20070812 Ver 1_14 Mar 2005 Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Ass Draft Rpt_20080502

YADKIN RESERVOIR FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
Draft
MARCH 2005
YADKIN RESERVOIR FISH AND AQUATIC HABITAT
ASSESSMENT
Draft
Prepared for
ALCOA GENERATING COMPANY, INC.
YADKIN DIVISION
Prepared by
NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.
25 Nashua Road
Bedford, NH 03110
R-19556.001
March 2005
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table of Contents
Page
SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................5
2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................5
3.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................5
4.0 AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEYS ..........................................................................................7
4.1 HABITAT MAPPING METHODS ...................................................................................... ....7
4.2 HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR ............................................................................................... ....8
4.3 TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR ........................................................................................... ..67
4.4 NARROWS RESERVOIR .................................................................................................. ..80
4.5 FALLS RESERVOIR ........................................................................................................ ..94
5.0 IMPACTS OF YADKIN RESERVOIR OPERATIONS ON AQUATIC BIOTA
AND HABITAT IN THE FOUR IMPOUNDMENTS ...................................................... 104
5.1 HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR ...............................................................................................104
5.2 NARROWS RESERVOIR .................................................................................................121
5.3 TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR ...........................................................................................126
5.4 FALLS RESERVOIR ........................................................................................................130
6.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................133
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 11 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1-1. Yadkin Project ................................................................................................................ .......6
Figure 4.1-1. Example ofArcview File ............................................................................................... .......8
Figure 4.2-1. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the High Rock
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003.High Rock
Habitat Type Descriptions ............................................................................................. ....... 9
Figure 4.2-2. Some examples of different tree cover types mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
including heavy, medium and no branched trees, January/February 2004 .................. ..... 11
Figure 4.2-3. Some examples of different woody cover types mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
including stumps, brush and Christmas trees, January/February 2004 . ....................... ..... 12
Figure 4.2-4. Some examples of different rocky substrate types mapped in High Rock
Reservoir, including ledge, boulder, gravel and cobble, January/February 2004 ........ ..... 13
Figure 4.2-5. Some examples of docks and rip-rap habitat mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
January/February 2004 ................................................................................................... .....14
Figure 4.2-6. High Rock Reservoir segments for habitat analysis.
19
Figure 4.2-7. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Yadkin River and Confluence Area ......................... 21
Figure 4.2-8. Confluence of Yadkin and Little Yadkin Rivers and just downstream during 17-
ft drawdown, January/February 2004 ................................................................................. 22
Figure 4.2-9. Habitat types mapped in the Upper Main Section of the High Rock Reservoir ................ 23
Figure 4.2-10. Habitat types mapped in the Upper Reservoir Area within the drawdown zone
(el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ............................................... 27
Figure 4.2-11. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Main Section of the High Rock Reservoir ............... 28
Figure 4.2-12. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Reservoir Area within the drawdown zone
(el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ............................................... 31
Figure 4.2-13. Habitat types mapped in the Crane Creek Tributary Arm ................................................. 32
Figure 4.2-14. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ......................... 35
Figure 4.2-15. Habitat types mapped in the Swearing Creek Tributary Arm ............................................ 39
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 in Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Figure 4.2-16. Habitat types mapped in the Swearing Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ......................... 41
Figure 4.2-17. Upper reaches of Swearing, Flat Swamp, and Abbott's Creeks showing presence
of water during 17-ft drawdown ......................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2-18. Habitat types mapped in the Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm .............................................. 45
Figure 4.2-19. Habitat types mapped in the Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, within the drawdown
zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ............................................... 48
Figure 4.2-20. Habitat types mapped in the Second Creek Tributary Arm ............................................... 51
Figure 4.2-21. Habitat types mapped in the Second Creek Tributary Arm, within the drawdown
zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ............................................... 54
Figure 4.2-22. Habitat types mapped in the Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm ....................................... 57
Figure 4.2-23. Habitat types mapped in the Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure ......................... 61
Figure 4.2-24. Examples of bank erosion on High Rock Reservoir during the habitat mapping
survey, January/February 2004 ........................................................................................... 68
Figure 4.3-1 Habitat located within Tuckertown Reservoir
Figure 4.3-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Tuckertown
70
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003 ........................... ....... 71
Figure 4.3-3. Examples of aquatic vegetation mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004 ......... ....... 72
Figure 4.3-4. Examples of woody cover types mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004 ........ ....... 74
Figure 4.3-5. Examples of rock substrate mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004 ................ ....... 75
Figure 4.3-6. Examples of dock habitat mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004 ................... ....... 76
Figure 4.3-7. Example of bank erosion mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004 .................... ....... 81
Figure 4.4-1 Habitat Types Mapped in the Narrows Reservoir..
82
Figure 4.4-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Narrows
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003 .................................. 83
Figure 4.4-3. Examples of woody cover habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003 ........................................................................................................ 86
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 iv Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Figure 4.4-4. Examples of rocky substrate habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003 ........................................................................................................ 87
Figure 4.4-5. Examples of rip-rap and dock habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003 ........................................................................................................ 88
Figure 4.4-6 Examples of erosion mapped within Narrows Reservoir during December 2003............ 96
Figure 4.5-1. Habitat located within Falls Reservoir ........................................................................ ....... 97
Figure 4.5-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Falls Reservoir
for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003 ........................................... ....... 98
Figure 4.5-3. Example of aquatic vegetation mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004 ....................... ....... 99
Figure 4.5-4. Examples of woody cover types mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004 . ................... ..... 100
Figure 4.5-5. Examples of rock substrate mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004 ............................ ..... 101
Figure 5-1. High Rock water level scenarios provided by APGI .................................................. .....119
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 v Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
List of Tables
Page
Table 4.2-1. Total habitat available (in acres and %) within the drawdown zone of High Rock
Reservoir with all woody cover and rock substrate types combined .................................16
Table 4.2-2. Habitat Types in Acres and Square Feet Mapped in the Drawdown Zone (el. 624
- 612) of High Rock Reservoir ...........................................................................................17
Table 4.2-3. Full pond surface and within drawdown zone acreage for High Rock Reservoir
by section .............................................................................................................................20
Table 4.2-4. Habitat mapped within the Lower Yadkin River and its Confluence with High
Rock Reservoir, January and February 2004 ..................................................................... 20
Table 4.2-5. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in the Upper Main Reservoir, below
USGS elevation 624 ft ........................................................................................................25
Table 4.2-6. Amount of habitat mapped in the Upper Main Reservoir, within (el. 624 down to
612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607) ............................................... 26
Table 4.2-7. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in the Lower Main Reservoir, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft ..................................................................................................29
Table 4.2-8. Amount of habitat mapped in the lower main reservoir within the drawdown
zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607).......... 30
Table 4.2-9. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Crane Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft .................................................................................................. 33
Table 4.2-10. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el.
612 to 607) ........................................................................................................................... 34
Table 4.2-11. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Crane Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined ............................................................................................................37
Table 4.2-12. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Swearing Creek Tributary Arm,
below the USGS elevation 624 ft ....................................................................................... 38
Table 4.2-13. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Swearing Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el.
612 to 607) ........................................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.2-14. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Swearing Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined ............................................................................................................44
Table 4.2-15. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft ..................................................................................................46
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 vi Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-16. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612), and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el.
612 to 607) ........................................................................................................................... 47
Table 4.2-17. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined ............................................................................................................50
Table 4.2-18. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Second Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft .................................................................................................. 52
Table 4.2-19. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone(el. 624 down to 612)and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el.
612 to 607) ........................................................................................................................... 53
Table 4.2-20. Amount of habitat mapped Upper Second Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined ............................................................................................................56
Table 4.2-21. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm,
below the USGS elevation 624 ft ....................................................................................... 58
Table 4.2-22. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm within
the drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone
(el. 612 to 607) .................................................................................................................... 59
Table 4.2-23. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm, all
mapped elevations combined .............................................................................................. 62
Table 4.2-24. Comparison of the Amount of Habitat Available in the Drawdown Zone (el. 624
to 612) of High Rock Reservoir by Major Tributary Arms and Main Reservoir
Segments .............................................................................................................................. 63
Table 4.2-25. Comparison of Dominant Habitat Types Mapped in the Major Tributary Arms
and Main Reservoir Segments of High Rock Reservoir with Woody Cover and
Rocky Substrate Types Combined ................................................................................ ......64
Table 4.2-26. Comparison of Wetland Habitat Types Mapped by Overflight, in the Major
Tributary Arms and Main Reservoir Segments of High Rock Reservoir ................... ...... 66
Table 4.2-27. Amount of erosion mapped by tributary arm and reservoir segment .......................... ...... 69
Table 4.3-1. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, below the
full pond USGS elevation of 564.2.. ............................................................................. ...... 78
Table 4.3-2. Habitat type by percentage of total mapped acreage in Tuckertown Reservoir,
below the full pond USGS elevation of 564.2.. ............................................................ ...... 79
Table 4.3-3. Amount of erosion mapped within Tuckertown Reservoir .......................................... ...... 81
Table 4.4-1. Total habitat available (in acres and %) within the upper 16 feet of Narrows
Reservoir with all woody cover, rock substrate and wetland types combined. ' .............. 89
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 vii Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.4-2. Percentage by type of all habitats mapped within the 2-ft littoral zoneZ of
Narrows Reservoir ..............................................................................................................91
Table 4.4-3. Water surface area reductions within Narrows Reservoir .................................................. 92
Table 4.4-4. Percentage by type of all habitats mapped within the potential drawdown zoneZ
of Narrows Reservoir .......................................................................................................... 93
Table 4.4-5. Amount of habitat mapped in Narrows Reservoir within the littoral zone (el. 510
to 508 ft), the possible drawdown zone (el. 508 to 494 ft), and the area below the
possible drawdown zone (el. <494 ft) ................................................................................ 95
Table 4.4-6. Amount of erosion mapped within Narrows Reservoir ..................................................... 96
Table 4.5-1. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Falls Reservoir, below the full pond
USGS elevation of 334' .....................................................................................................103
Table 4.5-2. Habitat type by percentage of total mapped acreage in Falls Reservoir, below the
full pond USGS elevation of 334' .....................................................................................103
Table 5-1. Summary of Water Elevation (FT) Statistics in the Yadkin Reservoirs Based on
Daily Data (1986-2003)a and Hourly Data (1997-2003)b. Elevations Referenced
to the USGS Datum ...........................................................................................................105
Table 5-2. Compiled species list for all four project reservoirs .........................................................107
Table 5-3. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Stocking Records for High
Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, Falls and Tillery Reservoirs .............................................109
Table 5-4. Fisheries sampling efforts conducted on impoundments within the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin, by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (1972 -
2001) ..................................................................................................................................110
Table 5-5. Spawning times for fish species found in Falls, Narrows, Tuckertown and
Highrock Resevoirs (From Menhinick, 1991) * Species captured by CP&L
sampling in 2000 ...............................................................................................................114
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 viii Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
SUMMARY
The Yadkin Reservoir Fish and Aquatic Habitat Assessment Report presents the results of an
intensive survey of aquatic habitat in the four Yadkin Project reservoirs: High Rock, Tuckertown,
Narrows and Falls. The study also examines the current status of the reservoir fisheries. The study
was conducted by Normandeau Associates (NAI) in accordance with the Final Study Plan that was
developed in consultation with Fish and Aquatics Issue Advisory Group (IAG). Specific objectives
identified in the Final Study Plan included:
¦ Map the existing aquatic habitat in the existing and potential drawdown zones of High Rock
and Narrows reservoirs and the littoral zones of Tuckertown and Falls reservoirs for inclusion
in a GIS based (ARC View) database.
¦ Evaluate the impacts of fluctuating water levels under existing Project operations on the
existing fishery and aquatic habitats in the four impoundments.
In addition, as part of this study, NAI also evaluated the potential impact to reservoir aquatic habitats,
fish and other aquatic biota (mussels, macroinvertebrates, etc) associated with a range of alternative
operating regimes for the reservoirs.
Intensive habitat surveys were conducted on the four Project reservoirs between December 2003 and
August 2004. Aquatic habitats were mapped within the existing drawdown zone of High Rock
Reservoir, the littoral zone and a potential drawdown zone in Narrows Reservoir and within the
littoral zones of both Tuckertown and Falls Reservoirs. The habitat surveys at High Rock and
Narrows occurred during the winter months when the reservoirs were drawn down below 15 ft to
assist in the habitat mapping. The habitat surveys on Tuckertown and Falls took place during the
summer of 2004 while the two reservoirs were drawn down between 1 and 2 ft below full pool.
During each survey, a digital video camera was used to film the entire shoreline of each reservoir,
further documenting the habitat and cover present. Habitat types in the reservoir drawdown and
littoral zones that were mapped during this study included: 1) aquatic vegetation (wetlands); 2) trees
and woody debris (brush, fallen trees, standing trees, stumps); 3) Christmas trees added for habitat
enhancement; 4) docks; 5) riprap; 6) ledge; 7) boulder; 8) cobble; 9) gravel; and 10) mud/sand/clay.
The results of the habitat mapping were entered into a GIS database.
Results of the habitat mapping, in terms of the amount of each habitat type available in the drawdown
or littoral zone of each of the reservoirs, are summarized in the table below. As shown, at High Rock,
mud/sand/clay substrates account for approximately 81 percent of the drawdown zone. This substrate
type is considered to provide poor quality habitat for fish and other aquatic biota. High quality
habitat types accounted for the remaining 19% of the drawdown zone. Among the high quality
habitats present, four wetland cover types (palustrine emergent, flood plain forest, shrub-swamp, and
sparse shrub-swamp) comprise about 17% of the habitat. Other high quality habitats including rock
substrates (0.58%), woody cover (0.65%) and docks (0.52%) comprise the remaining 2% of habitat
within the drawdown zone. Similarly at Narrows Reservoir, habitat within the upper 14 feet of the
reservoir is dominated by poor quality mud/sand/clay substrates. At the other two reservoirs, only the
high quality habitats found in the littoral zone were mapped. At Tuckertown, wetland habitat types
accounted for the majority of the quality habitat types, while at Falls, the largest percentage of high
quality habitats are provided by brush and branched trees.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 1 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Habitat Types Mapped in the Drawdown and Littoral Zones of the Yadkin Project Reservoirs

