PERFORMANCE REPORT

As Required by

FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION ACT

TEXAS

FEDERAL AID PROJECT F-30-R-33

STATEWIDE FRESHWATER FISHERIES MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

2007 Survey Report

Grapevine Reservoir

Prepared by:

Raphael Brock and Thomas Hungerford Inland Fisheries Division

District 2-D, Fort Worth, Texas

Carter Smith Executive Director

Phil Durocher Director, Inland Fisheries

July 31, 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Survey and management summary .............................................................................................................. 2

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 3

Reservoir description..................................................................................................................................... 3

Management history...................................................................................................................................... 3

Methods......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Results and discussion.................................................................................................................................. 4

Fisheries management plan.......................................................................................................................... 5

Literature cited............................................................................................................................................... 6

Figures and tables.................................................................................................................................... 7-23 Water level (figure 1)........................................................................................................................ 7 Reservoir characteristics (table 1).................................................................................................... 7 Harvest regulations (table 2) ............................................................................................................ 7 Stocking history (table 3).................................................................................................................. 8 Gizzard shad (figure 2)..................................................................................................................... 9 Bluegill (figure 3) ............................................................................................................................ 11 Longear sunfish (figure 4) .............................................................................................................. 13 Blue catfish (figure 5) ..................................................................................................................... 15 Channel catfish (figure 6) ............................................................................................................... 16 White bass (figure 7) ...................................................................................................................... 17 Spotted bass (figure 8) ................................................................................................................... 18 Largemouth bass (figures 9-10) ..................................................................................................... 20 White crappie (figure 11) ............................................................................................................... 23 Proposed sampling schedule (table 4) ........................................................................................... 24

Appendix A Catch rates for all species from all gear types ............................................................................... 25

Appendix B Map of 2007-2008 sampling locations ........................................................................................... 26

2

SURVEY AND MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Fish populations in Grapevine Reservoir were surveyed in 2004-2007 using electrofishing, in 2007 using trap netting, and in 2008 using gill nets. This report summarizes the results of the surveys and contains a management plan for the reservoir based on those findings.

• Reservoir Description: Grapevine Reservoir is a 6,684-acre impoundment constructed on Denton Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1952 to provide flood control, municipal and industrial water, and recreation. Grapevine Reservoir is surrounded by urban development and is 20 miles northwest of Dallas, Texas in Tarrant County. The reservoir contains 188,550 acre-feet of water at conservation elevation (535 ft. mean sea level) and has an average depth of 28.2 feet and a maximum depth of 65.0 feet. Angler and boat access is adequate. There is one handicap specific facility on the reservoir. At the time of sampling the fishery habitat was primarily rocky and gravel shorelines. A 14- to 18-inch slot-length limit was implemented for largemouth bass on September 1, 1994. Grapevine Reservoir has been part of the TPWD Habitat Improvement Initiative since 1997; however, because of water level fluctuations there has been limited success.

• Management History: Important sport fish include largemouth bass, spotted bass, white crappie, white bass, and blue and channel catfish. The largemouth bass population has been managed with a 14- to 18-inch slot-length limit since 1994. All other species have been managed with statewide regulations.

• Fish Community � Prey species: Gizzard shad are in great abundance in the reservoir. Threadfin shad are

also available for predators. Bluegills and longear sunfish are also very abundant as prey but few fish over 6 inches are available for anglers.

� Catfishes: The blue catfish population continues to improve. The channel catfish population is average.

� White bass: White bass catch rates continue to be below the average of other district reservoirs.

� Black basses: The largemouth bass and spotted bass populations continue to have good abundance and size structure.

� Crappie: The white crappie population continues to be low in abundance when compared to other district reservoirs.

• Management Strategies: Electrofishing will be conducted annually to monitor black bass populations. Trap netting, and gill netting surveys will be conducted in 2011-2012.

3

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of fisheries data collected from Grapevine Reservoir in 2007-2008. 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 of fishes was collected, this report deals primarily with major sport fishes and important prey species. Historical data are presented with the 2007-2008 data for comparison.

Reservoir Description

Grapevine Reservoir is a 6,684-acre impoundment constructed on Denton Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1952 to provide flood control, municipal and industrial water, and recreation. Grapevine Reservoir is surrounded by urban development and is 20 miles northwest of Dallas, Texas in Tarrant County. The reservoir contains 188,550 acre-feet of water at conservation elevation (535 ft. mean sea level) and has an average depth of 25.5 feet and a maximum depth of 65.0 feet. Angler and boat access is adequate. There is one handicap specific facility on the reservoir. At the time of sampling the fishery habitat was primarily rocky and gravel shorelines. A 14- to 18-inch slot-length limit was implemented for largemouth bass on September 1, 1994. Grapevine Reservoir has been part of the TPWD Habitat Improvement Initiative since 1997; however, because of water level fluctuations there has been limited success.

