Upload
texkev
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
1/25
PERFORMANCE REPORT
As Required by
FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT
TEXAS
FEDERAL AID PROJECT F-30-R-29
STATEWIDE FRESHWATER FISHERIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
2003 Survey Report
Lake Monticello
Prepared by:
Michael J. Ryan, District Management Supervisor
and
Michael W. Brice, Assistant District Management Supervisor
Inland Fisheries Division
District 3-A, Marshall, Texas
Robert L. CookExecutive Director
Phil Durocher
Director, Inland Fisheries
July 31, 2004
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
2/25
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary 2
Introduction 3
Sportfish harvest regulations 4
Methods 4
Literature cited 5
Physical and historical data 6
Aquatic vegetation survey 7
Stocking history 8
Location of sampling sites 9
Species informationGizzard shad 10
Channel catfish 11
Bluegill 13
Redear sunfish 14Largemouth bass 15
Fisheries management plan 18
Appendices
1. Species table 192. Catch rate histories 20
3. Age and growth histories 21
4. Electrophoretic analyses 23
5. Access and facilities 24
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
3/25
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lake Monticello was surveyed in 2003-2004 using gill nets, trap nets, and electrofishing to survey
the fish community. A creel survey was conducted December through February 2002 to determine
angler utilization and harvest. Aquatic vegetation and access facilities also were surveyed. This
report summarizes the results of the surveys and contains a management plan for the reservoirbased on those findings.
Reservoir description: Lake Monticello is located on Blundell and Smith creeks in theCypress River Basin and is used as a cooling reservoir for lignite-fueled power generation and
public recreation. Water levels are stable, maintained by surface run-off and a supplemental
water supply from Bob Sandlin Reservoir. Angler and boat access is adequate; however, thereare no ADA-specific facilities. Structural habitat is comprised of inundated timber, brush, and
creek channels (Ryan and Brice 2000). Aquatic macrophytes occupy < 5 % of the basin with
American lotus being the dominant species. Heated effluent associated with power productionlimits available fish habitat during summer months. Water temperatures approach and
sometimes exceed 95
o
F in the epilimnion during July through September severely reducingpreferred habitat for fish, contributing to occasional fish kills (Ryan et al. 1986).
Prey species: Gizzard shad, threadfin shad, and bluegill catch rates (fish/hour) during 2003 fallelectrofishing were 12.0, 855.0, and 364.0, respectively. The catch rate of threadfin shad
increased from 370.0 fish/hour (1999) to 855.0 fish/hour. Although the catch rate of bluegill
declined from 874.0 fish/hour (1999) to 364.0 fish/hour, condition factors (Wr) exceeded 100for most inch groups of stock-size (> 8.0 inches) largemouth bass indicating adequate prey was
available.
Catfishes: The catch rate (fish/net night) of channel catfish in 2004 spring gill netting was 54.2and represents a 3 to 4 fold increase in the catch rate observed in 1999 (13.8). Most of theincrease can be attributed to strong year classes produced in 2002 and 2003. The catch rate of
legal-size (> 12 inches) channel catfish was 29.8 fish/net night indicating high numbers of fishwere available for harvest. Estimation of age and growth of channel catfish was attempted
using otoliths, but they proved to be unreadable. Based on estimates from pectoral spines taken
in previous years, growth of channel catfish is good as fish reach legal-size during their thirdgrowing season (Ryan and Brice 2000). Directed angling pressure (winter) for channel catfish
was 0.74 hours/acre in 2002; underutilized compared to other district water bodies with quality
fisheries. Angler catch and harvest rates (number/hour) for channel catfish was 2.02 and 1.38,respectively in 2002; higher compared to other district water bodies with quality fisheries.
Black bass: Electrofishing catch rates (fish/hour) of largemouth bass have generally increasedsince 1997. Most of this increase can be attributed to largemouth bass < 10 inches indicatingproduction of strong year classes in recent years. Strong year classes were especially evident in
2002 and 2003. Assuming angler harvest of largemouth bass remains low, these year classes
should recruit into the slot-length range (14 to 24 inches), thus increasing numbers of fish >
14.0 inches available for catch and release. The electrofishing catch rate of largemouth bass >14.0 inches was 32.0 fish/hour in 2003; slightly less than the mean catch rate of 43.1 fish/hour
(1991 to 2003). The angler catch rate (fish/hour) for largemouth bass was 0.35 in 2002; similar
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
4/25
3
to that found in 1999 (0.39) and 2000 (0.23). Angler directed effort (hours/acre) for largemouth
bass was 8.00 in 2002 indicating the fishery receives relatively high seasonal utilization.Harvest (fish/hour) of largemouth bass was almost non-existent (0.01 [2000] and 0.00 [2002]).
