LAKE TANEYCOMO ANGLER CREEL SURVEY SUMMARY. Shane Bush Fisheries Management Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation Southwest Region

Transcription

1 LAKE TANEYCOMO ANGLER CREEL SURVEY SUMMARY Shane Bush Fisheries Management Biologist Missouri Department of Conservation Southwest Region February 1, 2013

2 Introduction Lake Taneycomo was formed by the construction of Powersite Dam (Ozark Beach Dam) in 1913 and is Missouri's oldest hydroelectric reservoir. The lake is riverine in nature, 22 miles in length and encompasses 2,080 surface acres. Prior to 1958, Lake Taneycomo supported one of Missouri's best warm-water fisheries. This changed in 1958 when Table Rock Dam, located in the headwater of Lake Taneycomo, began discharging cold hypolimnetic water into Lake Taneycomo. The discharge of cold water changed Lake Taneycomo into a cold-water environment, providing good conditions for trout. Rainbow trout were first stocked into Lake Taneycomo in Brown trout were first stocked in Since that time more than 30 million rainbow and brown trout have been stocked. Lake Taneycomo is Missouri's largest and most popular trout fishery. The Lake Taneycomo creel survey was conducted from February 1, 2008 to January 31, The objectives of the creel were to: 1. Evaluate current fishing regulations and stocking regimes. 2. Augment long term trend information. 3. Assess fish populations in areas of the lake that are not regularly sampled. 4. Evaluate other fish population assessment techniques and results. 5. Determine the effect of water quality conditions on angler use and fishing success. 6. Interact with anglers to assess angler use, attitudes and opinions and to foster partner relationships with anglers. Methods The Lake Taneycomo creel survey for 2008 and 2009 was conducted using a roving creel methodology. To account for suspected differences in aquatic habitat and angling techniques, Lake Taneycomo was divided into three survey zones, with estimates of angling effort, success and preferences conducted independently for each zone. Zone 1 was from the no fishing cable 760 feet below Table Rock Dam downstream to the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) boat ramp near Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery (approximately one mile or 36 acres). Zone 2 included the next seven miles to the Highway 65 bridge (295 acres). Zone 2 was further subdivided into two smaller zones, one upstream of Fall Creek and one downstream of Fall Creek, in order to evaluate the effects of the special fishing regulation zone implemented in Zone 5 included the next 14 miles downstream to Powersite Dam (1,567 acres) (Figure 1). Zone 5 was further subdivided into two smaller zones, which were zones 5a and 5b for sampling purposes. Due to an insufficient number of samples and bias made when selecting Zone 5a or Zone 5b, these zones were not separated in this analysis. For data comparisons in this report, Zone 5 is the same area represented as zones 3 and 4 combined in past angler surveys. Zone 1 is entirely within the special fishing regulation zone upstream of Fall Creek. The special fishing regulation zone includes a 12 to 20-inch protected length limit, or slot, on rainbow trout and an "artificial lures" only restriction in the upper three miles of the lake. Zone 1 includes the most upstream reach of Lake Taneycomo, in an area of aquatic habitat greatly influenced by the operation of Table Rock Dam. During power generation periods, this reach contains deep, swift-moving water. Under these conditions fishing is restricted to shoreline areas and drifting in boats. During nongeneration periods, the entire area becomes a series of shallow, slow-moving pools interspersed with a few short, shallow riffles. Boating is difficult under these conditions and nearly all anglers either 1

