Lake Montecello Fish Study

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


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


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


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.


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).


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.


7/25

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


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


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


Black crappie 1988 50,000 FGL

1989 50,119 FRY

1990 100,488 FRY1991 98,330 FRY


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



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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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


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


PSD = 1RSD-P = 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.


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


PSD = 10RSD-P = 0

Effort = 1.0 hr.Total CPUE = 10.0

Stock CPUE = 9.0PSD = 0RSD-P = 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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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)


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.


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.


Continue to provide periodic news releases and give public presentations to promote thelargemouth bass and channel catfish fisheries at Lake Monticello.


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


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


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)


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)


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


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

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	texkev
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Lake Montecello Fish Study

Documents