Harvest regulations and catch and release fishing by anglers are factors that have helped sustain
densities of largemouth bass > 14 inches. It is unclear as to whether expanding the slot limit
from 14-21 to 14-24 inches has contributed to an increase in > 21-inch largemouth bass;however, anglers appear to be satisfied with the revised regulation. Growth of largemouth bass
< age 5 remains consistently high compared to other district water bodies. Largemouth bassreach 14.0 inches by their third growing season. Electrophoretic analysis of young-of-year
largemouth bass collected in 2003 yielded 50.0 % pure Florida largemouth bass; considerably
higher than other area reservoirs.
Crappie: A stocking program was implemented in 1986 in an effort to develop a crappiefishery at Lake Monticello. Although a few crappie have been observed in fish community
samples and during creel surveys, no viable fishery was established. The stocking program wasdiscontinued in 1997.
Management StrategiesThe fishery needs to be managed under existing harvest regulations. High water temperatures(> 95oF) during summer months continue to be a management concern as occasional fish kills
occur during worst-case conditions. Thermal stressors may also be repressing recruitment and
reducing longevity of certain species. The fish community and angler usage should continue to
be monitored. Construction of a fishing pier (meeting ADA specifications) would improvefishing access to non-boating anglers. Installation of a weatherproof bulletin board at the Titus
County Park headquarters would provide anglers with a variety of fishing information. We will
continue to keep anglers informed about fishing opportunities at Lake Monticello through localpress releases and public presentations.
INTRODUCTION
This document is a summary of fisheries data collected from Lake Monticello in 2003-2004. The
purpose of the document is to provide fisheries information and make management
recommendations to protect and improve the sport fishery. While information on other species offishes was collected, this report deals primarily with major sport fishes and important prey species.
Management strategies are included to address existing problems or opportunities. Historical data
is presented with the 2003-2004 data for comparison.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
5/25
4
Harvest regulations for Lake Monticello, Texas 2003-2004.
Daily Bag Minimum-MaximumSpecies Limit Length
Catfish, Blue and Channel 25 12 No limit
Catfish, Flathead 5 18 - No limitBass, Spotted 51
None
51, 2
Bass, Largemouth 14 242
Crappie, White and Black 25 10 - No limit1Aggregate bag limit for black basses.
2Slot length limit for largemouth bass changed from 14-21 inches to 14-24 inches September 1998.
Only 1 bass 24 inches or greater may be retained each day.
METHODS
Fishes were collected by electrofishing (1.0 hour at 12 stations), gill netting (5 net-nights), andtrap netting (5 net-nights). Sampling stations were randomly selected. Catch per unit effort(CPUE) for electrofishing was recorded as the number of fish caught per hour of actualelectrofishing, and for gill netting and trap netting as the number of fish caught in one net set
overnight in accordance with Fishery Assessment Procedures (TPWD, Inland FisheriesDivision, unpublished manual revised 2002).
An access creel survey (9 days/winter quarter; December-February) was conducted in 2002 toassess angler use, catch, and harvest in accordance with Fishery Assessment Procedures
(TPWD, Inland Fisheries Division, unpublished manual revised 2002).
Sampling statistics (CPUE for various length categories) and structural indices (ProportionalStock Density [PSD], Relative Stock Density [RSD], and Relative Weight [Wr]) werecalculated, when appropriate, for target fishes according to Anderson and Neumann (1996).
Ages were determined for largemouth bass using otoliths. Mean length (inches) at age at timeof capture was calculated for each age group. We attempted to use otoliths to age channel
catfish but they proved to be unreadable.
Liver samples from young-of-year largemouth bass were collected in accordance with FisheryAssessment Procedures (TPWD, Inland Fisheries Division, unpublished manual revised 2002).
An aquatic vegetation survey and an angler access facility survey was was conducted inaccordance with Fishery Assessment Procedures (TPWD, Inland Fisheries Division,unpublished manual revised 2002).
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
6/25
5
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, R. and R. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. Pages
447-482 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ryan, M.J., V. D. Palma, and A. A. Forshage. 1986. Influence of temperature on fish survival and
distribution in a heated East Texas reservoir. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish andWildl. Agencies 40:47-56.