Habitat Type High Rock
Habitat Mapped in
Drawdown Zone' Tuckertown
Habitat Mapped in
Littoral Zone2 Narrows
Habitat Mapped in
Drawdown Zone' Falls
Habitat Mapped in
Littoral Zone'
Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
Mud/sand/clay 4637.36 80.65% 1157.51 87.73%
Boulder 10.78 0.19% 4.43 2.92% 25.43 1.93%
Brush 2.39 0.04% 0.12 0.08% 0.25 0.01% 1.05 18.21%
Christmas Trees 0.67 0.01% 0.15 0.01%
Cobble 3.48 0.06% 1.02 0.67% 22.94 1.74% 0.21 3.60%
Docks 29.85 0.52% 0.16 0.11% 13.34 1.01%
Gravel 0.00 0.00% 4.26 0.32%
Heavily Branched
Trees 1.43 0.02% 0.08 0.05% 8.70 0.66%
Ledge 4.60 0.08% 0.20 0.13% 6.59 0.50%
Medium Branched
Trees 29.81 0.52% 16.39 10.80% 10.42 0.79% 0.79 13.76%
No Branched Trees 0.19 0.00% 0.23 0.15% 0.18 0.01% 0.00 0.05%
Riprap 14.46 0.25% 0.30 0.20% 5.17 0.39%
Standing trees 0.02 0.00%
Stumps 2.89 0.05% 2.66 1.75% 4.98 0.38% 0.01 0.09%
Tires 0.01 0.00%
Palustrine emergent 4.61 0.08% 15.61 10.29% 53.83 4.08% 1.99 34.66%
Floodplain forest 462.26 8.04% 19.80 13.05% 4.47 0.34% 0.05 0.83%
Shrub-swamp 69.57 1.21% 8.52 5.62% 1.08 0.08% 0.17 2.87%
Sparse shrub-
swamp 476.73 8.29% 3.15 2.07%
Aquatic vegetation 71.46 47.10% 1.49 25.97%
Misc. Man-made 0.07 0.01%

Notes:
1 Drawdown zone includes habitat between el. 624 ft. and 612 ft (USGS) or the upper 12 feet of the reservoir.
2 Full pond elevation is 564.2 ft. (USGS). Percentages are the quality habitat types mapped within the 2 ft littoral zone.
Does not include areas classified as low quality habitat (mud/sand/clay).
3 Drawdown zone includes habitat between el. 508 ft. and 494 ft. (USGS) or the upper 14 feet of the reservoir.
4 Full pond elevation is 334 ft. (USGS). Percentages are the quality habitat types mapped within the 2 ft littoral zone. Does
not include areas classified as low quality habitat (mud/sand/clay).
As part of the study NAI also examined reservoir fisheries and the report presents a summary
evaluation of the overall status of the fishery in each of the reservoirs. Data used in this analysis was
drawn from several recent fish surveys including reservoir fisheries studies commissioned by APGI
and recent fish sampling done by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
The table below summarizes the total list of species collected through the various survey efforts in
each of the four Project reservoirs. For the most part, the fisheries found in all four reservoirs appear
to be healthy.
Fish Species Found in Each of the Four Yadkin Project Reservoirs
Scientific Name Common Name High Rock Tuckertown Narrows Falls
Alosa aestivalis Blueback Herring C B,C B,C
Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife B
Ameiurus melas Black bullhead A B
Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead A,B A,B A,B
Amia calva Bowfin A,B C
Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch
Carassius auratus Goldfish A,B C B
Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker B B B
Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback A,B A,B,C A,C
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 2 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Catostomus commersoni White sucker A A
Cyprinus carpio Common carp A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Cyprinella analostana Satinfin shiner B,C C C
Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker A,B A,B,C A,B,C
Esox americanus Redfin pickerel A
Esox niger Chain pickerel A
Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter B
Etheostoma olmstedi Tesselated darter C
Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish B A,B B
Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow C
Ictalurus brunneus Snail bullhead B C
Ictalurus cams White catfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish B,C B,C B,C
Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead A,B
Ictalurus platycephalus Flat bullhead A B B C
Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo A C A B,C
Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar A,B B,C A,B,C C
Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed A,B B,C A,B,C B
Lepomis gulosus Warmouth A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker B
Morone americana White perch A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Morone chrysops White bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C C
Moronesaxatilis Striped bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Moxostoma anisurum Silver redhorse A B,C A,C C
Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorse B B,C A,B,C B,C
Moxostoma pappillosum V-lip redhorse A A A
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead chub B
Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner A,B B A,B,C B,C
Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner C
Perca flavescens Yellow perch A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Pomoxis annularis White crappie A,B B,C A,B,C B,C
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish A,B A,B,C B,C B,C
Scartomyzon spp. Brassy jumprock A
Striped bass x White bass B B,C B,C
Carp x Goldfish B
Sunfish Hybrid B B
A - Source = NCWRC Surveys (taken from Fisheries and Wildlife Management Plan for the Yadkin-PeeDee River Basin (NCWRC 2004))
B - Source = Carolina Power and Light 2000 Survey
C - Source = Normandeau Associates Inc. 2003/2004 Tailwater Surveys
Finally, as part of the study NAI examined the potential impacts to aquatic habitats and fish
associated with current reservoir operating regimes and the resulting water level fluctuations. Results
of the study demonstrate that there is very little impact to aquatic habitat or fish populations
associated with the current operation of Tuckertown and Falls Reservoirs. Both reservoirs are
operated as essentially run-of-river developments and therefore neither reservoir experiences any
seasonal drawdowns. Short term fluctuations do occur at both reservoirs (on a daily or weekly basis),
but at Tuckertown such fluctuations are typically within the 0-2 foot range, and at Falls short term
fluctuations are in the 0-4 ft range. In neither case do short term fluctuations appear to be
significantly impacting aquatic habitats or their use by fish. The study does note that reservoir
fluctuations, even short term fluctuations, may have some impact on fish during the spring spawning
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
season, when many species need access to high quality shallow water habitats. But the study results
demonstrate that in most years, reservoir water levels in both reservoirs appear to remain relatively
constant during the spring spawning season.
Like Tuckertown and Falls, Narrows Reservoir is generally operated as a run-of-river facility,
resulting in short-term reservoir fluctuations of about 0-3 feet. However, there is some storage
available in Narrows Reservoir and historically APGI has utilized this storage to help meet
downstream flow requirements during periods of low river flow. This has resulted in a fairly typical
pattern of a modest lowering of the reservoir elevation during the late summer and early fall. On
average, reservoir levels decrease to 2-3 feet during the late summer period. This modest change in
reservoir water level over the course of the summer does result in some impacts to aquatic habitats
and their uses. Some areas of aquatic vegetation (water willow beds) become dewatered later in the
summer forcing fish and other organisms (if they are mobile) to seek cover elsewhere. However,
overall the health of the reservoir fishery suggests that these impacts are small. Moreover, voluntary
efforts by APGI in recent years to maintain relatively stable water levels during the spring spawning
period ensure that critical shallow water habitats are available during this most important season.
High Rock Reservoir, which is operated as a store and release facility, produces a very different
pattern of waters levels which the study found has more significant impacts on aquatic habitat and
fish. Under current operations, High Rock reservoir is operated with a seasonal winter drawdown of
12 feet, on average. In addition, available storage in High Rock is utilized by APGI over the course
of the summer to help meet downstream flow requirements, resulting in a typical pattern of a drop in
reservoir elevation of up to 5 feet over the course of the summer. Short term fluctuations at High
Rock reservoir, however, are small, generally on the order of 1 foot or less.
The most significant impacts to aquatic habitat, fish and other aquatic biota associated with the
current operation of High Rock are threefold. First, there is a loss of much of the quality habitat
located in the 12 foot drawdown zone over the course of the fall and winter for use by fish and other
biota. Fish are mobile and may find cover and habitat elsewhere in the reservoir as water levels
recede. However, fish, especially young fish, become very vulnerable to predation when they are
forced to move into open water or seek cover elsewhere. Second, the habitat mapping done as part of
this study demonstrates that the majority of the high quality habitat found in High Rock Reservoir is
located in the upper 6 feet of the reservoir drawdown zone. Thus, a slow drawdown of the reservoir
by as much as 5 feet over the course of the summer results in the loss of a significant portion of the
high quality habitat available to fish. Again, the fish that are likely most affected by this reduction in
summer water levels are young fish that require the cover and protection of the high quality habitats
to escape predation and mature. Finally, the study found that at High Rock most of the important
shallow water habitats used by fish for spawning are located in the upper most portion of the reservoir
drawdown zone. In order to maximize the availability of these habitats to spawning fish, the study
suggests that High Rock reservoir water levels should be near full during the April - May period,
when most fish species spawn. Currently, APGI operates High Rock voluntarily to try to maintain
relatively stable water levels during the mid-April to mid-May period to help enhance fish spawning
in the reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 4 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) is applying to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a
new license for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. The Project consists of four reservoirs (High Rock,
Tuckertown, Narrows and Falls), dams, and powerhouses located on a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin
River in central North Carolina (Figure 1-1). The Project generates electricity to support the power
needs of Alcoa's Badin Works and its other aluminum operations or is sold on the open market.
In this study, the effect of the Yadkin Project reservoir operations on fish and aquatic habitat was
evaluated. The existing aquatic habitat in the drawdown zones of High Rock and Narrows reservoirs
were mapped and imported into an Arc View GIS database. At Tuckertown and Falls reservoirs, all
the existing aquatic habitat in the littoral zone (the upper 2 ft of each reservoir) was mapped and
imported into an Arc View GIS database. Additionally, the impacts of fluctuating water levels on
aquatic habitat and aquatic biota in the four impoundments were evaluated.
2.0 BACKGROUND
As part of the relicensing process, APGI prepared and distributed, in September 2002, an Initial
Consultation Document (ICD), which provided a general overview of the Project. Agencies,
municipalities, non-governmental organizations and members of the public were given an opportunity
to review the ICD and identify information and studies that were needed to address relicensing issues.
To further assist in the identification of issues and data/study needs, APGI formed several Issue
Advisory Groups (IAGs) to advise APGI on resource issues throughout the relicensing process.
Through meetings, reviews and comments, the Fish and Aquatics IAG assisted in developing the
Study Plans for the various resource issues, and will further review and comment on the findings
resulting from the implementation of the study plans. This report presents the findings of the reservoir
fish and aquatic habitat assessment studies, following implementation of the Final Study Plan, dated
June 2003. The Final Study Plan, entitled Reservoir Fish and Aquatic Habitat Assessment is attached
to this report as Appendix 1.
3.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES
On March 12 and April 9, 2003 the Fish and Aquatics IAG met to discuss study objectives for the
Tailwater Fish and Aquatic Biota study. Over the course of those discussions and by written
comments on the draft study plan received after the April 9, 2003 IAG meeting, the following
objectives were identified for the final study plan, dated June 2003.
¦ Map the existing aquatic habitat in the existing and potential drawdown zones of High Rock
and Narrows reservoirs and the littoral zones of Tuckertown and Falls reservoirs for inclusion
in a GIS based (ARC View) database.
Evaluate the impacts of fluctuating water levels under existing Project operations on the
existing fishery and aquatic habitats in the four impoundments.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 5 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

