basic inventory done in 1955~56 as Job BulA, Project Fw2~R~3. Selective treatments of the lake for the control of gizzard shad were conducted on Inks Lake in November 1956 (Project F~14—D«4, Job 16 aul), and in March 1962 (Project Fm14anfi, Job 16 am35). All of the work over these years has been aimed at improving the fishery complex, notably the largem mouth black bass population, of Lake Inks. During the past segment, a total of 115 gill net collections were made on the lake. Collection.s were made with gill nets standardi.zed for use on all DmJ projects. Seine samples were made with a 20 foot straight seine. The net sampling was done at stations set up :in the basic survey. Except for May 1964, netting collections were made every month of the segment. An attempt to check spawning activities of the black bass was made in conjuncm tion with reconnaissance work on the lake. Water quality data was also collected on the lake in conjunction with reconnaissance work. Table 1 is a checklist of the fish species mentioned in this report. FINDINGS: Netting collections for the pnoject period are summarized in Table 2. Rough fish, namely gizzard shad, smallmouth buffalo, and river carpsucker dominate the catch. Comparison of the collections of this Segment with that of the other nine reveals negligible difference. Although there is a slight increase in per cent by numbers and weight over 1963, the figures for 1964 are about average for the ten years. It should be noted that the gill nets which were introduced for use on all DWJ work during this segment did not favor the collection of black bass. 1'.) 2 v.“ The gill nets used in past segments stayed near the surface of the water with the floatmline on or near the surface, whereas the nets used this year sank to the bottom. Consequently, more deepudwelling species such as flathead catfish were collected than in past segments. Had the same type of gill nets been used as had been employed ingarior segments, perhaps more black bass would have been collected. At any rate, the figures for the percentage by weight and numbers over the past ten segments are given below. INKS LAKE ROUGH FISH RATIO, 195591964 Egar 1955 1956 1957 1958 l259 1960 1961 1962 iggg 1964 Per cent rough fish (number) 63 78 63 71 65 7O 73 56 55 61 Per cent rough fish (weight) 74 74 78 71 74 79 85 80 68 76 —m—mm——umu— As can be seen from the above figures, the slight drop in the rough fish domination of statistics found last year was short lived, and the figures are near the average for the past years. Spawning activity of the black bass was checked visually, but evidence of spawning was not plentiful. Seining collections did not reveal as large a number of bass fipgerling as had been hoped. Seining activities were somewhat limited because of the shortage of man power. Water quality data were collected, and no unusual readings were determined, as can be seen in Table 3. DISCUSSION; After ten years of reconnaissance work on Inks Lake, the black bass population of the lake has not reached the density which project personnel had hoped it would. The two shad kills provided some drOp in the tremendous numbers of rough fish, but it was a brief reSpite. Although netting collections do not reveal an increase in the black bass population during the past segment, owing possibly to the change in nets, fishermen report some good catches of bass periodically. It is hoped that when the project becomes fully staffed, that a creel census may be conducted on the lake in order to substantiate any reports of increased harvesting of black bass by fishermen. Until this time, limited reconnaissance_ work on Inks Lake will be carried out under the state program, and this job will be terminated. Because of the similarity of this job with Job Bu20, Fm9nR, and its publiw cation Inland Fisheries Series No. 5, there will be no publication of this job. W Mac/2.9%, PREPARED BY: R. L. White —_ mwnmflm—p “ti—MW Projec.t Leader (Coordinator) Date: June 23.1.965 I John E. Tilton “mm—mm". flwmm—nfl Regional Supervisor m3- Inks Lake A Checklist of Species Mentioned in the Report SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo Carpiodes carpio River carpsucker Moxostoma congestum Gray redhorse sucker Cyprinus carpio European carp Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish Ictalurus melas Black bullhead Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish or yellow catfish Roccus chryson L White bass Micropterus treculi Guadalupe bass or Texas spotted bass Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass Chaenobryttus gulosus Warmouth Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill sunfish Lepomis megalotis Lpngear sunfish Pomoxis annularis White crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie Aplodinotus grunniens Freshwater drum 14- TABLE 2 Inks Lake Netting Results, 1964 “a “mm—m“ Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Ictiobus bubalus Carpigges carpio Cyprinu§_carpio Ngtemigonus crysoleucas Ictalurus punctatus Ictalugus melas Ictalurus natalis, ————_—n_—_—a——~. Pylodigtis olivaris Roccus chrysops Micropterus treculi ——.-——e—_e :— Micro terus salmoidefi flm— . Chaenobryttus gplosus _— —:—u—-m—:)—r.-— —u,—n—-.-——u Lepomis gyanellus icsssisflaesreieshue Lepomis macrochirus —.-—:1_J d—g—a—fl Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis ds-nn —r—-m—q Pomoxis ni’rgmagulatug Aplodinotus grunniegs TOTALS PER CENT NUMBER BY NUMBER WEIGHT 12 0.50 39.63 934 39 10 423 92 281 11.76 1,725.67 108 4.52 361.03 1 0.04 3.25 73 8.06’ 333.42 7 0.29 1.44 104 4.35 138.36 6 0.25 2.69 2 0.08 '0.56 57 2.39 380.45 189 7.91 268.59 5 0.21 4.56 54 2.26 73.36 48 2.01 9.49 31 1.30 5.09 48 2.01 11 91 305 12.77 39.86 29 1.21 3.22 54 -2 26 36.31 1 0.04 0.19 ___&Q_. 1.