3 wade or fish from the bank. Due to navigation hazards presented by swiftly-flowing water during power generation periods and insufficient water depth during non-generation periods, survey clerks conducted the angler survey in Zone 1 from the shore or by wading. Zone 2 contains deeper water and most fishing is done from boats. The first mile of this zone contains areas shallow enough for wade fishing during non-generation periods, but the remainder of the zone is fished by anglers on the bank, docks or in boats. Zone 2 includes the downstream boundary of both the special fishing regulation area at the mouth of Fall Creek and the downstream boundary of the electrofishing sampling area at the mouth of Short Creek. The upper two miles of Zone 2 are within the special fishing regulation zone while the remainder is located entirely below the special fishing regulation zone. These two subzones are herein referred to as Zone 2:1 and Zone 2:2, respectively. Zone 5 is comprised of mostly deep water with little opportunity for wade fishing. Nearly all fishing in this zone is from the bank, docks or from boats and this zone is outside the special fishing regulation area and the electrofishing sampling area. Because most fishing in zones 2 and 5 is from bank or boat anglers, all interviews were conducted by survey clerks moving through the area in a boat. Twenty survey periods were conducted each month including 10 weekend samples and 10 weekday samples. Sampling days were randomly selected. Four weekend and four weekday samples were conducted each month in Zone 1 and three weekend and three weekday samples for each of the remaining zones. Survey periods were randomly assigned to either morning or afternoon/evening time periods. For the three selected periods assigned to Zone 5, the clerk was randomly assigned to either Zone 5a or 5b, but no sub-zone could be assigned to all three selected periods within a stratum. A further restriction was applied for days when zones 2 and 5 were selected. Only 1 boat was available for conducting the Lake Taneycomo creel survey, so if either of these zones was selected, the other zone (Zone 2 or Zone 5) could not be worked. However, Zone 1 could be worked during the same sampling period as either Zone 2 or Zone 5 within the selected day. Two instantaneous angler and boat counts were made during each selected sampling period at predetermined, randomly selected times. Anglers were surveyed throughout the year. Creel clerks interviewed anglers during 5-7 hour periods, depending on seasonal day length. Anglers were interviewed individually and their responses to a standard series of questions about their fishing effort, success and preferences were recorded (Stanovick and Haverland 1995). Data sheets were collected from the creel clerk at the end of each month, error checked and forwarded to the Resource Science Center in Columbia to be entered into the computer program. Computer data and analysis revealed additional errors that were corrected before final analysis and summaries were generated. Results and Discussion Estimated angler effort in 2008 and 2009 (February 2008 through January 2010) was 395,217 and 470,079 hours per year, respectively. This represents a decrease from the previous creel from 1993 to 2002, wherein angler effort ranged from 510,938 to 709,786 hours per year. Angling effort has decreased by almost half lakewide since the previous creel surveys were conducted (Table 1). Some of this decrease may be attributed to above average lake level elevations in 2008 and 2009 due to high water releases from Table Rock Dam, decreasing fishing trips and making fishing, wade 2