Management History

Previous management strategies and actions: Management strategies and actions from the previous survey report (Brock and Hungerford 2003) included:

1. Monitor the 14- to 18-inch slot-length limit with annual electrofishing surveys. Actions: Annual electrofishing surveys were conducted from 2004-2007.

2. Electrophoresis analysis indicates FLMB alleles may decrease below 20%.

Actions: Electrophoresis was conducted on largemouth bass samples collected during fall 2004 electrofishing. Results revealed FLMB allele influence to be 27%.

3. Continue annual monitoring of vegetation plantings in cooperation with LAERF. Actions: Annual monitoring was conducted when requested by LAERF. No monitoring was conducted in 2007.

Harvest regulation history: Sport fish populations in Grapevine Reservoir have been managed with statewide regulations with the exception of largemouth bass which are managed with a 14- to 18-inch slot-length limit (Table 2). Although statistical analysis did not reveal an improvement in the largemouth bass population since the regulation was implemented, results of a creel survey revealed 70% of anglers believed the slot-length limit was benefiting the largemouth bass population (Brock and Hungerford 2003).

Stocking history: The last stocking of Grapevine Reservoir occurred in 2007. The stocking consisted of Florida largemouth bass. Smallmouth bass were stocked in 1999. The complete stocking history is in Table 3.

Vegetation/habitat history: Grapevine Reservoir aquatic vegetation is composed mainly of flooded terrestrial species and rocks and boulders.

METHODS

Fishes were collected by electrofishing (1.5 hours at 18 5-min stations), trap netting (10 net nights at 10 stations), and gill netting (10 net nights at 10 stations). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) for electrofishing was recorded as the number of fish caught per hour (fish/hr) of actual electrofishing and, for gill and trap netting, as the number of fish per net night (fish/nn). All survey sites were randomly selected and all

4

surveys were conducted according to the Fishery Assessment Procedures (TPWD, Inland Fisheries Division, unpublished manual revised 2006).

Sampling statistics (CPUE for various length categories), structural indices [Proportional Stock Density (PSD), Relative Stock Density (RSD)], and condition indices [relative weight (Wr)] were calculated for target fishes according to Anderson and Neumann (1996). Index of vulnerability (IOV) was calculated for gizzard shad (DiCenzo et al. 1996). Relative standard error (RSE = 100 X SE of the estimate/estimate) was calculated for all CPUE statistics and SE was calculated for structural indices and IOV. Age and growth analysis for largemouth bass was conducted with ages being determined using otoliths from fish collected over stock size (TPWD, Inland Fisheries Division, unpublished manual revised 2006). Source for water level data was the United States Geological Survey website.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Habitat: No habitat survey was conducted because of flooded conditions. The last habitat survey was conducted in 2003 (Brock and Hungerford 2003).

Prey species: The total electrofishing catch rate of threadfin shad was 84.0/hr in 2007. The average catch rate of threadfin from 2004-2007, 132.5/hr, was well below the district average of 230.0/hr. Threadfin catch rates ranged from 184.5/hr in 2004 to 84.0/hr in 2007. The gizzard shad catch rate was 698.7/hr in 2007. Gizzard shad catch rates ranged from 698.7/hr in 2007 to 211.3/hr in 2005 and averaged 423.0/hr which is well above the district average of 271.0/hr (Figure 2). Average Index of vulnerability (IOV) for gizzard shad was low, indicating that 76% of gizzard shad captured from 2004-2007 were available to existing predators. However the IOV for 2007 was high indicating 91% of gizzard shad were available to existing predators. The catch rate of bluegill was 255.3/hr in 2007. The bluegill catch rate averaged 154.5/hr from 2004-2007, and ranged from 255.3/hr in 2007 to 18.0/hr in 2006 (Figure 3). The bluegill population does not contain large numbers of quality sized fish (>6 inches) as evident in PSD values. The longear sunfish total catch rate was 42.0/hr in 2007. Catch rates ranged from 136.0/hr in 2005 to 35.3/hr in 2006 and averaged 76.0/hr. This catch rate is close to the district average of 90.3/hr (Figure 4).

Catfishes: The gill netting catch rate of blue catfish in 2008 of 3.5/nn was above the district average of 2.0/nn and similar to the catch rate observed in 2004 (3.9/nn; Figure 5). These rates were much higher than the catch rate observed in 1999 (0.8/nn). Size structure of the blue catfish population was good as indicated by a PSD value of 43. The gill net catch rate of channel catfish was 2.3/nn in 2008 which was lower than the previous samples (4.5/nn in 1999, 5.0/nn in 2004; Figure 6). Size structure remained below average as indicated by a PSD value of 14.