§§_ ___Iléié§_ 2.389 100 00 3,977.65 2.88 PER CENT BY WEIGHT 1.00 10.66 43.38 9.08 0.08 8.38J 0.04 0.11 1.84 0.24 0.13 0.30 1.00 0.08 0.91 0.01 100.00 .cmxmu wcfipmou oz 0 IIIIIlIIIliirIIIIIIIIIIlIIIII1tIIiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIfIIIIIit1IIII1IIIIIIIIIIIItIIiIlIIlilIIII 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40000 00400400 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48000 40064 .040 0.40 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48000 .0 .2 .040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48000 00-00 .040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48000 000 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 48000 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 00.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 600000600064 06002 1IammIr14mwr1Ia041000w00w1I1II1rIammrlaamMIirnmAtwwmwmmwluurllllammlrlummurinmmrlw600060 .mwrII4mwrIIam4rt000mm0millnnlillllrlillrlilli. dema .m huwncmh @004 .N umnEwomm 0004 .m uwnfiwboz 11III111111111111111111111111II111II1srI1I1II11IIII1II1IrI1u1rII1I1IIIrI1aI1II1IIrI1IIIrI1urII1II1I1IIr1II1arIII1I1IIIIrunlrullrllillrnlaulrll 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40000 00404400 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48000 40060 .040 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40000 .0 .2 .040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48000 00-00 .040 0.04 0.0 0.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 48000 000 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40000 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 40 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 60000060000 06003 .00 .00 .04 6600000 .00 .00 .04 6600000 .00 .00 .04 6600000 Iamm1IrammIIIam4110m0mm0w1111|11111111111111111 0004 .4 0606060 0004 .0 060060060 0004 .0 006000 0004 .0 0400 gig 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40000 00404400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.044 40000 40060 .440 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.044 48000 .0.2 040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48000 00-00 .440 0.44 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 40000 000 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48000 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 00.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 00.00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 60000060860 06003 a1In4mmI1IammIII4m4I000m00wIa1IInrI40mIII40waII4m4n0000m0wIIIII1IIam011140011140411000000m111111114001114001 .04 6600000 1111111111: 0004 .0 6060 0004 .0 44000 0004 .0 06000 0004 .0 00000060 0004 040 4000 06000 0004 6064 .0 64000 JOB COMPLETION REPORT As required by FEDERAL AID IN FISHERIES RESTORATION ACT TEXAS Federal Aid Project No. F-2-R-l2 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS AND SURVEYS OF THE WATERS 0F REGION 2-B Job No. B-24(b): Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Granite Shoals Project Leader: R. L. White J. Weldon Natson ‘ Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Marion Toole Eugene A. Walker D-J Coordinator Assistant Director for Wildlife June 25, 1965 Lake Granite Shoals was resurveyed to determine the effect of commercial netting on the lake. There has not been a reduction of rough fish in the lake effected by the commercial netting of smallmouth buffalo. To date, data collected indicate a replacement of the harvested buffalo by the river carpsucker. The carpsucker is, from both a fishing as well as a nutritional standpointa the least desirable of the rough fish Species. The job will be continued to obtain more conclusive evidence as to this ratio shift within the rough fish complex. JOB COMPLETION REPORT State of Texas Project No. F—2-R—12 Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 2~B Job No. B-24(b) Title: Fisheries Resurvey of Lake Granite Shoals Period Covered: February 12 1964 - January 312 1965 _____, Objectives: 1. To determine the effect of commercial netting on the carpsucker9 Earpiodes ’garpio9 w-buffalo, Ictiobus bubalus, population ratio. 2. To determine the overall effect of commercial netting of rough fish on the fish population of Lake Granite Shoals. Procedures: A total of 166 gill nets, standardized for use on all DJ projects9 were set in Lake Granite Shoals. The overnight sets were made at stations which were selected to give maximum coverage of the lake. Seining samples were taken with a twenty-foot straight seine in an effort to obtain relative abundance figures on juvenile forage fish in the lake. water quality studies were carried out on the lake in conjunction with netting and seining operations. Data collected in reconnaissance work on the lake was examined closely to determine changes 0r trends. in the fish population. Which could be attributed in aemmerciai netting on the lake. Tabie l is a .heckiist of the fish ape: Les mentioned in thi.s report. Table 2 illustrates the results of the netting {cilectirns on Lake Granite .Ltgeiii damning tugs segnunfii. Earring ~?i*s pergiyi. afiflfiflfiiuieii is £:0ngor rrnigh E r0»hg neiabivg 000-200020 bufiaie3 iffiibLuS babaiue- wfii‘Tfld iie second year. H“? “:3" J 0.0-00000000000000.0000. “mag-m; ‘-" is can be seen in Table 2 and the a"~nnnenv’rg graph; despite rammernial rungh Linn =0mtrai (nerrtiensg the urges tag” a? reugh iieh by bath weight and number 311 ,1: ._ .1"? r F‘ 5-; {3" r “(-3 55 lg: Q:- 5:} C(- ”:52 X. {g— 1 -. .i pr; .31: .3; .E: $2.110: 4.3;} 0"" 1 is. 0- .77}; .Aitheuah.t%000 lure teen iiirie 5*"Et'ifr the rough fie? same iiafii ratio. F aim E" u f ‘5:- ‘4 tier; =7“ tr '. " i «F i F“ = ‘ -.i he i “31" , r' L‘ F's .. "i * r‘xw‘a'l wfifiqr (shag-t “nth“? {LE- ---- pflf Q“? 3 I. .000 ii 1‘10 «#11110 1"” 2'5: #100. 77777 W’Tfillh‘flil “1'11