nr
Environmental Consultants
25 Nashua Road
Bedford NH 03 1 10-5 50 0
[phone]
10 Miles
Figure 1-1. Yadkin Project.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 6 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
4.0 AQUATIC HABITAT SURVEYS
Intensive habitat surveys were conducted on High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows and Falls Reservoirs
between December 2003 and August 2004. Aquatic habitats were mapped within the existing
drawdown zone of High Rock Reservoir, the littoral zone and a potential drawdown zone in Narrows
Reservoir and within the littoral zones of both Tuckertown and Falls Reservoirs. The habitat surveys
at High Rock and Narrows occurred during the winter months when the reservoirs were drawn down
below 15 ft to assist in the habitat mapping. The habitat surveys on Tuckertown and Falls took place
during the summer of 2004 while the two reservoirs were drawn down between 1 and 2 ft below full
pool. Both Tuckertown and Falls have limited storage capacity and therefore do not experience the
seasonal drawdowns that occur mostly at High Rock, and at times, Narrows reservoirs. During each
survey, a digital video camera was used to film the entire shoreline of each reservoir, documenting
the cover present. The methods outlined below were used on the habitat surveys conducted at each of
the four reservoirs.
The following sections report the results of the four aquatic habitat surveys conducted on each
reservoir. The report sections below provide a summary of what was mapped and exposed at certain
reservoir elevations but it should be noted that the Arc View CD produced for each reservoir is the
final work product. For High Rock, the amount of habitat exposed at any draw down level between
full pool to approximately 16 ft below full pool can be calculated, and for Narrows, from full pool
down to 14 ft. Additionally, habitat that may be added to a particular reservoir in the future can be
included on the CD by qualified GIS personnel.
4.1 HABITAT MAPPING METHODS
A Trimble PRO-XRS Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) connected to a laser
rangefinder was used to map the different habitat types within the drawdown zone with sub-meter
accuracy. The use of the DGPS and rangefinder in conjunction with one another allowed the field
crew to delineate the perimeter of the habitat feature with multiple point readings to create a polygon.
The habitat type of that given polygon could then be entered into the DGPS unit. Using the DGPS to
create polygon shapes for each piece of habitat eliminated the need to manually record habitat
dimensions. In turn, this reduced the amount of data post-processing required, after the fieldwork
was completed.
Woody cover was entered into the DGPS as polygon shapes. Using the laser rangefinder and the
DGPS, coordinates were traced along the perimeter of each downed tree to create a polygon.
Similarly, piles of Christmas trees or areas of brush had GPS points taken to delineate the feature
outline and were recorded as polygon shapes by the DGPS.
Rock substrate sometimes extended for hundreds of feet and in many cases, was a mixture of
boulders, cobble, gravel and ledge. When substrate type was entered into the DGPS's data dictionary,
the field crew selected the predominant substrate type for that particular polygon. For example, an
area that was a mix of 75 % boulder, 20 % cobble and 5% gravel, would be entered into the DGPS as
boulder habitat.
The mud/sand/clay substrate was the most dominant substrate encountered during the study. It was
not mapped with the DGPS in the field. Instead, the field crew mapped all the other habitat types
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 7 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
within the drawdown zone and any area within that zone that was not mapped, was lumped into the
default category of mud/sand/clay substrate. This default substrate type was considered to be low
value fish habitat when compared with woody cover and rock substrate. Substrate that did not
provide good habitat, such as heavily embedded gravel, was not measured and was lumped with the
default. There is however, limited habitat available for aquatic biota in the sand/embedded
gravel/clay substrate. Most sections of it did have some rocks and pieces of woody debris scattered
within the drawdown zone. In most cases it was not considered significant enough to map or the rock
substrate was heavily embedded and considered a poor quality habitat.
Figure 4.1-1 is an example of what the data looks like in the ARCView format. By clicking the
cursor on any habitat type shown on the screen, a table appears describing what type of habitat was
selected, along with descriptive characteristics of that piece of habitat, such as its area in square feet
or acres.
-IsJJ
Ilk
Eile Edit yldO fneMe "Analysis' '?adrrace - tirapnlcs L I ools _.vu turn
n f)ata Handler Vector Conversions Image O nn n nn
: 3.280 1701,807 391.31
z V6 j 0 Q Q]©+ ®T 0 I.3 >? ,'x f Scale 1:13,286-
.29 I
Habitat wetlands.shp
0 PEM
O PF01k
0 PSS1
0 PSSp
Habitat belowfullipond.ship
0
i Highrockall erosion.shp
_
® Bo
ulder
a( Highro Uv AaYLMat_below_full.shp
B odd tlu
B-h
0 Brush
0 Christmas trees ?? - - _
0 Christmas tress
d
37013
o C hris
Habitat.. .,
....0
0 Cobble ............................................................ .... , ..........................
0 Heavy branched trees
..................................................................... Area
... .2953748
O Medium branched trees
..................................................................... Perimeter
....... 353.214
..........................
® No branched trees Recno
............, 308
....
0 stumps ............................................................ Acres
........... , 0.068.........
...........
0 Gravel d extra.... 0 .. .......
0 Ledge H,abitat,,,,,,,,,,,o ,,,,Medium,l
0 Ledge Sourcethm habitat b
0 Misc. Clear Clear All
o Rip rap
O Rip rap
0 Tires
Allp oints 101004.s hp '
Start y _ [wj Eudora - [In] Qfig 2-I.mxd - ... s ArcYiew GI 5 ...
Figure 4.1-1. Example of Arcview File.
4.2 HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR
The High Rock development impounds a reservoir that has a drainage area of 3,973 square miles and
has an available storage capacity of approximately 234,100 acre-feet at a full pool elevation of 623.9
feet (USGS Datum). The reservoir has a mean depth of 17 feet and a maximum depth of 62 feet. The
High Rock Development is operated in a store-and-release mode. Normal daily fluctuation in water
surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft, with a daily maximum of 2 to 4 ft. Seasonal
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 8 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
drawdowns of High Rock Reservoir have averaged 12 ft in winter. The maximum annual drawdown
typically occurs in late winter. The High Rock habitat field survey ran from January 20 through
February 12, 2004. High Rock Reservoir's maximum full pond elevation is 623.9 feet (USGS
Datum) with an average, annual drawdown of 13.5 feet (Figure 4.2-1). Water surface elevations
during the field effort ranged from 619.6 to 605.1 with an average elevation of 610.1 ft. The
drawdown assisted the field effort in that biologists were able to map habitat not only within the
drawdown zone but also below the lower limit of that area (el. <612).
630
625
H
LL
620
C
615
N
LU
610
605
600
FULL POND
V, QV
Jan I Feb l Marl Apr IMay l Jun I Jul l Aug l Sep l Oct l Nov l Dec l
Minimum Daily Value
Mean Daily Value
Maximum Daily Value
Figure 4.2-1. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the High Rock
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003.High Rock
Habitat Type Descriptions
Significant habitat types important to aquatic biota that were mapped during this study included:
1. aquatic vegetation
2. trees and woody debris (brush, fallen trees, standing trees, stumps)
3. Christmas trees added for habitat enhancement
4. docks
5. riprap
6. ledge, boulder, cobble, gravel
7. mud/sand/clay
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 9 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Aquatic Vegetation
The data presented in this section was collected primarily through the use of overflight pictures taken
during July and August of 2003 (NAI 2005c). After habitat types were mapped out on the collected
photographs, biologists in the field were used to verify the wetland habitat types that were present.
Four major wetland types of importance to aquatic biota were identified within High Rock Reservoir.
1. Palustrine Emergent: (PEM) Consisted mainly of water willow beds
2. Flood Plain Forest: (PFO1/c) Species composition within this wetland type can be very
diverse. However, where this community type is present on the frequently flooded, shallow
delta areas within High Rock, black willow is the dominant tree species. This habitat type is
typically flooded only during high water events.
3. Shrub-Swamp: (PSS1) Shrub-swamp habitat on High Rock is dominated by loosely bunched
stands of black willow seedlings.
4. Sparse Shrub-Swamp: (PSSp) Sparse shrub-swamp on High Rock can be found on the
shallower bars that are beginning to seed in and is mainly composed of the widely scattered
seedlings of black willow and buttonbush.
Wetlands are discussed in more detail in a separate report prepared by Normandeau Associates
entitled Wetland and Riparian Habitat Assessment (NAI, 2005c).
Woody Cover
Woody cover found within the 17-foot drawdown was split into several categories and mapped during
the study. Naturally falling and intentionally cut trees (lap trees) lying within the drawdown zone
were mapped. These downed trees were further categorized based on the size and amount of branches
remaining on the tree. They were classified as heavy branching, medium branching or no branching
(Figure 4.2-2). Christmas tree bundles added to the reservoir to provide and improve habitat for fish
were also mapped (Figure 4.2-3). Other types of woody cover located and mapped in the drawdown
zone included stumps, brush piles, and standing trees (Figure 4.2-3).
Substrate
All substrate types located within the drawdown zone were delineated and mapped during the field
survey. These included ledge, boulder, cobble, gravel, and riprap (Figure 4.2-4; Figure 4.2-5).
Substrate that did not provide good habitat for aquatic biota, such as heavily embedded gravel, was
not measured and was included in the default (mud/sand/clay) substrate category. All habitats that
were not mapped due to their not providing decent habitat for aquatic biota were put into the default
category.
Docks
Docks were plotted from overflight pictures taken during 1997. Docks constructed after 1997 are not
included in this report.' Figure 4.2-5 shows examples of dock habitat from High Rock Reservoir.
' Yadkin estimates that approximately docks have been added since 1997.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 10 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Photo A. Heavily branched tree overlying
default habitat with stumps in
foreground
Photo B. Medium branched tree overlying
mixed cobble/gravel habitat.
Photo C. No branched tree on default habitat.
Figure 4.2-2. Some examples of different tree cover types mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
including heavy, medium and no branched trees, January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 11 Normandeau Associates, inc.
5?'"
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A.. Stump habitat. Photo B. . Brush pile habitat.

'V 1. .'. "

Photo C. Christmas tree bundle habitat.
Figure 4.2-3. Some examples of different woody cover types mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
including stumps, brush and Christmas trees, January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 12 Normandeau Associates, inc.

GUI CO C. "
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Photo A.. Boulder and cobble habitat.

Photo B. . Ledge habitat.
Photo C. Mixed gravel, cobble and boulder Photo D. Gravel habitat
habitat.
Figure 4.2-4. Some examples of different rocky substrate types mapped in High Rock
Reservoir, including ledge, boulder, gravel and cobble, January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 13 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A. Dock set over ledge habitat. Photo B. Dock and rip-rap habitats.
Photo C. . Rip-rap habitat.
Figure 4.2-5. Some examples of docks and rip-rap habitat mapped in High Rock Reservoir,
January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 14 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Erosion
Areas of significant erosion were mapped during the field effort. "Significant erosion" was defined in
the final study plan as areas that are observed to have active and ongoing erosion and observable
impacts to important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Such areas included but were not necessarily
limited to:
Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are
noticeably affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in the loss of vegetation from a significant
community or habitat type
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline is impacting public recreation facilities
4.2.1 Total Available Habitat in Drawdown Zone
High Rock Reservoir has 5,751 acres exposed during a 12-foot drawdown (el. 624 to el. 612). Of the
5,751 acres, 4,637 (81%) is mud/sand/clay substrate (Table 4.2-1). Four wetland cover types
(Palustrine emergent, flood plain forest, shrub-swamp, and sparse shrub-swamp) cover 1,013 acres
and comprise 17.6% of the habitat. Rock substrates (0.58%), woody cover (0.65%) and docks
(0.52%) comprise the remaining 2% of habitat within the drawdown zone. The four wetland cover
types, rock substrate, woody cover and docks represent quality habitat types that are beneficial to the
success of aquatic biota
Because of natural hydraulic controls, the planned drawdown did not dewater the upper section of
High Rock that includes the lower Yadkin River and its confluence with the reservoir and habitat data
collected in this section is presented separately (see Section 4.3.1).
Table 4.2-2 presents the 15 different habitat types mapped during the High Rock habitat survey along
with the four wetland habitats that were added from aerial photographs. Mud/sand/clay is the
dominant substrate present. Sparse shrub-swamp was the dominant wetland type and comprised
8.29% of the habitat. Flood plain forest was the next most abundant, covering 462 acres and
comprising 8.04% of the habitat. Lesser amounts of shrub-swamp (69.57 acres; 1.2%) and palustrine
emergent vegetation (4.6 acres; 0.08%) were also present. Next to the wetland habitat types, docks
are the second most abundant form of quality habitat found within the drawdown zone, covering
29.85 acres and comprising 0.52% of the drawdown zone acreage. Medium branched trees are the
dominant form of woody cover throughout the reservoir, comprising 0.52% of the acreage mapped.
Christmas trees, brush, heavily branched trees, no branched trees, standing trees and stumps are all
present in lesser amounts, throughout the reservoir. Rip-rap (0.25%) and boulders (0.19%) are the
dominant rocky substrates present. Lesser amounts of cobble, gravel, and ledge can also be found
within the drawdown zone.
Habitat available below the 12-foot drawdown contour (el. 612) was also mapped during the field
survey (Table 4.2-2). During the survey, biologists mapped habitat between el. 612 and el. 605 (19 ft
below full pool) in the main reservoir sections where the deeper water exists. The upper sections of
the tributary arms were shallow and most were above el. 612. Excluding the default mud/sand/clay
substrate, there was an additional 73.44 acres of habitat available below el. 612. Stumps were the
dominant habitat type, accounting for 54% of the habitat available. Other
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 15 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.2-1. Total habitat available (in acres and %) within the drawdown zone of High Rock Reservoir with all woody cover and rock
substrate types combined. 1
Area Exposed in
Drawdown Zone Mud/Sand/Clay
(default) Substrate
Rock Substrate
Wood Cover
Docks
Wetlands
acres % acres % acres % acres % acres % acres %
5,751.10 100.00% 4,637.36 80.63% 33.32 0.58% 37.40 0.65% 29.85 0.52% 1013.17 17.62%
Habitat mapped in the upper section of High Rock Reservoir that includes the lower Yadkin River and its confluence with the reservoir is presented separately because this area did
not dewater during the planned drawdown. (See section 4.2.2.1)

01
a
y
y
fD
y
y
fD
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-2. Habitat Types in Acres and Square Feet Mapped in the Drawdown Zone (el.
624 - 612) of High Rock Reservoir.