4 fishing in particular, difficult throughout most of the year. Estimated fishing hours, catch and fishing trips were higher in zones 2 and 5 than in Zone 1 during most months of the year when high water levels were observed (Figures 2-4). Additionally, the highest amounts of angling hours, catch and fishing trips were observed from June through August during both years and have typically been associated with an increase in the number of people vacationing in Branson during the summer, many of whom fish incidentally (Weithman and Haas 1986). Economic conditions negatively impacted the tourism industry in the Branson area in 2008 and It is likely that this contributed to reduced angler use at Lake Taneycomo during the timeframe of this creel survey. Lake Taneycomo is primarily a trout fishery. Approximately 88 and 92 percent of the fish that anglers caught in 2008 and 2009, respectively, were rainbow trout, with brown trout comprising another 9 and 5 percent of the catch in 2008 and 2009, respectively. A limited fishery for other species is present, particularly black bass in Zone 5 (Table 2, Figure 5). Rainbow Trout Estimated catch of rainbow trout in Lake Taneycomo was 465,275 in 2008 and 538,719 in 2009, similar to the estimated catch of rainbow trout ranging from 319,803 to 639,465 annually from 1993 to 2002 (Table 3). On average, rainbow trout catch rates have increased while harvest has decreased in all zones since regulations were put into effect in 1997 (Tables 3, 5). The statewide limit for rainbow trout was changed from five rainbow trout per day to four rainbow trout per day beginning March 1, This may also have had an impact on the decrease in harvest of rainbow trout since the previous creel surveys concluded in Anglers released 82 percent of the rainbow trout they caught in 2008 and 83 percent in 2009, and nearly all of the rainbow trout caught in Zone 1 were released (Table 3). Anglers caught fewer harvestable size rainbow trout in Zone 1 in 2008 and 2009 compared to the average of past creels, but still released over 95 percent of the rainbow trout that they caught (Table 4). Anglers caught 1.32 and 1.26 rainbow trout per hour of effort in 2008 and Similar to previous creel surveys, catch rates of rainbow trout were highest in Zone 1 and progressively decreased towards the lower sections of the lake (Table 5, Figure 6). Rainbow trout release rates increased while harvest rates decreased in 2008 and 2009, following a similar trend compared to previous creel surveys from Additionally, catch rates of rainbow trout in Zone 1 in 2008 and 2009 were among the highest observed in any Lake Taneycomo creel survey. Anglers reported that the mean length of rainbow trout they caught ranged from 10.6 to 11.4 inches from The mean length of rainbow trout caught increased to 12.5 inches in 2008 and 12.9 inches in Historically, the mean length caught each year in Zone 1 increased from a mean of 11.7 inches in pre-regulation years ( ) to 12.4 inches during regulation years ( ). The mean length of rainbow trout caught in Zone 1 had further increased to 13.1 and 13.5 inches in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Mean length of rainbow trout caught in all other zones has also increased from past creels (Table 6). Size distribution of rainbow trout caught by anglers changed in Zone 1 when the special fishing regulation zone went into effect in The percentage of fish > 13, 16, and 20 inches increased in Zone 1 following the regulation change while the percentage of fish > 13 and 16 inches remained similar in zones 2, 3 and 4. The percentage of fish in these same size ranges increased in zones 2 and 5 in 2008 and 2009 (Table 7). 3

5 Using the creel angler catch data, length frequency histograms were created to show the overall size structure of rainbow trout caught by interviewed anglers in each zone. The overall size and number of rainbow trout caught by anglers was higher in Zone 1 and decreased progressively further down the lake. Measures of the quality of fish, represented by RSD values of 13, 16, and 20 inches, were also higher in the upper sections of the lake and remained similar between 2008 and 2009 (Figure 7, Appendix A). The majority of rainbow trout released in the special fishing regulation zone were within the slot, while rainbow trout released below the special fishing regulation zone were primarily smaller sized fish (< 12 ) (Figure 8). Conversely, very few rainbow trout were harvested within the special fishing regulation zone compared to below the regulation zone (Figure 9). Size structure and RSD values of rainbow trout were very similar among the fish caught by interviewed anglers and fish captured during electrofishing surveys in 2008 and 2009, indicating that our fish population sampling techniques are representative of what anglers catch within the lake (Figures 10-12). Brown Trout Estimated catch of brown trout was 18,546 in 2008 and 9,786 in 2009, and ranged from 13,251 to 52,787 from Most brown trout were caught in the special fishing regulation zone (zones 1 and 2:1) and nearly all were released (Tables 2 and 8, Figure 5). The highest catch rate of brown trout was in Zone 1 in 2008 at 0.29 fish per hour, and decreased progressively through 2009 (Table 9). Numbers of brown trout caught in zones 2 and 5 were also much lower than in previous creels. The mean length of brown trout caught by anglers in 2008 was 13.9 and increased to 15.0 in 2009, higher than the average mean length of 12.9 from the creels (Table 10). On average, the sizes of brown trout caught by anglers in 2008 and 2009 were larger than in the previous creel surveys, but fewer brown trout were caught (Table 11). Size distribution of brown trout caught by anglers during 2008 and 2009 closely resembled that of electrofishing surveys conducted during both years (Figure 13). Black Bass Black bass comprised 3 and 6 percent of the angling effort in Zone 5 in 2008 and 2009, respectively, and less than 1 percent in zones 1 and 2 (Table 2, Figure 5). Therefore, the following statistics are derived from Zone 5 only. Fishing pressure for black bass, based on angler preference, was 7.4 hours per acre in 2008 and 7.0 hours per acre in 2009 (Table 12). Black bass ranked third in preference for anglers in Zone 5 during both survey years and largemouth bass were the primary species caught. The catch rate of largemouth bass was 0.32 fish per hour in 2008 and 0.46 fish per hour in Harvest rate of largemouth bass was relatively low at 0.06 fish per hour in 2008 and 0.03 bass per hour in The mean length of largemouth bass harvested was 14.1 and 15.5 inches in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Additionally, anglers released 76 percent of the largemouth bass they caught in 2008 and 93 percent in Using the creel angler catch data, length frequency histograms were created to show the lengths of largemouth bass caught by interviewed anglers in Zone 5. For all largemouth bass caught by interviewed anglers, PSD12 was 76% in 2008 and 92% in RSD15 was 19% in 2008 and 39% in RSD15 values are very similar to those calculated from electrofishing surveys in 2008 but higher than in 2009 (RSD15 of 21% and 24% in 2008 and 2009, respectively) (Figure 14, Appendix A). Timing of electrofishing sampling for largemouth bass in lower Lake 4