Ryan, M. J. and M. W. Brice. 2000. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and managementprogram. Survey report for Lake Monticello, 1999. Fed. Aid in Sport Fish Restoration,
Project F-30-R-24. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Inland Fisheries Branch. Austin,
Texas.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
7/25
6
Physical and historical data for Lake Monticello, Texas, 2003-2004.
Inland Fisheries Water Body Code: 0090 IF District 3-A, Marshall
Controlling authority: Texas Utilities Acres: 2,000
Constructed for: Municipal/industrial water supply, recreation County: Titus
Location: 60 miles north of Longview MSA Longitude: 95o
03'
Latitude: 35o
05'Reservoir description: Cooling water impoundment
Mean depth (ft): 20.3
River system: Smith and Blundell Creeks in the Big Cypress BasinShoreline length (mi.): 6 Maximum depth (ft): 40.0
Shoreline development ratio: 2.6:1.0
Secchi disc range (ft): 3.5-4.0 Watershed (mi2): 40.0
Constructed: 1972Conductivity: 335 (umhos/cm)
Access:
Boat: AdequateBank: Adequate
ADA: Inadequate
Sampling History:
Method Year
Gill netting 1974, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987-1999, 2004Electrofishing 1975, 1976, 1978-1983, 1985-2003
Trap netting 1975, 1976, 1986-1999, 2003
Cove rotenone 1974, 1976, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989Winter creel survey 1999, 2000, 2002
Year creel survey 1974, 1983, 1985-1999
Habitat survey 1999
Vegetation survey 1989, 1991-2003
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
8/25
7
Survey of aquatic vegetation, Lake Monticello, Texas, September 2003. Acreage of each species
and percent coverage of total reservoir surface acres (2,000) are presented.
Species
American lotusCattail
HydrillaSagittaria
Water primrose
Total area
(acres)
68.2310.30
3.580.46
0.32
%
coverage
3.400.50
0.200.02
0.02
Grand total 82.89 4.14
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
9/25
8
Stocking history of Lake Monticello, Texas. Size categories are ADL for adult, FGL for fingerling,
FGL+ for advanced fingerling, and FRY for fry.
Species Year Number Size
Blue catfish 1972 10,000 FGL+
1980 3,250 FGL+Species Total 13,250
Channel catfish 1972 75,500 FGL+
1973 91,405 FGL+
Species Total 166,905
Flathead catfish 1973 2,740 FGL+
Species Total 2,740
Florida largemouth bass 1973 197,140 FGL
1998 50,321 FGLSpecies Total 247,461
White crappie 1986 100,800 FGL
Species Total 100,800
Black crappie 1988 50,000 FGL
1989 50,119 FRY
1990 100,488 FRY1991 98,330 FRY
Species Total 298,937
Walleye 1973 1,000,000 FRY
1974 40,000 FRY
Species Total 1,040,000
Green x redear sunfish 1972 925 ADL
Species Total 925
Black x white crappie 1995 201,984 FRY
1996 301,231 FRY
Species Total 503,215
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
10/25
9
Location of fish community sampling stations, Lake Monticello, Texas, 2003-2004. Sampling
stations are designated with an E for electrofishing, a G for gill netting, and a T for trap netting.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
11/25
10
Gizzard Shad
1998
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Inch Group
CPUE
1999
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Inch Group
CPUE
2003
0
5
10
15
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Inch Group
CPUE
Effort = 1.5 hrs.Total CPUE = 22.0Stock CPUE = 20.7
PSD = 82
Effort = 1.0 hrs.Total CPUE = 2.0
Stock CPUE = 2.0PSD = 100
Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 12.0Stock CPUE = 12.0
PSD = 67
Number of gizzard shad caught per hour (CPUE, bars) and population indices for fallelectrofishing collections, Lake Monticello, Texas October 1998, 1999, and 2003.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
12/25
11
Channel Catfish
Effort = 5 net-nightsTotal CPUE = 20.2Stock CPUE = 19.2
PSD= 19RSD-P = 0
1998
0
2
4
6
8
10
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Inch Group
CPUE
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
1999
0
2
4
6
8
10
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Inch Group
CPUE
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
2004
0
2
4
6
8
10
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Inch Group
CPUE
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
Effort = 5 net-nightsTotal CPUE = 13.8
Stock CPUE = 11.4PSD= 74RSD-P = 2
Effort = 5 net-nightsTotal CPUE = 54.2Stock CPUE = 38.8
PSD= 36RSD-P = 1
Number of channel catfish caught per net-night (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (lines),and population indices for spring gill netting surveys, Lake Monticello, Texas, May 1998,
1999, and 2004. Dashed-line indicates minimum length limit at the time of survey.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
13/25
12
Annual Creel Statistics1.41
0.74
1.41
1.19
2.91
0.80
1.38
2.021.65
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
NumberperHour
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
HoursperAcre
Winter 1999 Winter 2000 Winter 2002
DirectedEffort (h/acre) Catch (N/h) Harvest (N/h)
Creel statistics for anglers seeking channel catfish at Lake Monticello, Texas.