Habitat Available in Drawdown Zone t Acres of
Habitat Below
Habitat Type Acres Square Feet % Drawdown Zone z
Mud/sand/clay 4,637.36 202,003,271.00 80.63% ---
Boulder 10.78 469,849.14 0.19% 11.55
Brush 2.39 104,319.71 0.04% 1.39
Christmas Trees 0.67 29,455.03 0.01% 0.50
Cobble 3.48 151,564.25 0.06% 2.54
Docks 29.85 1,300,180.00 0.52% 1.19
Gravel 0.00 114.07 0.00% 0.00
Heavily Branched Trees 1.43 62,380.62 0.02% 0.02
Ledge 4.60 200,395.91 0.08% 4.93
Medium Branched Trees 29.81 1,297,792.51 0.52% 2.24
No Branched Trees 0.19 8,236.17 0.00% 0.01
Rip-rap 14.46 629,692.14 0.25% 9.07
Standing Trees 0.02 6,091.05 0.00% 0.00
Stumps 2.89 126,007.16 0.05% 40.00
Tires 0.01 279.22 0.00% 0.01
Palustrine Emergent 4.61 200,678.00 0.08% ---
Flood Plain Forest 462.26 20,135,996.00 8.04% ---
Shrub-swam 69.57 3,031,100.00 1.21% ---
Sparse shrub-swam 476.73 20765955 8.29% ---
Total 5,751.10 250,523,356.97 100.00% 73.44
' Drawdown zone includes habitat between el. 624 down to el. 612, or the upper 12 feet of the drawdown zone.
2 Habitat mapped below the drawdown zone extends below el. 612.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 17 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
woody cover types present included brush, Christmas trees, medium, heavily and no branched
trees. Boulders were the dominant rocky substrate type that was mapped below the 12-foot
drawdown zone, accounting for 16% of the habitat mapped. Cobble, ledge, and rip-rap were also
present.
4.2.2 Major Sections of High Rock Reservoir
High Rock Reservoir was segmented into the different tributary arms to better compare the
amount and types of habitat present in each area. Additionally, the main body of the reservoir
was split into an upper and lower section for ease of analysis (Figure 4.2-6). Each tributary arm
and main body section was then compared. Table 4.2-3 shows the full pond surface acreage and
acreage within the 12 foot drawdown zone of each section.
4.2.2.1 Lower Yadkin River and Confluence Area
Locations of habitats mapped in the area of where the Yadkin River enters High Rock Reservoir
are shown in Figure 4.2-7 (see attached CD). Unlike most of the main body and tributary arms of
High Rock Reservoir, the effects of the drawdown were minimal in this area. The majority of the
confluence area and lower Yadkin River showed very little effect and water surface elevation
remained at nearly full bank during the 17-foot drawdown intended to assist with habitat
mapping.
Figure 4.2-8 shows views from the upstream and downstream ends of this area. Minimal effects
from the drawdown were evident from the confluence of the Yadkin and South Yadkin Rivers
downriver to the confluence of the Yadkin and High Rock. Work done by PB Power has
concluded that during high inflows to High Rock, a narrow river bend above the I-85 bridges
along with a rapid rise in bottom elevations act as a hydraulic control. This hydraulic control
helps to maintain the river at near full bank, and even though High Rock was drawn down 17 ft
during the survey, inflow was enough (around 4,000 cfs) to keep this area watered up. As a result
of the high water levels in this reach, the field crew was able to map only what was visible along
the banks at or around the full pool elevation. A total of 2.94 acres of quality habitat were
mapped in this area (Table 4.2-4). Woody cover was the predominant form of quality habitat
present. Medium branched trees (1.44 acres; 48%) and heavy branched trees (1.36 acres; 46%)
were the two dominant forms of quality habitat in area 1. Rip-rap (0.11 acres; 4%) was the
dominant rocky substrate type present. Small amounts of brush, no branched trees and ledge
were also present. The banks along the Yadkin River in this area were dominated by overhanging
vegetation, which provide good habitat for aquatic biota (Figure 4.2-8). This vegetation was
quantified and classified by the use of overflight photographs. Flood plain forest provides 580.27
acres of habitat along the lower Yadkin and within the confluence area (Table 4.2-4). Shrub-
swamp and sparse shrub-swamp account for 85.92 and 79.91 acres respectively and are
concentrated in the sandy delta area where the Yadkin River enters High Rock. Palustrine
emergent vegetation covered 0.7 acres within this area of the reservoir.
4.2.2.2 Upper Main Reservoir
For analysis, the main reservoir was split into an upper and lower section. The upper section
extended from approximately 2.25 miles below the Route 85 Bridge to the area just upstream
from the confluence of Second Creek and the main reservoir (Figure 4.2-6). Locations of habitats
mapped in the upper main reservoir are shown in Figure 4.2-9 (see attached CD). Within the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 18 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
N
i

e?
Upp1 hiblill Rwa rarlir
Lowy 'wc,mLL l'rL-v6
High Ruck Reservoir
:ti rmarhkall.?aa:?ti611cs
1-m5 AA11re_iil J i'O?a Wfdz
25 N iali1.a R;Iai
13* 51VI N I I G31 76-55P.41
i60 I -P! i ]'S]
ip Cw&
1] 2.5 5 14 Pdiles
I I I y J I I i I
Figure 4.2-6. High Rock Reservoir segments for habitat analysis.

Swearing Crock
;r F - I:n :?u;r I.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 19 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-3. Full pond surface and within drawdown zone acreage for High Rock
Reservoir by section.
Surface Acreage Total Acreage within 12'
Section At Full Pond Drawdown Zone (624'-6121)
Lower Yadkin and Confluence Area 1,832.63 *** 2
Upper Main Reservoir 3,904.73 1,762.37
Lower Main Reservoir 2,781.01 586.85
Crane Creek Tributary Arm' 1,106.36 499.89
Swearing Creek Tributary Arm' 385.87 179.01
Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm' 2,335.55 509.34
Second Creek Tributary Arm' 1,107.29 397.50
Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm' 896.00 393.73
Surface acreage provided represents only the lower section of given creek. No bathymetry was present at or below
elevation 612' in the upper sections of these tributary arms.
2 No bathymetry at el. 612' to define the lower end of the drawdown zone and calculate an area
Table 4.2-4. Habitat mapped within the Lower Yadkin River and its Confluence with High
Rock Reservoir, January and February 2004.
Available Habitat
Elevation
Lower Yadkin Area Habitat Mapped Habitat Mapped % of Total
Habitat Type (s q. feet) (acres) Acreage
Boulder 191.98 0.00 0.00%
Rip rap 4,623.96 0.11 0.01%
Brush 354.92 0.01 0.00%
Ledge 1,127.13 0.03 0.00%
Heavy branched trees 58,955.43 1.36 0.18%
Medium branched trees 62,836.81 1.44 0.19%
No branched trees 1,038.30 0.02 0.00%
Standing Trees 147.80 0.00 0.00%
Palustrine emergent' 30,361.00 0.70 0.09%
Flood plain forest' 25,276,467.00 580.27 77.39%
Shrub-swamp' 3,742,852.00 85.92 11.46%
Sparse shrub-swam ' 3,481,006.00 79.91 10.66%
Sum 32,6599962.32 749.77 100.00%
Surface Acreage at Full Pond
1,832.63
' Wetland habitats mapped by use of aerial photography. Rocky substrates and woody cover types mapped by DGPS and field crew.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 20 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

. CurelY r ? ? ?iY' "
r
4
Sy
,
•
6Mdan hrancktl rxa :•, ?- ,•
k
hV dn?xdYw? '? {

-
4'?P
• Ewa
'?d?1(1y? { ? ?..
> ? ??s
!A
iy?l??ry ! ±\? r
*F?
'{
I ?
? Y J'f . 1 ?ti4
1 ?
"? {
?
, 1
. •..
,.
w
ff
d
a
A
PEW
M1
hYC+i?e
5 ? 1 ? ?
P56p ° `m _
Mar
• C?;am j 4
"? i
Ehrgllianv
Fd tMl•yy.9w U1 t

(AI1? tYYk9AlA1
t?lIMi11?1 CABW
14i?1
X1171 a1141>i
MM1171501

0

Figure 4.2-7. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Yadkin River and Confluence Area.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805
21 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Photo A. Confluence of Yadkin and Little Yadkin Rivers at 17-foot drawdown showing water level
at full-bank and the presence of overhanging vegetation.

Photo B. View looking downstream in the Lower Yadkin River area, showing water level at or
near full pool during 17-foot drawdown.
Figure 4.2-8. Confluence of Yadkin and Little Yadkin Rivers and just downstream during 17-
ft drawdown, January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 22 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Legend
P-Oltld
B„+7w
B',O
Ian L-k dlx.
nn 1,?,.u 1,??
- YILrv
..•0
Wpwp
T.-
9aah
Wa land Nbbrtat
PEN
n diet
rs*
. rasp
C?Ihm
rb.m
E!e?livm
r,l GMl 0Q.1W,C4j
OrNSn-WM:e E12
.: d +' u Yllpl
I ,1 1 I
Mlumdm Aewbw
O lyre!
as la.6.i-d
?Mlwllw 1w
(iWIF1B111
Figure 4.2-9. Habitat types mapped in the Upper Main Section of the High Rock Reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805
23 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
entirety of the upper main reservoir, 64% is comprised of mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-5).
Wetland habitats cover an additional 35% with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The
remaining 1% of habitats mapped fell into the quality woody cover, rock substrate and dock habitat
types.
A 12-foot drawdown in this area exposes 1,762.4 acres of total habitat (Table 4.2-6). Of the total
exposed acreage, 63.8 % (1,125.37 acres) was classified as low quality mud/sand/clay habitat. Four
wetland habitat types covered an additional 626.68 acres within the drawdown zone. Of these, sparse
shrub-swamp was the most abundant, accounting for 73.8 % of total wetland acreage. Flood plain
forest (20.1 %), shrub-swamp (5.2 %), and palustrine emergent (0.1 %) were present in lesser
amounts. The remaining 10.3 acres were mapped as quality habitat types. Docks comprised 42%
(4.32 acres) of the quality habitat available within the drawdown zone (Figure 4.2-10). Woody cover
was dominated by medium branched trees, which accounted for 24% (2.48 acres) of the available
quality habitat. Brush (0.51 acres; 5%), stumps (.027 acres; 3%), heavily and no branched trees (0.15
acres; 1% and 0.07 acres; 1% - respectively) were also present within the drawdown zone. A small
area of Christmas trees (0.01 acres; <1) was also present. Rip-rap (2.08 acres; 20%) was the
dominant rocky substrate in the upper main reservoir. Cobble (0.27 acres; 3%), boulder (0.14 acres;
1%) and ledge (0.05 acres; <1%) were the three other rocky substrate types available to aquatic biota.
An additional 75.55 acres of quality habitat were mapped in the five feet below the lower limit of the
drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607) (Table 4.2-6). Sparse shrub-swamp was the dominant habitat type,
covering 67.8 acres and accounting for 89.8 % of the habitat mapped below the drawdown. Flood
plain forest covered an additional 3 acres (4.0 %). Rocky substrate was the second dominant habitat
type. Ledge (1.49 acres; 32%) and rip-rap (1.26 acres; 26%) were the two dominant rocky substrates
present. Boulder (0.26 acres; 6%) and cobble (0.30 acres; 6%) were present in smaller quantities.
Stumps (0.60 acres; 13%) were the most abundant woody cover type mapped in the area below the
drawdown zone. Medium branched trees (0.35 acres; 7%) and brush (0.28 acres; 6%) were the
second and third most dominant woody cover types in the upper main reservoir. Docks comprised
0.12 acres (3%) of the available quality habitat in the area mapped below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of the upper main reservoir from
3,904.7 acres to 2148.4 acres (44.98 % or 1,756.3 acres) (Table 4.2-6).
4.2.2.3 Lower Main Reservoir
For analysis, the main reservoir was split into an upper and lower section. The lower section
extended from the area just upstream from the confluence of Second Creek and the main reservoir,
down to the High Rock dam at the downstream end of the reservoir (Figure 4.2-6). Locations of
habitats mapped in the lower main reservoir are shown in Figure 4.2-11 (see attached CD). Within
the entirety of the lower main reservoir, 94% is comprised of mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-7).
Wetland habitats cover an additional 2% with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The
remaining 4% of habitats mapped fell into the quality woody cover, rock substrate and dock habitat
types.
A 12-foot drawdown in this area exposes 586.85 acres of total habitat (Table 4.2-8). Of that total,
563 acres (96%) of the habitat was classified as mud/sand/clay habitat. An additional 12 acres were
classified as wetland habitats, with 10.15 acres of flood plain forest being the most abundant type.
Lesser amounts of sparse shrub-swamp (1.37 acres) and shrub-swamp (0.47 acres) were also present.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 24 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-5. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in the Upper Main Reservoir, below
USGS elevation 624 ft.
Upper Main Reservoir
Available Habitat
Habitat Mapped
Below Full Pond 1