6 Taneycomo is difficult to predict due to cold water temperatures that persist even during the spring spawning season. As a result, electrofishing surveys may not accurately depict the size structure of largemouth bass caught by anglers in the lower section of the lake (Figure 14). The mean length of largemouth bass caught by interviewed anglers was 12.6 inches in 2008 and 14.1 inches in Maximum length of largemouth bass caught by interviewed anglers was 18.1 inches in 2008 and 21.0 inches in Only 10 percent of the rainbow trout harvested in the special fishing regulation zone in 2008 were harvested illegally (N = 9), and less than one percent were harvested illegally in 2009 (N = 1). While not a stated objective, another possible benefit of the creel survey whether real or perceived, is the deterrent to illegal activities due to the increased presence of a Conservation Department representative on the lake. Management Implications The current regulations that were put into effect in 1997 have produced significant results that have improved the quality of the trout fishery in Lake Taneycomo. Anglers are currently catching more and larger rainbow trout compared to before the regulations went into effect (Tables 3-7). These regulations should be maintained as outlined in the 2010 Lake Taneycomo Management Plan. Current levels of fishing pressure and rainbow and brown trout catch rates fall within the established management objectives and continue to be appropriate throughout the lake (Table 13). The current stocking regime of 700,000 rainbow trout and 15,000 brown trout should continue to be maintained, as well as the current monthly, planned stocking adjustments that coincide with the current monthly estimated fishing hours and catch (Figures 2-3). It is worth noting that since the special regulations went into effect in 1997, angling pressure and harvest of rainbow trout has decreased along with an increase in rainbow trout catch rates, release rates and the mean length of fish caught (Tables 1, 3, 5-6). It could be possible that a further decrease in the number of rainbow trout stocked each year could provide even more potential for growing larger rainbow trout for anglers to catch, but might also have unintended, negative effects on catch and harvest rates. Dissolved oxygen levels in Lake Taneycomo typically fall to very low levels from September through December each year. Trout fishing success in Lake Taneycomo declines when dissolved oxygen levels drop below 6 mg/l (Weithman and Haas 1986). This was evident in October 2008 when dissolved oxygen readings below Table Rock Dam were at or below 4 mg/l during periods of generation and near zero during periods of non-generation (Figure 15). This decrease in dissolved oxygen corresponded with a decrease in angler catch rates (Figure 6). This trend was not seen in Zone 1 in 2009 due to the combination of hydropower and floodgate releases from Table Rock Dam that helped to keep the dissolved oxygen levels above 6 mg/l throughout October. Additionally, an increase in catch rates, combined with a decrease in angling pressure during this same timeframe, suggests that many anglers were fishing in the hatchery outlets in Zone 1 where fish were congregated in large numbers as a result of higher levels of dissolved oxygen. In addition to adhering to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards, the MDC Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery discharges water into Lake Taneycomo through these outlets with dissolved oxygen concentrations ranging between 8 and 12 ppm. Decreases in catch rates were observed downstream in Zone 2 in October during both years, while catch rates were not as affected in Zone 5. Weithman and Haas (1984) observed this same 5