White bass: The 2008 gill netting catch rate of white bass was 3.2/nn which was similar to the previous surveys but below the district average of 7.7/nn (Figure 7). Size structure of the population was above average as indicated by the PSD value of 93.

Black basses: The total electrofishing catch rate of spotted bass was 26.0/hr in 2007. The catch rate of spotted bass averaged 31.7/hr from 2004-2007 which was slightly above the district average of 25.1/hr. The catch rates ranged from 40.0/hr in 2004 to 22.7/hr in 2006. Size structure of the spotted bass population remained good as PSD values averaged 43 for this time period and spotted bass 14 inches or greater were observed in samples.

The total electrofishing catch rate of largemouth bass in 2007 was 294.0/hr. Catch rates averaged 145.5/hr from 2004-2007 which is higher than the district average of 127.9/hr. The total catch rates ranged from 294.0/hr in 2007 to 51.3/hr in 2006 (Figure 9). The catch rate of fish > 14 inches averaged

12.3/hr from 2004-2007, which is slightly lower than the reservoir average of 13.1/hr. The size structure of the population continues to be average as indicated by a PSD value of 21. Body conditions

5

from 2004-2007 were good with values of 90 or higher for most size classes of fish. Growth of largemouth bass in Grapevine Reservoir has remained above the district average with fish reaching 14 inches by age 2 for the past two samples and has seemed to improved since slot length limit implementation (Figure 10).

White crappie: Trap netting catch rate of white crappie was 4.2/nn in 2007, which was well below the catch rate of the previous sample in 2003 (24.4) (Figure 11). However this rate is similar to the catch rate observed in 1999 (2.5/nn). The size structure of the population is very good as indicated by a PSD value of 72.

Fisheries management plan for Grapevine Reservoir, Texas

Prepared – July 2008.

ISSUE 1: A slot length limit has been in place on Grapevine Reservoir largemouth bass since 1994. A more intensive age and growth sample regime needs to be conducted to better monitor growth of fish to 14 inches.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES 1. Conduct category 2 age and growth sampling during report years to better document growth of

fish to 14 inches. 2. Continue annual electrofishing sampling to monitor largemouth bass population structure.

ISSUE 2: Smallmouth bass were stocked in 1999 and in subsequent years several large fish were caught by anglers however no recruitment of smallmouth bass appears to be occurring.

MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 1. Request smallmouth bass for stocking. 2. Conduct exploratory sampling to investigate any possible smallmouth bass spawning activity.

SAMPLING SCHEDULE JUSTIFICATION Annual electrofishing will be conducted to monitor largemouth bass and forage fish populations. General monitoring with trap netting, and gill netting will be conducted every 4 years.

6

LITERATURE CITED

Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. Pages 447-482 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2

nd edition. American

Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Brock, R., and T. Hungerford 2003. Statewide freshwater fisheries monitoring and management program survey report for Grapevine Reservoir, 2003. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Federal Aid Report F-30-R, Austin.

DiCenzo, V. J., M. J. Maceina, and M. R. Stimpert. 1996. Relations between Reservoir trophic state and gizzard shad population characteristics in Alabama reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16: 888-895.

7

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

Ja

n-0

4

Ap

r-04

Ju

l-04

Oct-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ap

r-05

Ju

l-05

Oct-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ap

r-06

Ju

l-06

Oct-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ap

r-07

Ju

l-07

Oct-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ap

r-08

Date

Ele

va

tio

n (

fee

t a

bo

ve

MS

L)

Figure 1. Mean monthly water level elevations in feet above mean sea level (MSL) recorded for Grapevine Reservoir, Texas from January 2004-May 2008. Dashed line represents conservation pool (535 feet above MSL).

Table 1. Characteristics of Grapevine Reservoir, Texas. Characteristic Description Year Constructed 1952 Controlling authority United States Corps of Engineers Counties Tarrant Reservoir type Tributary Conductivity 375 umhos/cm

Table 2. Harvest regulations for Grapevine Reservoir, Texas. Species Bag limit Length limit (inches)

Catfish: channel, blue, their hybrids and subspecies 25 12 minimum

Catfish: flathead 5 18 minimum

Bass, white 25 10 minimum

Bass: spotted none

Bass: smallmouth 5 14 minimum In any combination

Bass: largemouth 14-18 slot

Crappie: white and black, their hybrid and subspecies 25 10 minimum

8 Table 3. Stocking history of Grapevine, Texas. Life stages are fry (FRY), fingerlings (FGL), advanced fingerlings (AFGL), adults (ADL) and unknown (UNK). Life stages for each species are defined as having a mean length that falls within the given length range. For each year and life stage the species mean total length (Mean TL; in) is given. For years where there were multiple stocking events for a particular species and life stage the mean TL is an average for all stocking events combined.