Type
(sq. feet)
(acres) % of Total
Acreage
Boulder 17,358.16 0.40 0.02%
Cobble 24,801.22 0.57 0.03%
Ledge 66,875.30 1.54 0.09%
Rip rap 145,755.23 3.34 0.19%
Brush 34,517.34 0.79 0.04%
Heavy branched trees 6,561.07 0.15 0.01%
Medium branched trees 123,266.81 2.83 0.16%
No branched trees 3,540.56 0.08 0.00%
Christmas trees 380.35 0.01 0.00%
Stumps 37,534.82 0.87 0.05%
Docks 193,278.96 4.44 0.25%
Palustrine emergent 28127 0.65 0.04%
Flood plain forest 5,716,022.00 131.22 7.43%
Shrub-swamp 1,421,387.00 32.63 1.85%
Sparse shrub-swam 20,132,785.00 462.19 26.16%
Mud/sand/clay 49,019,679.00 1,125.33 63.68%
Sum 76,971,869.82 1,767.04 100.00%
1 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 25 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-6. Amount of habitat mapped in the Upper Main Reservoir, within (el. 624 down to
612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607).
Upper Main Reservoir
Available Habitat
Elevation
Habitat mapped
within
drawdown 1 Habitat mapped
below
drawdown 2 Habitat mapped
within
drawdown 1 Habitat mapped
below
drawdown 2
Habitat Type (s q. feet) (s q. feet) (acres) (acres)
Boulder 5,953.39 11,404.77 0.14 0.26
Cobble 11,980.67 12,820.55 0.27 0.30
Ledge 2,210.63 64,664.67 0.05 1.49
Rip rap 90,755.42 54,999.81 2.08 1.26
Brush 22,246.33 12,271.01 0.51 0.28
Heavy branched trees 6,528.92 32.15 0.15 0.00
Medium branched trees 108,071.54 15,195.27 2.48 0.35
No branched trees 3,215.21 325.35 0.07 0.01
Christmas trees 356.49 23.86 0.01 0.00
Stumps 11,635.38 25,899.44 0.27 0.60
Docks 188,226.00 5,052.96 4.32 0.12
Palustrine emergent 28,126.89 0.00 0.65 0.00
Flood plain forest 5,716,021.75 132,614.14 131.22 3.04
Shrub-swam 1,421,387.24 0.00 32.63 0.00
Sparse shrub-swam 20,132,785.45 2,939,528.59 462.19 67.84
Mud/sand/clay 49,019,678.67 1,125.33
Sum 76,769,179.98 3,274,832.57 1,762.37 75.55

Upper Main Reservoir Surface Acreage Reduction

At full and At 12'
drawdown
acres
%
3,904.73 2,148.40 1,756.33 44.98
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 26 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Upper Main Reservoir
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
N
2.5
Q
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
? Habitat mapped within drawdown
¦ Habitat mapped below drawdown
N N N N
O) M N N N Q Y
i N N E U
O O J Q ..-. .-. ... ?, O
U ? m ?
m t t m ?
U U t
U >_

U
> E °
M Z
N =p
2 a)

Figure 4.2-10. Habitat types mapped in the Upper Reservoir Area within the drawdown zone
(el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 27 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Legtnd
HAbrtk
A assn
E .u
- NN..
i•ea
W vdarld Ikbhzt
FEW
iii cab.
P95p
o1iIK
farm
Ebs411om
r ®xH an ..W.ss t I:
°a :? uts
rkewfiw A?a#w
Ee IGEROW feW?
Is N-6-P-a
¦e.iml on4?
(4"4U31N
Figure 4.2-11. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Main Section of the High Rock Reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 28 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-7. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in the Lower Main Reservoir, below the
USGS elevation 624 ft.
Lower Main Reservoir
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full and 1

Type
(sq. feet)
(acres) % of Total
Acreage
Boulder 256,684.56 5.90 0.98%
Cobble 5,077.08 0.12 0.02%
Ledge 56,626.33 1.30 0.22%
Rip rap 198,831.70 4.56 0.76%
Brush 21,008.54 0.48 0.08%
Heavy branched trees 735.08 0.02 0.00%
Medium branched trees 123,332.78 2.83 0.47%
No branched trees 634.00 0.02 0.00%
Christmas trees 3,226.45 0.08 0.01%
Stumps 353,366.17 8.11 1.35%
Docks 90,169.20 2.07 0.35%
Flood plain forest 442,001.00 10.15 1.69%
Shrub-swamp 20,435.00 0.47 0.08%
Sparse shrub-swamp 59,650.00 1.37 0.23%
Mud/sand/clay 24,525,314.00 563.02 93.76%
Sum 26,157,091.89 600.50 100.00%
1 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 29 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-8. Amount of habitat mapped in the lower main reservoir within the drawdown zone
(el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607).
Lower Main Reservoir Available Habitat
Elevation
Habitat mapped Habitat mapped Habitat mapped Habitat mapped
within drawdown t below drawdown 2 within drawdown t below drawdown 2
Habitat Type (s q. feet) (s q. feet) (acres) (acres)
Boulder 155,466.98 101,217.58 3.57 2.33
Cobble 813.48 4,263.60 0.02 0.10
Ledge 13,352.74 43,273.59 0.31 0.99
Rip rap 99,869.44 98,962.26 2.29 2.27
Brush 12,004.08 9,004.46 0.27 0.21
Heavy branched trees 735.08 0.00 0.02 0.00
Medium branched trees 92,768.02 30,564.76 2.13 0.70
No branched trees 634.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Christmas trees 1,140.18 2,086.27 0.03 0.05
Stumps 52,827.42 300,538.75 1.21 6.90
Docks 85,813.20 4,356.00 1.97 0.10
Flood plain forest 442,000.83 0.00 10.15 0.00
Shrub-swamp 20,434.60 0.00 0.47 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 59,649.60 0.00 1.37 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 24, 525,314.97 563.02
Sum 25,562,824.62 594,267.27 586.85 13.65
Lower Main Reservoir Surface Acreage Reduction
At full pond At 12' drawdown acres %
2,781.01 2,196.98 584.03 21.00
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 30 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
The remaining 11.8 acres were mapped as quality habitat types (Figure 4.2-12). Of the remaining
habitat within the drawdown zone, rocky substrate was abundant with boulder (3.57 acres; 30%) and
rip-rap (2.29 acres; 19%) being the most common. Ledge (0.31 acres; 3%) and cobble (0.02 acres;
<1%) were also present in lesser amounts. Medium branched trees were the dominant form of woody
cover. They covered 0.70 acres and comprised 18% of the available quality habitat. Stumps (1.21
acres; 10%), brush (0.27 acres; 2%), Christmas trees, heavy and no branched trees (all <1%) were
also present. Docks made up 17% of the quality habitat, covering 1.97 acres.
An additional 13.7 acres of quality habitat were mapped within the five feet below the drawdown
zone (el. 612 to 607) (Table 4.2-8). Of the woody cover present, the majority of it (6.9 acres; 51%)
was stump habitat. Other woody cover type present included medium branched trees (0.7 acres; 5%)
and brush (0.21 acres; 2%). Rocky substrate was dominated by rip-rap and boulders which accounted
for 17% (2.27 acres) and 17% (2.33 acres), respectively, of quality habitat. Ledge (0.99 acres; 7%)
and cobble (0.1 acres; 1%) were also present.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of the lower main reservoir area from
2,781.01 acres to 2,196.98 acres (21.0 % or 584.0 acres) (Table 4.2-8).
Lower Main Reservoir
U
< 3
O O O_ N N N N N N

-
0 O) (6 N W N O_
Y
0 - -0 i N N 2 E U
O O a) Q ... - - .-? O
_ m

U U U

?
U
M O
N Z
N =p
2 a)

? Habitat mapped within drawdown
¦ Habitat mapped below drawdown
Figure 4.2-12. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Reservoir Area within the drawdown zone
(el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
4.2.2.4 Crane Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in the Crane Creek Tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-13 (see
attached CD). Of the 788.04 acres that were exposed during the drawdown, 89% was classified as
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 31 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Laq. a
E
rrti o..
i'Iitrl..l
W 9Y1®#

1 ?
i

Figure 4.2-13. Habitat types mapped in the Crane Creek Tributary Arm.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805
32 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
low quality mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-9). An additional 55.8 acres (7%) was classified as
wetland habitat with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The remaining 4% was distributed
among woody cover and rocky substrate types that are deemed high quality habitat for aquatic biota
in the reservoir system. For analysis, Crane Creek Tributary Arm was split into an upper and lower
section. This division was made approximately 1 mile upstream of the Leonard Road Bridge (Figure
4.2-6).
Table 4.2-9. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Crane Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft.
Crane Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full pond t

Type
(s q. feet)
(acres) % of Total
Acreage
Boulder 153,589.37 3.52 0.45%
Cobble 165,388.76 3.80 0.48%
Ledge 555.43 0.01 0.00%
Rip rap 189,736.96 4.36 0.55%
Brush 11,660.70 0.26 0.03%
Heavily branched trees 34,126.80 0.78 0.10%
Medium branched trees 506,004.19 11.62 1.47%
No branched trees 424.99 0.01 0.00%
Christmas trees 7,623.02 0.17 0.02%
Stumps 44,146.27 1.01 0.13%
Docks 227,818.40 5.23 0.66%
Palustrine emergent 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Flood lain forest 2,026,348.00 46.52 5.90%
Shrub-swam 24,160.00 0.55 0.07%
Sparse shrub-swamp 381,595.00 8.76 1.11%
Mud/sand/clay 30,554,497.00 701.44 89.01%
Sum 34,327,674.90 788.04 100.00%
' Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm
Within the 12-foot drawdown zone in Lower Crane Creek, there was a total of 499.9 acres of exposed
habitat (Table 4.2-10). Ninety-three percent (464 acres) of that exposed total was classified as
mud/sand/clay substrate that is of low value to aquatic biota. Another 24 acres was comprised of four
types of wetlands. Flood plain forest was the most abundant, covering 21 acres and accounting for 86
% of the total wetland habitat. Palustrine emergent, shrub-swamp and sparse shrub-swamp were also
present. The remaining 11.9 acres were comprised of quality habitat types (Figure 4.2-14). Of these
11.9 acres, 34% (4.0 acres) was comprised of docks. The remaining 66% was split between rocky
substrates and woody cover. Rip-rap was the dominant rocky substrate, comprising 15% (1.8 acres)
of the quality habitat within the drawdown zone. Cobble (1.2 acres; 10%) and boulder (0.9 acres;
8%) were the next two most common rocky substrates in the Lower Crane Creek tributary arm.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 33 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-10. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612
to 607).
Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

ype Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1

(s q. feet
Habitat mapped
below drawdown 2
(s q. feet
Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1
acres
Habitat mapped
below drawdown z
acres
Boulder 40,218.27 33,019.30 0.92 0.76
Cobble 52,125.33 30,434.34 1.20 0.70
Ledge 277.72 0.00 0.01 0.00
Rip rap 78,702.52 16,165.96 1.81 0.37
Brush 3,734.34 2,096.01 0.08 0.05
Heavily branched trees 16,388.26 0.00 0.38 0.00
Medium branched trees 149,533.30 95,228.49 3.43 2.19
No branched trees 212.49 0.00 0.01 0.00
Christmas trees 3,732.32 79.19 0.08 0.00
Stumps 467.88 21,605.25 0.01 0.50
Docks 174,893.00 3,702.60 4.02 0.09
Palustrine emergent 24,547.82 0.00 0.56 0.00
Flood plain forest 915,173.42 0.00 21.01 0.00
Shrub-swamp 41,366.90 0.00 0.95 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 64,659.64 0.00 1.48 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 20,209,352.22 463.95
Sum 21,775,385.44 202,331.14 499.89 4.64

Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm Surface Acreage Redu ction
At full and At 12' drawdown acres %
1,106.36 607.12 499.24 45.12
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 34 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm
4.5
4
3.5
3
N 2.5
d
L
U
Q 2
1.5
1
0.5
O Habitat mapped within
drawdown
¦Habitat mapped below
drawdown
Figure 4.2-14. Habitat types mapped in the Lower Crane Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5-feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
There was also a small amount of ledge habitat (<1%) within the drawdown zone. The most
abundant woody cover type was medium branched trees. They were responsible for 29% (3.43 acres)
of the quality habitat within the drawdown zone. Heavily branched trees (0.4 acres; 3%), brush (0.08
acres; 1%), Christmas trees (0.08 acres; 1%) and small areas of stumps and no branched trees (0.01
acres; <1%) comprised the remainder of the woody cover in the drawdown area.
An additional 4.64 acres of quality habitat were mapped in the five feet below the lower limit of the
drawdown zone (el. 612 to 607) (Table 4.2-10). The majority of the habitat was composed of woody
cover. Medium branched trees (2.2 acres; 47%) and stumps (0.5 acres; 11%) were the two dominant
woody cover types present. Heavily branched trees (0.05 acres; 1%) and a small area of Christmas
trees (<0.01 acres) were also available to aquatic biota. In addition to the woody cover, several rocky
substrate types were also present. Boulder (0.76 acres; 16%), cobble (0.70 acres; 15%) and rip-rap
(0.37 acres; 8%) were all present below the drawdown zone. There were no wetland habitats present
below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of the Lower Crane Creek tributary
arm from 1,106.4 acres to 607.1 acres (45.1 % or 499.2 acres) (Table 4.2-10).
Upper Crane Creek Tributary Arm
In Upper Crane Creek tributary arm, the bathymetry did not show any area that was at or below the
612-foot elevation, therefore all habitat data collected is above elevation 612. This suggests that the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 35 Normandeau Associates, inc.
N N O N
O rn W CL U) U)
m N N N t N Q U
U N Q i >+ .` E O
7 0
m J m? N N
2 Z to
U
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
entire area was dewatered at the time of the survey. However, the field crew observed a channel of
water flowing through the entire reach. Mud/sand/clay was the dominant habitat type and accounted
for 75.0% of the total habitat within the upper portion of the Crane Creek tributary arm, covering
213.5 acres (Table 4.2-11). Four wetland habitat types covered a combined 55.83 acres. Flood plain
forest was the dominant wetland type, accounting for 83 % of the total wetland acreage. Palustrine
emergent, shrub-swamp, and sparse shrub-swamp were also present. A total of 14.2 acres of quality
habitat were mapped by the field crew. Woody cover represented just over 50% of the quality habitat
available. Medium branched trees were the most abundant habitat type, covering 6.0 acres and
constituting 42% of the available habitat. Stumps (0.51 acres; 4%), heavily branched trees (0.41
acres; 3%), brush (0.13 acres; 1%), Christmas trees and no branched trees (both <1%) were also
present. Rocky substrates represented the remaining 41% of the quality habitat. Rip-rap (2.18 acres;
15%), cobble (1.90 acres; 13%), and boulders (1.84 acres; 13%), were the dominant rocky habitat
types. Ledge habitat was also present in small quantities. Docks created the remaining 8% of quality
habitat in Upper Crane Creek
4.2.2.5 Swearing Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in Swearing Creek tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-15 (see
attached CD). Of the 424.59 acres that were exposed during drawdown, 89% was classified as low
quality mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-12). An additional 32.9 acres (8%) was classified as
wetland habitat with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The remaining 3% was distributed
among woody cover and rocky substrate types that are deemed high quality habitat for aquatic biota
in the reservoir system. For analysis, Swearing Creek Tributary Arm was split into an upper and
lower section. This division was made approximately 4/5 of a mile upstream of the Route 8 Bridge
(Figure 4.2-6).
Lower Swearing Creek Tributary Arm
Within Lower Swearing Creek, there are 179.0 acres of total habitat that are exposed during an
average 12 ft drawdown (Table 4.2-13). Of these 179 acres, 166.2 acres, or 93% was comprised of
the low quality mud/sand/clay habitat. An additional 4 acres were covered by wetland habitat. Flood
plain forest was the dominant wetland type, covering 3.0 acres of the drawdown zone. Sparse shrub-
swamp was also present in Swearing Creek Arm. The remaining 5% (8.8 acres) within the drawdown
zone were classified and mapped as higher quality habitats (Figure 4.2-16). Docks were the dominant
habitat within this section of High Rock Reservoir. They covered 3.1 acres and comprised 43% of the
quality habitat in Lower Swearing Creek. Rocky substrates and woody cover represented the
remaining 57%ofthe quality habitat. Rip-rap (2.0 acres; 23%), ledge (1.1 acres; 13%), and cobble
(0.1 acres; 1%) were the rocky habitat types present. The woody cover in Lower Swearing Creek was
dominated by medium branched trees (0.9 acres; 10%) and brush (0.6 acres; 7%). Areas of Christmas
trees and no-branched trees were also present.
An additional 0.76 acres of quality habitat was mapped within the five feet below the average
drawdown level (el. 612 to 607) (Table 4.2-13). Rip-rap was the most abundant rocky habitat type,
covering 0.2 acres (28%) of the additional habitat mapped. Woody cover was dominated by medium
branched trees, which covered 0.17 acres and composed 22% of the quality habitat below the
drawdown zone of Lower Swearing Creek. Docks were responsible for 0.14 acres (18%) of the
habitat below the drawdown zone. Within the area below the drawdown, boulders, ledge, brush, and
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 36 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-11. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Crane Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined.
Upper Crane Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
(s q. feet) Habitat mapped
(acres)
Boulder 80,351.80 1.84
Cobble 82,829.09 1.90
Ledge 277.72 0.01
Rip rap 94,868.48 2.18
Brush 5,830.35 0.13
Heavily branched trees 17,738.54 0.41
Medium branched trees 261,242.40 6.00
No branched trees 212.49 0.01
Christmas trees 3,811.51 0.09
Stumps 22,073.14 0.51
Docks 49,222.80 1.13
Flood lain forest 2,026,347.73 46.52
Shrub-swam 24,159.73 0.55
Sparse shrub-swamp 381,595.19 8.76
Mud/sand/clay 9,299,3 97.3 5 213.49
Sum 12,349,958.32 283.51
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 37 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-12. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Swearing Creek Tributary Arm,
below the USGS elevation 624 ft.
Swearing Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full and t

Type
(sq. feet)
(acres) % of Total
Acreage
Blocks 102.43 0 0.00%
Boulder 4,310.65 0.10 0.02%
Cobble 5,150.16 0.12 0.03%
Gravel 114.07 0.00 0.00%
Ledge 54,376.92 1.25 0.29%
Rip rap 119,549.07 2.74 0.65%
Tires 38.14 0.00 0.00%
Brush 35,216.23 0.81 0.19%
Medium branched trees 216,404.29 4.98 1.17%
No branched trees 1,509.56 0.03 0.01%
Christmas trees 7,505.58 0.17 0.04%
Stumps 275.23 0.01 0.00%
Docks 193,144.72 4.43 1.04%
Palustrine emergent 0 0.00 0.00%
Flood plain forest 980,904.00 22.52 5.30%
Shrub-swam 453,225.00 10.40 2.45%
Sparse shrub-swam 1.00 0.00 0.00%
Mud/sand/clay 16,422,740.00 377.02 88.80%
Sum 18,494,464.62 424.59 100.00%
' Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 38 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
FF??
Ir UO
0
-
1 S 1
All
i
M1
¦
it
.r a

Figure 4.2-15. Habitat types mapped in the Swearing Creek Tributary Arm.
Pti
1
r
F ih Q- L S h '4 i

y

Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 39 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-13. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Swearing Creek Tributary Arm within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612
to 607).
Lower Swearing
Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation
Habitat mapped
within drawdown t Habitat mapped
below drawdown 2 Habitat mapped
within drawdown t Habitat mapped
below drawdown z
Habitat Type (s q. feet) (s q. feet) (acres) (acres)
Blocks 102.43 0.00 0.00 0.00
Boulder 3,214.34 261.51 0.07 0.01
Cobble 5,058.34 0.00 0.12 0.00
Gravel 114.07 0.00 0.00 0.00
Ledge 48,959.89 5,417.03 1.13 0.12
Rip rap 85,401.76 9,204.86 1.96 0.21
Tires 38.14 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brush 27,714.28 3,829.25 0.64 0.09
Medium branched trees 39,803.49 7,311.10 0.92 0.17
No branched trees 162.18 0.00 0.00 0.00
Christmas trees 6,254.60 888.56 0.14 0.02
Stumps 245.52 24.28 0.01 0.00
Docks 167,183.00 6,185.52 3.84 0.14
Flood plain forest 129,348.60 0.00 2.97 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 45,580.30 0.00 1.05 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 7,237,941.10 166.16
Sum 7,797,122.04 33,122.11 179.01 0.76

Lower Swearing
Creek Tributary Arm Surface Acreage Redu ction
At full and at 12' drawdown acres %
385.87 211.04 174.83 45.31%
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 40 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Lower Swearing Creek Tributary Arm
4.5
4
3.5
3
N 2.5
a
L
2
Q
1.5
1
0.5
0
Y
U

m

U

m N

Q
U
>
N
0 N

U
J Q
N

_Q N
N t
N
7
N

a?
U N
N
N

U N
N
N

E

N N
Q
E

in N
Y
U
D
E o U
Z

a?

? Habitat mapped
w ithin draw dow n
¦ Habitat mapped
below draw down
Figure 4.2-16. Habitat types mapped in the Swearing Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 41 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
stumps provided additional quality habitat. There were no wetland habitats present in the mapped
areas below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of the Lower Swearing Creek
tributary arm from 385.9 acres to 211.0 acres (45.3 % or 174.8 acres) (Table 4.2-13).
Upper Swearing Creek Tributary Arm
In Upper Swearing Creek tributary arm, the bathymetry did not show any area that was at or below
the 612-foot elevation, therefore all the habitat data that was collected is above elevation 612. This
suggests that the entire area was dewatered at the time of the survey. However, the field crew
observed a channel of water flowing through the entire reach (Figure 4.2-17). Mud/sand/clay
accounted for 85 % of the total habitat within Upper Swearing Creek tributary arm, covering 208.9
acres (Table 4.2-14). Wetland habitats covered 30.8 acres (12.6 %) of the upper area of Swearing
Creek. Flood plain forest was the dominant wetland type. Lesser amounts of shrub-swamp and
sparse shrub-swamp were also present. Besides the high quality wetland habitats, the field crew
mapped an additional 5.1 acres of quality habitat. Of the 5.1 acres mapped, woody cover dominated,
with medium branched trees accounting for 76% (3.89 acres) of the quality habitat. Small areas of
brush (0.08 acres; 2%), no branched trees, Christmas trees, and stumps (all <1%) were also present.
Rocky substrate was dominated by rip-rap (0.57 acres; 11%) with cobble and boulder (both <1%)
habitat also present. Docks accounted for 9% of the available quality habitat, covering 0.45 acres.
4.2.2.6 Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in Abbott's Creek tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-18 (see
attached CD). Of the 1,209.83 acres that were exposed during drawdown, 79% was classified as low
quality mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-15). An additional 215.7 acres (18%) was classified as
wetland habitat with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The remaining 3% was distributed
among woody cover and rocky substrate types that are deemed high quality habitat for aquatic biota
in the reservoir system. For analysis, Abbott's Creek Tributary Arm was split into an upper and lower
section. This division was made approximately 3 miles upstream of the Holloway Road Bridge
(Figure 4.2-6).
Lower Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
Lower Abbott's Creek has a total of 509.4 acres of habitat that are exposed during the average 12 ft
drawdown (Table 4.2-16). Of those acres, 491.6 acres, or 97%, was classified as mud/sand/clay.
Small areas of wetland habitat were present. Flood plain forest, shrub-swamp, and sparse shrub-
swamp combined to cover 1.26 acres of the drawdown zone. The remaining 16.5 acres (3%) is
comprised of higher quality habitats such as docks, rocky substrate and woody cover (Figure 4.2-19).
Docks covered 9.1 acres and comprised 55% of the quality habitat within this section of High Rock.
Rocky substrate accounted for another 40% of the high quality habitat within this section. Rip-rap
was the most abundant rocky substrate, covering 4.5 acres and representing 27% of the quality
habitat. Boulder (1.3 acres; 8%), ledge (0.5 acres; 3%), and cobble (0.4 acres; 3%) comprised the
remainder of the high quality rocky habitat within Lower Abbott's Creek. A total of 0.7 acres of
woody cover (all types combined) was located in the drawdown zone. Medium branched trees are the
dominant woody cover type, covering 0.3 acres and comprising 2% of the quality habitat available,
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 42 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photos A/B. Upper portion of Swearing Creek during 17-foot drawdown showing remaining channel.

Photo C. Upper portion of Abbots Creek
during 17-ft drawdown showing
remaining channel.
Photo D. Upper portion of Flatswamp Creek
during 17-ft drawdown remaining
channel.
Figure 4.2-17. Upper reaches of Swearing, Flat Swamp, and Abbott's Creeks showing presence
of water during 17-ft drawdown.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 43 Normandeau Associates, inc.

Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-14. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Swearing Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined.
Upper Swearing Creek
Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
(sq. feet) Habitat mapped
(acres)
Boulder 834.80 0.02
Cobble 91.82 0.00
Rip rap 24,942.45 0.57
Brush 3,672.70 0.08
Medium branched trees 169,289.70 3.89
No branched trees 1,347.38 0.03
Christmas trees 362.42 0.01
Stumps 5.43 0.00
Docks 19,776.20 0.45
Flood lain forest 889,368.20 20.42
Shrub-swamp 453,224.71 10.40
Sparse shrub-swamp 1.42 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 9,101,405.68 208.94
Sum 10,664,322.91 244.82
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 44 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
C
z GB

61,15
y
9 y
i gg ? pf f?
? f.
s 1 F It 1 .
e _. y_r

t vw'
n s• ¦
?4.
-'f

0
F?!
l.w
Figure 4.2-18. Habitat types mapped in the Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 45 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-15. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft.
Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full and t
% of Total
Type (s q. feet) (acres) Acreage
Boulder 96,248.98 2.21 0.18%
Cobble 24,022.80 0.56 0.05%
Ledge 53,905.86 1.24 0.10%
Rip rap 351,423.91 8.08 0.67%
Brush 25,782.53 0.59 0.05%
Heavily branched trees 22,529.33 0.52 0.04%
Medium branched trees 165,290.86 3.79 0.31%
No branched trees 1,973.84 0.04 0.00%
Christmas trees 13,079.14 0.31 0.03%
Stumps 121,211.29 2.79 0.23%
Docks 448,972.70 10.31 0.85%
Palustrine emergent 166585 3.82 0.32%
Flood plain forest 8,107,295.00 186.12 15.38%
Shrub-swam 990,559.00 22.74 1.88%
Sparse shrub-swamp 129,272.00 2.97 0.25%
Mud/sand/clay 41,980,189.00 963.74 79.66%
Sum 52,698,341.24 1,209.83 100.00%
' Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 46 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-16. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612), and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612
to 607).
Lower Abbotts Creek
Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation
Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1 Habitat mapped
below drawdown 2 Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1 Habitat mapped
below drawdown z
Habitat Type (sq. feet) (sq. feet) (acres) (acres)
Boulder 56,481.27 38,358.14 1.30 0.88
Cobble 15,699.76 6,322.44 0.36 0.15
Ledge 21,841.90 18,680.09 0.50 0.43
Rip rap 194,787.79 152,813.99 4.48 3.51
Brush 8,584.24 14,561.22 0.20 0.33
Heavily branched trees 2,082.75 0.00 0.05 0.00
Medium branched trees 14,447.45 12,618.58 0.33 0.29
No branched trees 166.17 88.22 0.00 0.00
Christmas trees 6,023.63 6,847.58 0.14 0.16
Stumps 301.85 120,909.44 0.01 2.78
Docks 397,267.00 15,768.70 9.12 0.36
Flood plain forest 12,461.03 0.00 0.29 0.00
Shrub-swamp 8,852.09 0.00 0.20 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 33,389.71 0.00 0.77 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 21,413,597.18 491.59
Sum 22,185,983.82 386,968.40 509.34 8.89

Lower Abbotts Creek
Tributary Arm
Surface Acrea a
Reduction
At full and At 12' drawdown acres %
2,335.55 1,150.58 1,184.97 50.74
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 47 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Lower Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
10
9
8
7
6
N
5
U
Q
4
3
2
1
0

N

m a)

0

U a)
rn
70

N
J Q

N
_L t

N
m

O

N N
>
>
M
a?
2 N

N
E
?
C
(6 O

t

0 N

N

N

U N

Q
E
U N

U
O
O Habitat mapped
within Drawdown
¦Habitat mapped
below drawdown
Figure 4.2-19. Habitat types mapped in the Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, within the drawdown
zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 48 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
followed by brush (0.2 acres; 1%) and Christmas trees (0.1 acres; 1%). Also present, although is
small quantities (<O.1 acres), were heavily branched trees, no branched trees, and stumps.
An additional 8.9 acres of quality habitat were mapped within the five feet below the drawdown zone
in Lower Abbott's Creek (el. 612 to 607) (Table 4.2-16). Rip-rap covered 3.5 acres and made up
39% of this additional habitat. Another 31 % or 2.8 acres of additional habitat was stumps. The
remaining 2.6 acres of quality habitat was a mix of rocky substrates (boulder, cobble, ledge), woody
cover (brush, heavily branched, medium branched and no branched trees, Christmas trees) and docks.
There were no wetland habitats within the mapped area below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of Lower Abbott's Creek from
2,335.6 acres to 1,150.6 acres (50.7 % or 1,185.0 acres) (Table 4.2-16).
Upper Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
In Upper Abbott's Creek tributary arm, the bathymetry did not show any area that was at or below the
612-foot elevation, therefore all habitat data collected is above elevation 612. This suggests that the
entire area was dewatered at the time of the survey. However, the field crew observed a channel of
water flowing through the entire reach (Figure 4.2-17). Mud/sand/clay accounted for 68 % of the
total habitat within Upper Abbott's Creek tributary arm, covering 470.9 acres (Table 4.2-17).
Wetland habitats accounted for 31 % (215.7 acres) of the upper Abbotts Creek Tributary arm. Flood
plain forest was the dominant type, covering 186 acres. Lesser amounts of palustrine emergent,
shrub-swamp and sparse shrub-swamp were also present. The field crew mapped an additional 5.1
acres of quality habitat. Of the quality habitat present, 62% was composed of medium branched trees.
Other woody cover types available included heavily branched trees (0.47 acres; 15%) and brush (0.06
acres; I%). Ledge was the predominant form of rocky substrate in this section of the reservoir,
covering 0.31 acres and representing 6% of the quality habitat in Upper Abbott's Creek. Docks
covered 0.83 acres and accounted for 16% of the quality habitat in this section.
4.2.2.7 Second Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in Second Creek tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-20 (see attached
CD). Of the 664.63 acres that were exposed during drawdown, 83% was classified as low quality
mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-18). An additional 60.12 acres (9%) was classified as wetland
habitat with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The remaining 8% was distributed among
woody cover and rocky substrate types that are deemed high quality habitat for aquatic biota in the
reservoir system. For analysis, Second Creek Tributary Arm was split into an upper and lower
section. This division was made approximately 1/4 mile downstream of the Stoke Ferry Road Bridge
(Figure 4.2-6).
Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm
Within the Lower Second Creek tributary arm, there are 397.5 acres of total habitat that are exposed
during an average 12 ft drawdown (Table 4.2-19). Of that, 92 % (366.9 acres) was categorized as
mud/sand/clay. Four wetland habitat types combined to cover 23.85 acres of the drawdown zone.
Flood plain forest was the dominant type accounting for 50 % of the wetland cover. Shrub-swamp
(23 %) sparse shrub-swamp (22%) and palustrine emergent (5 %) were present in lesser amounts.
The remaining 6.7 acres were mapped as quality habitat types (Figure 4.2-21). Docks accounted for
49% (3.3 acres) of the quality habitat. Woody cover habitat types were more abundant then rocky
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 49 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-17. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined.
Upper Abbotts Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
(s q. feet) Habitat mapped
(acres)
Boulder 1,409.57 0.03
Cobble 2,000.60 0.05
Ledge 13,383.87 0.31
Rip rap 3,822.13 0.09
Brush 2,637.07 0.06
Heavily branched trees 20,446.58 0.47
Medium branched trees 138,224.83 3.17
No branched trees 1,719.45 0.04
Christmas trees 207.93 0.01
Docks 35,937.00 0.83
Palustrine emergent 166,585.46 3.82
Flood plain forest 8,107,295.00 186.12
Shrub-swamp 990,559.44 22.74
Sparse shrub-swam 129,271.52 2.97
Mud/sand/clay 20, 511, 888.57 470.89
Sum 30,125,389.02 691.60
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 50 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Figure 4.2-20. Habitat types mapped in the Second Creek Tributary Arm..
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 51 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-18. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Second Creek Tributary Arm, below
the USGS elevation 624 ft.
Second Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full and t
% of Total
Type (s q. feet) (acres) Acreage
Boulder 210,012.01 4.82 0.73%
Cobble 10,949.58 0.25 0.04%
Ledge 9,806.00 0.23 0.03%
Rip rap 100,371.61 2.31 0.35%
Brush 33,490.17 0.76 0.11%
Heavily branched trees 5,874.19 0.14 0.02%
Medium branched trees 470,924.55 10.81 1.63%
No branched trees 112.32 0.00 0.00%
Christmas trees 17,276.90 0.39 0.06%
Stumps 1,217,000.53 27.94 4.20%
Tires 303.15 0.01 0.00%
Docks 167,270.20 3.84 0.58%
Palustrine emergent 166,585.00 0.00 0.00%
Flood plain forest 8,107,295.00 56.79 8.54%
Shrub-swamp 990,559.00 2.39 0.36%
Sparse shrub-swamp 129,272.00 0.94 0.14%
Mud/sand/clay 17,314,479.00 553.01 83.21%
Sum 28,951,581.21 664.63 100.00%
' Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 52 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-19. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone(el. 624 down to 612)and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el. 612
to 607).
Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1
(s q. feet Habitat mapped
below drawdown 2
(s q. feet Habitat mapped
within drawdown 1
acres Habitat mapped
below drawdown z
acres
Boulder 2,811.75 207,200.26 0.06 4.76
Cobble 10,925.42 0.00 0.25 0.00
Ledge 0.00 9,806.00 0.00 0.23
Rip rap 35,029.22 52,341.76 0.81 1.20
Brush 15,789.23 11,503.58 0.36 0.26
Heavily branched trees 5,874.19 0.00 0.14 0.00
Medium branched trees 37,503.92 5,659.96 0.86 0.13
No branched trees 112.32 0.00 0.00 0.00
Christmas trees 8,855.22 7,086.36 0.20 0.16
Stumps 30,255.52 1,186,708.06 0.70 27.24
Tires 241.08 62.07 0.01 0.00
Docks 144,619.00 9,147.60 3.32 0.21
Palustrine emergent 46,107.78 0.00 1.06 0.00
Flood plain forest 518,990.38 0.00 11.91 0.00
Shrub-swamp 239,611.89 0.00 5.50 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 234,150.14 0.00 5.38 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 15,983,939.80 366.94
Sum 17,314,816.86 1,489,515.65 397.50 34.19

Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm Surface Acreage Redu ction
At full pond At 12' drawdown acres %
1,107.29 709.85 397.44 35.89
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 53 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Lower Second Creek Tributary Arm
30
25
20
N
15
Q
10
5
0
OHabitat mapped
within drawd-
¦Habitat mapped
below drawdown
N N Q t N N '0 N N N (n
0) m N N
N N
N N M Q N Y

7
N
Q i
> ?`

E t
U E N E

0 ~ O
O
m U J m :? 7 to
..-
(n
N L N L ? .` t
U
2 0
m m

Figure 4.2-21. Habitat types mapped in the Second Creek Tributary Arm, within the drawdown
zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone. Wetland and
mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 54 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
substrate types. The majority of woody cover present was made up of medium branched trees (0.86
acres; 13%) and stumps (0.70 acres; 10%). Lesser quantities of brush (0.36 acres; 5%), Christmas
trees (0.20 acres; 3%) and heavily branched trees (0.14 acres; 2%) were also present. Most of the
rocky substrate available in the drawdown zone was rip rap, accounting for 12% (0.81 acres) of the
quality habitat. Cobble (0.25 acres; 4%) and boulder (0.06 acres; 1%) were also present in the
drawdown zone.
An additional 34.19 acres of quality habitat were mapped at elevations lower the 612 feet (Table 4.2-
19). Of that, 80% was comprised of stumps, which covered 27.24 acres. Other woody cover types
present included heavily branched trees, medium branched trees and Christmas trees which each
comprised less then 1% of the quality habitat mapped. Rocky substrate below the 612-foot elevation
was dominated by boulder habitat (4.76 acres; 14%). Rip-rap (1.20 acres; 4%) and ledge (0.23 acres;
<1%) habitat was also present. Docks were responsible for less then 1% of the quality habitat below
the drawdown zone, covering only 0.21 acres. There were no wetland habitats present in the mapped
area below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of Lower Second Creek tributary arm
from 1,107.3 acres to 709.9 acres (35.9 % or 397.4 acres) (Table 4.2-19).
Upper Second Creek Tributary Arm
In Upper Second Creek tributary arm, the bathymetry did not show any area that was at or below the
612-foot elevation, therefore all habitat data collected is above elevation 612. This suggests that the
entire area was dewatered at the time of the survey. However, the field crew observed a channel of
water flowing through the entire reach. Mud/sand/clay accounted for 70 % of the total habitat within
the Upper Second Creek tributary arm, covering 162.23 acres (Table 4.2-20). Three wetland types
accounted for an additional 26 %, covering 60.1 acres. Flood plain forest was the dominant type,
comprising 94 % of the wetland habitat. Shrub-swamp and sparse shrub-swamp were also present.
The 10.6 acres of quality habitat mapped in this section of the reservoir was dominated by medium
branched trees, which accounted for 93% (9.82 acres) of the quality habitat present. Lesser amounts
of brush (0.14 acres; 1%) and rip-rap (0.3 acres; 3%) were also present. Docks covered 0.31 acres
and comprised 3% of the total quality habitat in the upstream portion of Second Creek.
4.2.2.8 Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in Flat Swamp Creek tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-22 (see
attached CD). Of the 472.57 acres that were exposed during drawdown, 93% was classified as low
quality mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.2-21). An additional 9.57 acres (2%) was classified as
wetland habitat with flood plain forest being the dominant type. The remaining 5% was distributed
among woody cover and rocky substrate types that are deemed high quality habitat for aquatic biota
in the reservoir system. For analysis, Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm was split into an upper and
lower section. This division was made at the Route 8 Bridge (Figure 4.2-6).
Lower Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm
Locations of habitats mapped in Lower Flat Swamp Creek tributary arm are shown in Figure 4.2-22
(see attached CD). Within the Lower Flat Swamp Creek tributary arm, there are 393.7 acres of total
habitat that are exposed during an average 12 ft drawdown (Table 4.2-22). Of that total, 94 % of that
is considered mud/sand/clay habitat. Four wetland types combined to cover 10 acres of the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 55 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-20. Amount of habitat mapped Upper Second Creek Tributary Arm, all mapped
elevations combined.
Upper Second Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
(s q. feet) Habitat mapped
(acres)
Cobble 24.16 0.00
Rip rap 13,000.63 0.30
Brush 6,197.36 0.14
Medium branched trees 427,760.67 9.82
Christmas trees 1,335.32 0.03
Stumps 36.95 0.00
Docks 13,503.60 0.31
Flood lain forest 2,473,961.06 56.79
Shrub-swam 104,166.46 2.39
Sparse shrub-swamp 40,971.18 0.94
Mud/sand/clay 7,066,291.30 162.23
Sum 10,147,248.69 232.95
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 56 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
1{?,ir#
n.J
4hedrr ?rw
M Goblb
kw7li.,raJ I.n
IvJ?lr??rt er...
?o- vnta41/n
t;k-
.-A
war
?Fpal
TIw
Pr+?
Wldrrnd 14bhut
PEU
1racE
`P??i
PE6
P
catitr
r-
Ererrlinne
P"f-5+4 4-11-Uld
r 0l-Ju -ww---aQ
D3 114 LI-
NO-&- A-Pdq
kI hilr.l
0.9-M rw tOg4MOP
("4Trb51"
Figure 4.2-22. Habitat types mapped in the Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 57 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-21. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm,
below the USGS elevation 624 ft.
Flat Swam Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Habitat mapped
below full and t