7 trend. Water quality began to improve in November of 2008 and 2009, and the low dissolved oxygen season ended in December during both years. Acknowledgements The Lake Taneycomo creel survey was a cooperative effort between Fisheries personnel of the Missouri Department of Conservation's Southwest Region and Resource Science Center. In particular, Matt Mauck and Andy Austin assisted with designing the study and carrying out day to day activities, Martha McCrary, Steve Sheriff and Sherry Gao managed the database and generated survey reports and Linda Williams conducted all data entry. Angler survey clerks were Robert Murphy, Warren Camp, Richard Garrison and David Dean. 6

8 LITERATURE CITED Stanovick, J. S. and P. Haverland Standardization of Missouri Angler Surveys. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies 49: Weithman, A. S. and M. Haas Effects of Dissolved-Oxygen Depletion on the Rainbow Trout Fishery in Lake Taneycomo, Missouri. Transactions American Fisheries Society. 113: pp. 7

9 Table 1. Estimated fishing effort at Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Category Year Preregulation Hours ALL , , ,656 86, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,477 98, , ,674 MEAN ( ) 60, , , , , ,712 Regulation Hours , , ,834 90, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,053 MEAN ( ) 68, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,079 Preregulation Hours/Acre , , ,092 1, , MEAN ( ) 1, Regulation Hours/Acre , , ,788 1, ,229 1, ,217 1, , MEAN ( ) 1, , ,

10 Table 2. Estimated percent of catch by species at Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Species All Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Zone 1 Zone 2 (Total) Zone 2:1 Zone 2:2 Zone 5 ALL Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye

11 Table 3. Estimated catch and harvest of rainbow trout from Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Category Preregulation Catch Year Zone All , , ,499 60, , , , ,042 93,497 68, , , , ,108 76,259 55, , , , ,166 76,923 66, , ,147 MEAN ( ) 45, ,579 88,295 62, , ,718 Regulation Catch , ,942 63,815 56, , , , ,304 76,301 78, , , , , ,998 91, , , , , ,342 68, , , , , ,114 81, , , , , ,903 70, , ,357 MEAN ( ) 103, ,522 98,412 74, , , , , , , , , , ,719 Preregulation Harvest , ,601 95,262 52, , , , ,858 85,658 59, , , , ,198 68,873 50, , , , ,812 70,298 58, , ,217 MEAN ( ) 15, ,117 80,023 55, , ,781 Regulation Harvest , ,755 56,532 49, , , , ,758 65,304 64, , , , ,333 93,300 70, , , , ,304 83,135 52, , , , ,472 77,656 56, , , ,943 67,836 50, , ,216 MEAN ( ) 2, ,094 73,961 57, , , , , , , , ,479 10

12 Table 3. (continued) Category Year Zone All Preregulation Catch Per Acre , , , MEAN ( ) 1, Regulation Catch Per Acre , , , , ,319 1, , MEAN ( ) 2, , ,031 1, Preregulation Percent Released Regulation Percent Released

13 Table 4. Catch of harvestable size rainbow trout (>20 inches and <12 inches) in Zone 1 of Lake Taneycomo, and back to text 20 < 12 Year Harvested Released Percent Released Harvested Released Percent Released , , ,084 1, Mean ( ) , , , , , , , Mean ( ) , ,

14 Table 5. Rainbow trout release, harvest and total catch rates (per hour) by trout anglers fishing Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Category Year All Preregulation Release Rate Regulation Release Rate Preregulation Harvest Rate Regulation Harvest Rate Preregulation Catch Rate Regulation Catch Rate

15 Table 6. Mean total lengths (inches) of rainbow trout caught from Lake Taneycomo, and back to text 14 Zone Category Year All Preregulation Harvested Mean Regulation Harvested Mean Preregulation Released Mean Regulation Released Mean Preregulation All Rainbow Trout