Creel surveys were conducted from December through February 1999, 2000, and 2002.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 1999
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 85
TH = 2,653
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 2000
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 158TH = 7,106
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 2002
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 136
TH = 9,354
Harvested channel catfish observed (bars) during winter creel surveys, December throughFebruary 1999, 2000, and 2002 at Lake Monticello, all anglers combined. N = total number
observed and TH = estimated total harvest.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
14/25
13
Bluegill
1996
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
Effort = 1.5 hrs.Total CPUE = 1410.6Stock CPUE = 1018.6
PSD = 1RSD-P = 0
1999
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
MeanRelativeWeight
Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 874.0Stock CPUE = 859.0
PSD = 1RSD-P = 0
Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 364.0Stock CPUE = 362.0
PSD = 2RSD-P = 0
Number of bluegill caught per hour (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (lines), andpopulation indices for fall electrofishing collections, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 1998,
1999, and 2003.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
15/25
14
Redear Sunfish
1998
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
MeanRelativeWeight
1999
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
MeanRelativeWeight
2003
0
2
4
6
8
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Inch Group
CPUE
70
80
90
100
MeanRelativeWeight
Effort = 1.5 hrs.Total CPUE = 19.3Stock CPUE = 13.3
PSD = 10RSD-P = 0
Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 10.0
Stock CPUE = 9.0PSD = 0RSD-P = 0
Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 1.0Stock CPUE = 1.0
PSD = 100RSD-P = 0
Number of redear sunfish caught per hour (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (lines), andpopulation indices for fall electrofishing collections, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 1998,
1999, and 2003.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
16/25
15
Largemouth Bass
2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Inch Group
CPUE
60
70
80
90
100
110120
130
140
150
MeanRelativeW
eight
Effort = 1.0 hrs.Total CPUE = 74.0Stock CPUE = 59.0
PSD = 44RSD-P = 32
2002
0
10
20
30
40
50
6070
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Inch Group
CPUE
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
MeanRelativeWeight
2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Inch Group
CPUE
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
MeanRelativeWeight
Effort = 1.0 hrs.Total CPUE = 172.0Stock CPUE = 115.0
PSD = 37RSD-P = 29%FLMB = 69.4
Effort = 1.0 hrs.
Total CPUE = 276.0Stock CPUE = 149.0PSD = 26
RSD-P = 17%FLMB = 50.0
Number of largemouth bass caught per hour (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (lines), and
population indices for fall electrofishing collections, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 2001,2002, and 2003. %FLMB = percent pure Florida largemouth bass genotypes present in a
sub-sample of age-0 fish. Dashed-line indicates slot length limit at time of survey.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
17/25
16
Annual Creel Statistics
12.67 14.01.0
0.912.0
0.8
10.00.7
NumberperH
our
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
8.007.55 8.0
0.39 6.00.35
4.00.23
2.0
0.010.00 0.000.0
Winter 1999 Winter 2000 Winter 2002
HoursperAcre
Directed Effort (h/acre) Catch (N/h) Harvest (N/h)
Creel statistics for anglers seeking largemouth bass at Lake Monticello, Texas.
Creel surveys were conducted from December through February 1999, 2000, and 2002.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 1999
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 85
TH = 2,653
0
10
20
3040
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 2000
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 158TH = 7,106
0
10
20
30
40
50
Number
10 11 12 13 14
Creel Harvest - Winter 2002
15 16 17 18 19
Inch Group
20 21 22 23 24
N = 136
TH = 9,354
Harvested largemouth bass observed (bars) during winter creel surveys, December throughFebruary 1999, 2000, and 2002 at Lake Monticello, all anglers combined. N = total number
observed and TH = estimated total harvest.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
18/25
17
Mean length (inches) at capture by age for largemouth bass (sexes combined) collected during fall
electrofishing, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 2001-2003. Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Age
(yrs.)