Life Mean Species Year Number Stage TL (in)

Channel catfish 1969 25,000 AFGL 7.9

1970 50,000 AFGL 7.9

1971 50,000 AFGL 7.9

1972 87,000 AFGL 7.9

Total 212,000

Florida Largemouth bass 1990 218,848 FGL 1.1

1990 147,286 FRY 0.8

1996 363,499 FGL 1.6

2001 195,900 FGL 1.5

2007 335,768 FGL 1.7

Total 1,261,301

Largemouth bass 1967 320,000 FRY 0.7

1968 50,000 UNK UNK

1969 450,000 FRY 0.7

1971 400,000 FRY 0.7

Total 1,220,000

Mixed largemouth bass 1988 364,004 1.0

Total 364,004

Palmetto Bass (striped X white bass hybrid) 1978 36,400 UNK UNK

1979 74,390 UNK UNK

1982 87,000 UNK UNK

Total 197,790

Smallmouth bass 1999 183,186 FGL 1.4

Total 183,186

Threadfin shad 1984 800 AFGL 3.0

Total 800

Walleye 1975 144,600 FRY 0.2

1976 2,500,000 FRY 0.2

Total 2,644,600

9

Gizzard Shad

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 373.3 (23; 560)

Stock CPUE = 190.7 (18; 286) IOV = 71.79 (6.2)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 409.3 (17; 614)

Stock CPUE = 192.0 (17; 288) IOV = 84.04 (3.8)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 211.3 (21; 317)

Stock CPUE = 152.0 (21; 228) IOV = 56.78 (7.7)

Figure 2. Number of gizzard shad caught per hour (CPUE; bars) and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for IOV are in parentheses) for fall electrofishing surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2004-2007.

10

Gizzard Shad

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 698.7 (15; 1048)

Stock CPUE = 272.0 (19; 408) IOV = 91.32 (2.3)

Figure 2 continued.

11

Bluegill

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 140.0 (15; 210)

Stock CPUE = 124.0 (13; 186) PSD = 14 (3.3)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 204.7 (21; 307)

Stock CPUE = 182.0 (21; 273) PSD = 7 (1.9)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 18.0 (39; 27)

Stock CPUE = 16.0 (44; 24) PSD = 0 (52)

Figure 3. Number of bluegill caught per hour (CPUE; bars) and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for fall electrofishing surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2004-2007.

12

Bluegill

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 255.3 (14; 383)

Stock CPUE = 255.3 (14; 383) PSD = 8 (2)

Figure 3 continued

13

Longear Sunfish

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 90.7 (26; 136)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 136.0 (21; 204)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 35.3 (37; 53)

Figure 4. Number of longear sunfish caught per hour (CPUE; bars) (RSE and N for CPUE) for fall electrofishing surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2004-2007.

14

Longear Sunfish

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 42.0 (25; 63)

Figure 4. continued

15

Blue Catfish

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 0.8 (41; 8)

Stock CPUE = 0.7 (37; 7) PSD = 29 (20)

RSD-P = 0 (0)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 3.9 (41; 39)

Stock CPUE = 3.3 (38; 33) PSD = 9 (4.5)

RSD-P = 0 (0)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 3.5 (24; 35)

Stock CPUE = 3.5 (24; 35) PSD = 43 (8.7)

RSD-P = 0 (0)

Figure 5. Number of blue catfish caught per net night (CPUE; bars) and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for spring gill net surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 1999, 2004, and 2008. Vertical line represents length limit at time of sampling.

16

Channel Catfish

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 4.5 (19; 45)

Stock CPUE = 3.2 (25; 32) PSD = 31 (10.5)

RSD-12 = 91 (8.4)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 5.0 (20; 50)

Stock CPUE = 3.6 (28; 36) PSD = 17 (6.5)

RSD-12 = 94 (3.4)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 2.3 (32; 23)

Stock CPUE = 2.2 (32; 22) PSD = 14 (8.9)

RSD-12 = 91 (3.7)

Figure 6. Number of channel catfish caught per net night (CPUE; bars), mean relative weight (diamonds), and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for spring gill net surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 1999, 2004, and 2008. Vertical line represents length limit at time of sampling.