16 Table 6. (continued) Zone Category Year All Mean Regulation All Rainbow Trout Mean

17 Table 7. Percent of rainbow trout >13 inches, >16 inches, >20 inches and total number of fish caught by anglers interviewed by survey clerks at Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Area Zone 1 Year Percent of Catch >13 >16 >20 Catch of Interviewed Anglers Zone

18 Table 7. (continued) Area Zone 3 Zone 4 Year Percent of Catch >13 >16 >20 Catch of Interviewed Anglers Zone

19 Table 8. Estimated catch and harvest of brown trout from Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Category Year All Preregulation Catch ,930 3,980 1,575 1,141 2,716 18, ,843 17,147 1, ,766 31, ,018 9,521 1, ,125 18, ,433 6, ,451 13,251 MEAN ( ) 9,306 9,254 1, ,015 20,551 Regulation Catch ,952 10, , ,107 11,393 2, ,802 23, ,815 23,129 4, ,843 52, ,386 23,528 3, ,467 52, ,467 19,737 2, ,919 40, ,809 10,975 1, ,788 32, ,341 2, , ,993 3, ,786 Preregulation Harvest (>20 inches) MEAN ( ) Regulation Harvest (>20 inches)

20 Table 8. (continued) Category Preregulation Released (>20 inches) Year Zone All , MEAN ( ) Regulation Released (>20 inches) , , Preregulation Percent Released (MEAN ) Regulation Percent Released

21 Table 9. Brown trout release, harvest and total catch rates (per hour) by trout anglers fishing Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Category Year All Preregulation Release Rate (<20 inches) Regulation Release Rate (<20 inches) Preregulation Release Rate (>20 inches) Regulation Release Rate (>20 inches) < < <0.01 < < < <0.01 < <0.01 < <0.01 <0.01 < < <0.01 < < < < < <0.01 < < < <0.01 < < <0.01 < < < <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < < < < <0.01 < < <0.01 < <

22 Table 9. (continued) Zone Category Year All Preregulation Harvest Rate (>20 inches) 1993 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < < <0.01 < < < <0.01 <0.01 < < <0.01 < < <0.01 Regulation Harvest Rate (>20 inches) 1997 < < < <0.01 < < <0.01 <0.01 < < <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < < <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < < < < < Preregulation Catch Rate < < Regulation Catch Rate < < < < < <0.01 <

23 Table 10. Mean total lengths (inches) of brown trout caught from Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Zone Category Year All Preregulation Harvested (>20 inches) Mean Regulation Harvested (>20 inches) Mean Preregulation Released Mean Regulation Released Mean

24 Table 10. (continued) Zone Category Year All Preregulation Catch Mean Regulation Catch Mean

25 Table 11. Percent of brown trout >13 inches, >16 inches, >20 inches and total number of fish caught by anglers interviewed by survey clerks from Lake Taneycomo, and back to text Year Percent of Catch >13 >16 >20 Catch of Interviewed Anglers Zone Zone

26 Table 11. (continued) Year Percent of Catch >13 >16 >20 Catch of Interviewed Anglers Zone Zone Zone

27 Table 12. Lake Taneycomo Zone 5 creel summary for black bass and sunfish. Black Bass Estimated Hours/A % Angler Preference by Hours Catch Rate Total No/Hr Harvest Rate No/Hr Estimated Catch No/A Estimated Harvest No/A Mean Length Harvested % Legal Fish Released Sunfish Estimated Hours/A % Angler Preference by Hours Catch Rate Total No/Hr Harvest Rate No/Hr Estimated Catch No/A Estimated Harvest No/A Mean Length Harvested % Released back to text 26

28 Table 13. Estimated Fishing Hours and Catch Rates above and below Fall Creek, Year Above Fall Creek Objective Estimated Trout Fishing Hours , , , , , , , ,000 back to text Below Fall Creek Objective Lakewide Objective Rainbow Trout Catch Rate > > Rainbow Trout Harvest Rate < Brown Trout Catch Rate Brown Trout Harvest Rate 2008 <0.01 <0.01 <