Year 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 92001 8.5 12.9 15.5 15.6 17.7 18.3 18.8 16.7 17.2
2002
(48)
9.0
(5)
13.3
(8)
16.8
(4)
16.5
(2) (2)
18.7
(2) (1)
18.1 17.6
(1)
18.8
2003(19)9.5
(13)13.2
(4)15.9
(6)17.3 17.7
(2)17.4
(4) (2) (1)
(22) (10) (9) (2) (3) (1)
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
19/25
18
Fisheries Management Plan
Lake Monticello, Texas
Prepared July 2004
ISSUE 1A special 14 to 24-inch slot length harvest regulation was implemented September 1, 1998 to
enhance fishing quality and sustain or possibly increase largemouth bass trophy fishing success.Additionally, high seasonal water temperatures have been responsible for occasional fish kills,
which could influence forage and sport fish populations.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Conduct annual electrofishing surveys during fall to monitor abundance, populationstructure, condition, growth, and genetic composition of largemouth bass.
Conduct creel survey (biennially) to monitor angler pressure and fishing success during thepeak fishing season (winter) beginning in 2005.
Re-evaluate the success of the special 14-24 inch slot length limit and recommendappropriate changes if necessary.ISSUE 2Public access to Lake Monticello is limited to Titus County Park. Improvement in facilities at the
park would increase recreational utilization by the public. Fishing access for non-boaters is limited
to shorelines within the park and the State Hwy. 127 causeway. Angler compliance with harvestregulations could be enhanced by providing sources of fisheries information within the park.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Meet with Titus County officials to discuss facility improvement needs at Titus CountyPark. Construction of a lighted fishing pier would increase utilization of the park/fishery bythe non-boating public. Placement of a weather-proof bulletin board would help provide
anglers with fishing information.
ISSUE 3Lake Monticello continues to support an excellent largemouth bass fishery. In addition, the
reservoir supports an excellent channel catfish fishery that is underutilized.
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Continue to provide periodic news releases and give public presentations to promote thelargemouth bass and channel catfish fisheries at Lake Monticello.
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
20/25
19
Appendix 1
Species Table
Number and catch rate (CPUE) of target fish species collected by all gear types from LakeMonticello, Texas, 2003-2004.
Gill Netting Trap Netting Electrofishing
Species N CPUE N CPUE N CPUE
Gizzard shad 95 19.0 12 12.0
Threadfin shad 855 855.0Channel catfish 271 54.2
Bluegill 21 4.2 364 364.0
Longear sunfish 61 61.0Redear sunfish 1 0.2 5 1.0
Largemouth bass 42 8.4 276 276.0
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
21/25
20
Appendix 2
Catch Rate Histories
Number of target species caught per net night during spring gill netting, Lake Monticello, Texas,
April 1992-1999 and 2004. Sampling effort was 5 net-nights in each year. Random sampling
techniques began in 1996. Data recorded only for channel catfish in 1999.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2004Species * * * ** ** ** ** ** **
Gizzard shad 16.2 12.8 18.6 23.6 16.4 11.6 14.2 - 19.0
Channel catfish 22.8 14.2 24.4 7.8 20.6 14.6 20.2 13.8 54.2
Flathead catfish 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.0 - 0.0
* 175 ft gill net, 1-4 bar mesh
** 125 ft gill net, 1-3 bar mesh
Number of target species caught per net-night during trap netting, Lake Monticello, Texas,November and December 1992-1999, and 2003. Sampling effort was 5 net-nights each year.
Random sampling techniques began in 1996.
Species 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2003
Black crappie 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.6 1.6 1.2 0.3 0.0
Number of target species caught per hour during fall electrofishing, Lake Monticello, Texas,
October 1993-1997, 1999, and 2001-2003, and November 1992 and 1998. Sampling effort was1.25 hours in 1997, 1.5 hours in 1992-1996, 1998, and 1.0 hour in 1999, 2001-2003. Random
sampling techniques began in 1996.