17

White Bass

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 4.4 (55; 44)

Stock CPUE = 4.4 (55; 44) PSD = 41 (5)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 2.3 (40; 23)

Stock CPUE = 2.3 (40; 23) PSD = 70 (9.6)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 3.2 (29; 32)

Stock CPUE = 3.2 (29; 32) PSD = 53 (8.6)

Figure 7. Number of white bass caught per net night (CPUE; bars), mean relative weight (diamonds), and population indices (RSE and N are in parentheses) for spring gill net surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 1999, 2004, and 2008. Vertical line represents length limit at time of sampling.

18

Spotted Bass

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 40.0 (17; 60)

Stock CPUE = 28.7 (18; 43) PSD = 37 (7.6)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 38.0 (22; 57)

Stock CPUE = 26.0 (23; 39) PSD = 26 (5.3)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 22.7 (42; 34)

Stock CPUE = 14.7 (28; 22) PSD = 32 (7.8)

Figure 8. Number of spotted bass caught per hour (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (diamonds), and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for fall electrofishing surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2004-2007.

19

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 26.0 (37; 39)

Stock CPUE = 14.0 (38; 21) PSD = 76 (6.6)

Figure 8 continued.

20

Largemouth Bass

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 110.0 (18; 165)

Stock CPUE = 46.0 (15; 69) PSD = 33 (6.8)

RSD-14 = 13 (4.1)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 126.7 (16; 190)

Stock CPUE = 84.0 (19; 126) PSD = 32 (3.4)

RSD-14 = 18 (3.9)

Effort = 1.5 Total CPUE = 51.3 (20; 77)

Stock CPUE = 39.3 (25; 59) PSD = 49 (7.3)

RSD-14 = 27 (7.1)

Figure 9. Number of largemouth bass caught per hour (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (diamonds), and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for fall electrofishing surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2004-2007. Vertical lines represent length limit at time of sampling.

1.5

21

Effort = Total CPUE =

Stock CPUE = PSD =

RSD-14 =

294.0 (14; 441) 156.7 (13; 235)

21 (2.6) 11 (1.7)

Figure 9 continued.

22

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Length

(in)

Pre Slot Mean

Post Slot Mean

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Age (years)

Figure 10. Pre and post slot-length limit implementation, mean length at age for largemouth bass (sexes combined) collected from electrofishing at Grapevine Reservoir, Texas.

23

White Crappie

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 2.5 (35; 25)

Stock CPUE = 2.5 (35; 25) PSD = 88 (5.2)

RSD-10 = 12 (7.1)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 24.4 (20; 244)

Stock CPUE = 24.2 (20; 242) PSD = 86 (4.9)

RSD-10 = 37 (5.4)

Effort = 10.0 Total CPUE = 4.2 (64; 42)

Stock CPUE = 3.9 (70; 39) PSD = 72 (9.3)

RSD-10 = 54 (6.6)

Figure 11. Number of white crappie caught per net night (CPUE, bars), mean relative weight (diamonds), and population indices (RSE and N for CPUE and SE for size structure are in parentheses) for fall trap net surveys, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 1999, 2003, and 2007. Vertical line represents length limit at time of sampling.

24

Table 6. Proposed sampling schedule for Grapevine Reservoir, Texas. Gill netting surveys are conducted in the spring, while electrofishing and trap netting surveys are conducted in the fall. Standard surveys are denoted by S and additional surveys denoted by A.

Survey Year Electrofisher Trap Net Gill Net Creel Survey Report

Fall 2008-Spring 2009 A

Fall 2009-Spring 2010 A

Fall 2010-Spring 2011 A

Fall 2012-Spring 2013 S S S S

25

APPENDIX A

Number (N) and catch rate (CPUE) of all species collected from all gear types from Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2007-2008.

Species Gill Netting

N CPUE

Trap Netting

N CPUE

Electrofishing

N CPUE

Longnose gar 7 0.7

Gizzard shad 88 8.8 1048 698.7

Threadfin shad 126 84.0

Common carp 15 1.5

River carp sucker 8 0.8

Smallmouth buffalo 84 8.4

Blue catfish 35 3.5

Channel catfish 23 2.3

White bass 32 3.2

Bluegill 383 255.3

Longear sunfish 63 42.0

Redear sunfish 5 3.3

Spotted bass 39 26.0

Largemouth bass 2 0.2 441 294.0

White crappie 4 0.4 42 4.2

Freshwater drum 12 1.2

26

APPENDIX B

Location of sampling sites, Grapevine Reservoir, Texas, 2007-2008. Trap net, gill net, and electrofishing stations are indicated by T, G, and E, respectively. Boat ramps are indicated with a B. Water level was approximately 2.5 ft below conservation pool at time of sampling.