29 Figure 1. Angler survey zones at Lake Taneycomo. back to text 28

30 Estimated Fishing Hours Estimated Fishing Hours 90, Estimated Fishing Hours Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 5 All Zones 10,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan RBT Stocked 90, Estimated Fishing Hours Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 5 All Zones 10,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan RBT Stocked Figure 2. Estimated monthly fishing hours at Lake Taneycomo, back to text 29

31 Estimated Catch (All Fish) Estimated Catch (All Fish) 140, Estimated Catch Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 120,000 Zone 1 100,000 80,000 60,000 Zone 2 Zone 5 40,000 All Zones 20,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan RBT Stocked 140, Estimated Catch Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 120,000 Zone 1 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 Zone 2 Zone 5 All Zones 20,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan RBT Stocked Figure 3. Estimated monthly catch of all fish in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 30

32 Estimated Fishing Trips Estimated Fishing Trips 35, Estimated Fishing Trips Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 30,000 Zone 1 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Zone 2 Zone 5 All Zones 5,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan 35, Estimated Fishing Trips Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey 30,000 Zone 1 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 Zone 2 Zone 5 All Zones 5,000 0 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Figure 4. Estimated monthly fishing trips in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 31

33 Zone 1 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Zone 1 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Zone 2 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Zone 2 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Zone 5 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Zone 5 Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Suckers Black Bass Sunfish Carp Crappie White Bass Channel Catfish Walleye Figure 5. Estimated percent catch by species at Lake Taneycomo, back to text 32

34 Estimated Catch Rate (Fish/Hour) Estimated Catch Rate (Fish/Hour) Monthly Estimated Catch Rates Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan All Zones Monthly Estimated Catch Rates Lake Taneycomo Creel Survey Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan All Zones Figure 6. Monthly estimated catch rates of rainbow trout in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 33

35 Figure 7. Length frequency histograms by zone for rainbow trout caught in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 34

36 Figure 8. Length frequency histograms for rainbow trout released above and below special regulation zone in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 35

37 Figure 9. Length frequency histograms for rainbow trout harvested above and below special regulation zone in Lake Taneycomo, back to text 36

38 Figure 10. Length frequency histograms for rainbow trout in special regulation zone at Lake Taneycomo, , angler creel survey and electrofishing. back to text 37

39 Figure 11. Length frequency histograms for rainbow trout below special regulation zone at Lake Taneycomo, , angler creel survey and electrofishing. back to text 38

40 Figure 12. Length frequency histograms for rainbow trout at Lake Taneycomo, , angler creel survey and electrofishing. back to text 39

41 Figure 13. Length frequency histograms for brown trout at Lake Taneycomo, , angler creel survey and electrofishing. back to text 40

42 Figure 14. Length frequency histograms for largemouth bass , electrofishing and angler creel data. back to text 41

43 Figure 15. Dissolved oxygen levels and water temperature in upper Lake Taneycomo near Table Rock Dam from 10/18/08 10/24/08. back to text 42

44 Appendix A. Fish population parameters. back to text Rainbow Trout RSD (13): The percentage of rainbow trout > 13 that are also > 11. RSD (16): The percentage of rainbow trout > 16 that are also > 11. The objective range is 5-10%. RSD (20): The percentage of rainbow trout > 20 that are also > 11. Brown Trout RSD (13): The percentage of rainbow trout > 13 that are also > 11. RSD (16): The percentage of rainbow trout > 16 that are also > 11. RSD (20): The percentage of rainbow trout > 20 that are also > 11. The objective range is 3-6%. Largemouth bass PSD12: The percentage of largemouth 8 that are also 12. The objective range is 45%. RSD15: The percentage of largemouth 8 that are also 15. Bluegill PSD: The percentage of bluegill 3 that are also 6. The objective range is 30%. RSD8: The percentage of bluegill 3 that are also 8. 43