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003
Species * *
Gizzard shad 0.7 2.0 30.7 28.0 21.3 14.4 22.0 2.0 - - 12.0
Threadfin shad 1007.3 3010.0 143.3 267.3 401.3 230.4 5.3 370.0 - - 855.0
Bluegill 428.0 353.3 388.0 271.3 1950.7 856.8 1410.6 874.0 - - 364.0
Longear sunfish 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 0.0 0 .0 - - 61.0
Redear sunfish 80.0 6 6.7 63.3 35.3 9.3 15.2 19.3 10.0 - - 1.0
Spotted bass 2.0 0.7 1.3 0.7 2.7 1.6 0.0 1.0 - - 0.0
Largemouth bass 172.0 238.7 246.7 271.3 213.3 122.4 112.7 202.0 74.0 172.0 276.0*Largemouth bass collection only
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
22/25
21
Appendix 3
Age and Growth Histories
Mean length (inches) at capture by age for channel catfish (sexes combined) collected duringspring gill netting, Lake Monticello, Texas, April 1993-1999. Pectoral spines were used to
estimate age. Sample sizes are in parentheses.
Age
(years)
Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1993 10.3 12.8 14.4 18.5
(21) (35) (8) (4)1994 10.4 12.6 16.0 18.1 19.6 22.7
(11) (21) (21) (9) (5) (1)
1995 11.8 14.6 17.1 14.6 20.5
(6) (23) (8) (2) (1)
1996 8.8 12.8 16.0 18.5 18.5(6) (12) (16) (15) (1)
1997 9.2 13.2 15.5 19.4 19.5 21.4 22.4(12) (17) (11) (15) (5) (1) (1)
1998 10.2 14.2 16.6 19.0 21.0 23.0
(4) (5) (13) (15) (12) (2)1999 8.7 16.2 18.0 20.3 23.3
(1) (12) (14) (6) (1)
Mean length (inches) at capture by age for bluegill (sexes combined) collected during fall
electrofishing, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 1992-1996 and 1999. Sample sizes are inparentheses.
Age
(years)
Year 0 1 2 3 4
1992 4.0 4.9 9.1
(5) (7) (1)
1993 4.1 5.8 6.2
(6) (7) (2)
1994 3.7 6.0 7.3
(12) (13) (3)1995 3.8 5.0 6.9 7.9
(1) (14) (2) (2)
1996 3.5 5.1 7.8(3) (12) (7)
1999 3.6 5.1 6.1
(6) (14) (6)
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
23/25
22
Mean length (inches) at capture by age for redear sunfish (sexes combined) collected during fall
electrofishing, Lake Monticello, Texas, October 1992-1995 and 1999. Sample sizes are inparentheses.
Age
(years)Year 0 1 2 3 4
1992 3.8 4.7 7.0 8.0 9.2
(5) (4) (9) (3) (1)
1993 4.1 6.3 7.4 7.7(9) (8) (1) (3)
1994 3.9 6.2 7.5 10.0
(13) (11) (5) (1)1995 4.0 5.1 7.2 7.8 6.4
(1) (7) (5) (1) (1)
1999 5.4 5.7
(8) (1)
Mean length (inches) at capture by age for black crappie (sexes combined) collected during fall trap
netting, Lake Monticello, Texas, December 1996 and November 1997-1999. Sample sizes are in
parentheses.
Age(years)
Year 0 1 2 3
1996 11.1 11.2
1997 (2)10.8 (1)
1998 5.6
(8)
12.0
1999
(1) (4)
13.3
(2)
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
24/25
23
Appendix 4
Electrophoretic Analyses
Summary of electrophoretic analyses of young-of-year largemouth bass collected during fallelectrofishing from Lake Monticello, Texas.
Genotype
% % PureYear Sample
size
Florida F1 Fx Northern FLMB
alleles
FLMB
1990 30 27 0 3 0 98.0 90.0
1993 30 25 2 3 0 93.0 83.3
1996 30 26 0 4 0 96.0 86.7
1997 27 16 1 10 0 88.9 59.31998 10 11 1 6 2 80.0 55.0
1999 13 9 1 3 0 90.3 69.2
2002 49 34 0 15 0 92.3 69.42003 58 29 1 28 0 85.0 50.0
7/29/2019 Lake Montecello Fish Study
25/25
24
Appendix 5
Access and Facilities
Angler access facilities, Lake Monticello, Texas, May 2004.
Facilitytype
Locationname
GPScoordinates
Feecharged
No. of boatramps/lanes
Parkingcapacity
ADAaccess
Bankfishing
Comments
Boat
ramp
Titus
County
Park
N 3305.10W 9503.50 Yes 2 ramps/onelane each 25 No Yes