Type
(s q. feet)
(acres) % of Total
Acreage
Boulder 332,967.93 7.65 1.62%
Cobble 125,106.32 2.87 0.61%
Ledge 205,700.64 4.73 1.00%
Rip rap 37,431.37 0.86 0.18%
Brush 10,255.31 0.24 0.05%
Heavily branched trees 11,103.37 0.25 0.05%
Medium branched trees 144,642.43 3.32 0.70%
No branched trees 653.93 0.02 0.00%
Christmas trees 5,998.11 0.13 0.03%
Stumps 121,359.05 2.79 0.59%
Tires 198.89 0.01 0.00%
Docks 87,555.60 2.01 0.43%
Palustrine emergent 5966 0.14 0.03%
Flood plain forest 389,466.00 8.94 1.89%
Shrub-swamp 17,168.00 0.39 0.08%
Sparse shrub-swamp 21,680.00 0.50 0.11%
Mud/sand/clay 19,067,290.00 437.73 92.63%
Sum 20,584,542.95 472.57 100.00%
' Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 624'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 58 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-22. Amount of habitat mapped in Lower Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm within
the drawdown zone (el. 624 down to 612) and 5 feet below the drawdown zone (el.
612 to 607).
Lower Flat Swamp
Creek Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
within drawdown t
(s q. feet) Habitat mapped
below drawdown 2
(s q. feet) Habitat mapped
within drawdown t
(acres) Habitat mapped
below drawdown z
(acres)
Boulder 196,821.25 111,483.42 4.52 2.56
Cobble 52,624.32 56,687.67 1.21 1.30
Ledge 97,809.61 73,111.66 2.25 1.68
Rip rap 18,291.26 19,140.11 0.42 0.44
Brush 2,929.41 7,325.90 0.07 0.17
Heavily branched trees 8,977.58 697.45 0.20 0.02
Medium branched trees 102,765.17 24,366.41 2.36 0.56
No branched trees 383.48 42.01 0.01 0.00
Christmas trees 930.04 5,068.07 0.02 0.11
Stumps 24,893.14 91,728.17 0.57 2.11
Tires 0.00 198.89 0.00 0.01
Docks 80,150.40 7,405.20 1.84 0.17
Palustrine emergent 5,965.84 0.00 0.14 0.00
Flood lain forest 390,723.74 0.00 8.97 0.00
Shrub-swam 17,167.56 0.00 0.39 0.00
Sparse shrub-swamp 21,680.44 0.00 0.50 0.00
Mud/sand/clay 16,128,562.43 370.26
Sum 17,150,675.67 397,254.96 393.73 9.13

Lower Flat Swam Surface Acreage Redu ction
Creek Tributary Arm At full pond At 12' drawdown acres %
896.00 502.69 393.31 43.90
1 Habitat mapped between USGS elevations 624' to 612'.
2 Habitat mapped below USGS elevation 612'.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 59 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
drawdown zone. Flood plain forest was the dominant type, covering 9 acres. Palustrine emergent,
shrub-swamp, and sparse shrub-swamp were present in lesser amounts. The remaining 13.5 acres
were mapped as habitat types that are considered higher quality for aquatic biota (Figure 4.2-23).
Rocky substrates provide the majority of the quality habitat within the drawdown zone of Lower Flat
Swamp Creek. Boulder (4.52 acres; 33%) and ledge (2.25 acres; 17 %) dominate while cobble (1.21
acres; 9%) and rip-rap (0.42 acres; 3%) are available in lesser amounts. Medium branched trees are
the dominant woody cover type, comprising 17% of the drawdown zones quality habitat. Lesser
amounts of stumps (0.57 acres; 4%), heavily branched trees (0.2 acres; 1%), and brush (0.07 acres;
<1%) also provide some cover. Docks covered 1.84 acres within the Lower Flat Swamp Creek
drawdown zone and were responsible for 14% of the quality habitat.
An additional 9.13 acres of quality habitat was mapped in the area below the drawdown zone
(elevations <612) (Table 4.2-22). Rocky substrates were the most abundant, accounting for 65% of
the quality habitat. Boulder (2.56 acres; 28%), ledge (1.68 acres; 18%), cobble (1.3 acres; 14%) and
rip-rap (0.44 acres; 5%) habitats were all present. Stumps (2.11 acres; 23%), were the most dominant
form of woody cover. Lesser amounts of medium branched trees (0.56 acres; 6%), brush (0.17 acres;
2%) and Christmas trees (0.11 acres; 1%) were also available to aquatic biota. Docks covered 0.17
acres and accounted for 2% of the quality habitat mapped below the drawdown zone of the Lower
Flat Swamp Creek tributary arm. There were no wetland habitat types found within the mapped area
below the drawdown zone.
The average 12 ft drawdown reduces the water surface acreage of the Lower Flat Swamp Creek
tributary arm from 896.0 acres to 502.7 acres (43.9 % or 393.3 acres) (Table 4.2-22).
Upper Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm
In the upper portion of the Flat Swamp Creek tributary arm, the bathymetry did not show any area
that was at or below the 612-foot elevation, therefore all habitat data collected is above elevation 612.
This suggests that the entire area was dewatered at the time of the survey. However, the field crew
observed a channel of water flowing through the entire reach (Figure 4.2-17). Within Upper Flat
Swamp Creek, a total of 67.1 acres of mud/sand/clay was present (Table 4.2-23). Sparse shrub-
swamp was the only wetland habitat present and covered 0.31 acres. An additional 2.3 acres of
quality habitat types were mapped. The majority of available habitat was rocky substrate. Ledge (0.8
acres; 35%), boulder (0.57 acres; 25%), and cobble (0.36 acres; 16%) were all available. Woody
cover was mostly medium branched trees (0.4 acres; 17%), although lesser amounts of stumps (0.11
acres; 5%), heavy branched trees (0.03 acres; 1%) and no branched trees were also present.
4.2.2.9 Habitat Differences Between Areas
Mud/sand/clay is the dominant substrate type in High Rock Reservoir, covering 81.95 % of the
reservoirs 12-foot drawdown zone (Table 4.2-24). Its coverage is spread fairly evenly throughout the
reservoir with a high of 96.5 % in the Abbotts Creek tributary arm, to a low of 63.9 % in the upper
section of the main reservoir body.
Wetland cover types combine to cover 16.2 % of the 12-foot drawdown zone (Table 4.2-25). Total
coverage ranged from a high of 35.6 % in the upper main reservoir to a low of 0.25 % in the lower
portion of Abbotts Creek (Table 4.2-24). Overall, sparse shrub-swamp was the dominant wetland
type mapped within the drawdown zone, covering 10.9 % of the total area. Flood plain forest was the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 60 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Lower Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
N
2.5
Q
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
? Habitat mapped
wit hin drawdown
¦ Habitat mapped
bel ow dr awdown
Figure 4.2-23. Habitat types mapped in the Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm, within the
drawdown zone (el. 612-624) and 5 feet below (<el. 612) the drawdown zone.
Wetland and mud/sand/clay habitat types are not included in this figure.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 61 Normandeau Associates, inc.
N Q t N N U N N N N
N N N N N N N Q N Y
Q U 7 N N t 00
7 O N Q >, .J E .J O N .J H
ED 0 (6 N O N N
N t N t E
_ O
(6 (6 Z
t
U
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.2-23. Amount of habitat mapped in Upper Flat Swamp Creek Tributary Arm, all
mapped elevations combined.
Upper Flat Swamp Creek
Tributary Arm
Available Habitat
Elevation

Habitat Type Habitat mapped
(sq. feet) Habitat mapped
(acres)
Boulder 24,663.26 0.57
Cobble 15,794.33 0.36
Ledge 34,779.37 0.80
Heavy Branched Trees 1,428.34 0.03
Medium Branched Trees 17,510.85 0.40
No Branched Trees 228.44 0.01
Stumps 4,737.74 0.11
Sparse shrub-swamp 13,572.36 0.31
Mud/sand/clay 2,923,897.64 67.13
Sum 3,036,612.33 69.71
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 62 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.2-24. Comparison of the Amount of Habitat Available in the Drawdown Zone (el. 624 to 612) of High Rock Reservoir by Major
Tributary Arms and Main Reservoir Segments
w

Flat Swamp Creek
Tributa Arm i
Crane Creek
Tributary Arm 1
Swearing Creek
Tributa Arm 1
Abbott's Creek
Tributary Arm 1
Second Creek
Tributary Arm i
Upper Main
Reservoir
Lower Main
Reservoir Total
Reservoir
Combined
Habitat Type Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Mud/sand/clay 370.26 94.04 463.95 92.81 166.16 92.79 491.59 96.52 366.94 92.31 1,125.33 63.85 563.02 95.94 3,547.25 81.95
Palustrine emergent 0.14 0.04 0.56 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 0.27 0.65 0.04 0.00 0.00 2.41 0.06
Flood plain forest 8.97 2.28 21.01 4.20 2.97 1.66 0.29 0.06 11.91 3.00 131.22 7.45 10.15 1.73 186.52 4.31
Shrub-swamp 0.39 0.10 0.95 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.04 5.50 1.38 32.63 1.85 0.47 0.08 40.14 0.93
Sparse shrub-swamp 0.50 0.13 1.48 0.30 1.05 0.59 0.77 0.15 5.38 1.35 462.19 26.23 1.37 0.23 472.74 10.92
Boulder 4.52 1.15 0.92 0.18 0.07 0.04 1.30 0.26 0.06 0.02 0.14 0.01 3.57 0.61 10.58 0.24
Brush 0.07 0.02 0.08 0.02 0.64 0.36 0.20 0.04 0.36 0.09 0.51 0.03 0.27 0.05 2.13 0.05
Christmas Trees 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.14 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.20 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.62 0.01
Cobble 1.21 0.31 1.20 0.24 0.12 0.07 0.36 0.07 0.25 0.06 0.27 0.02 0.02 0.00 3.43 0.08
Gravel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Docks 1.84 0.47 4.02 0.80 3.84 2.14 9.12 1.79 3.32 0.84 4.32 0.25 1.97 0.34 28.43 0.66
Heavily Branched Trees 0.20 0.05 0.38 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.14 0.04 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.94 0.02
Ledge 2.25 0.57 0.01 0.00 1.13 0.63 0.50 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.31 0.05 4.25 0.10
Medium Branched Trees 2.36 0.60 3.43 0.69 0.92 0.51 0.33 0.06 0.86 0.22 2.48 0.14 2.13 0.36 12.51 0.29
No Branched Trees 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.11 0.00
Rip-rap 0.42 0.11 1.81 0.36 1.93 1.08 4.48 0.88 0.81 0.20 2.08 0.12 2.29 0.39 13.82 0.32
Stumps 0.57 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.70 0.18 0.27 0.02 1.21 0.21 2.87 0.07
Tires 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Total 393.73 100% 499.90 100% 179.07 100% 509.34 100% 397.50 100% 1,762.37 100% 586.85 100% 4,328.76 100%
1 Areas of habitat do not include the upper portions of tributary arms where bathymetry does not extend to el. 612.
Table 4.2-25. Comparison of Dominant Habitat Types Mapped in the Major Tributary Arms and Main Reservoir Segments of High
Rock Reservoir with Woody Cover and Rocky Substrate Types Combined.

Flat Swamp Creek
Tributa Arm'
Crane Creek
Tributary Arm 1
Swearing Creek
Tributary Arm i
Abbotts Creek
Tributary Arm 1
Second Creek
Tributary Arm 1
Upper Main
Reservoir
Lower Main
Reservoir Total
Reservoir
Combined
Substrate Category Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Mud/sand/clay 370.26 94.04 463.95 92.81 166.16 92.79 491.59 96.52 366.94 92.31 1125.33 63.85 563.02 95.94 3547.25 81.95

Wetlands' 10.00 2.54 24.01 4.80 4.02 2.24 1.26 0.25 23.85 6.00 626.68 35.56 11.99 2.04 701.81 16.21

Rock Substrate' 8.39 2.13 3.94 0.79 3.25 1.81 6.64 1.30 1.12 0.28 2.54 0.14 6.19 1.05 3207 . 0.74

Woody Cover4 3.23 0.82 3.99 0.80 1.80 1.01 0.73 0.14 2.26 0.57 3.49 0.20 3.68 0.63 19.18 0.44

Docks 1.84 0.47 4.02 0.80 3.84 2.14 9.12 1.79 3.32 0.84 4.32 0.25 1.97 0.34 28.43 0.66

Areas of habitat do not include the upper portions of tributary arms where bathymetry does not extend to el. 612.
'Wetlands consists of the four wetland types mapped from overflight pictures.
' Rock substrate includes boulder, cobble, gravel, ledge and rip-rap combined.
4 Woody cover includes, heavy, medium and no branch trees, Christmas trees, brush, and stumps combined.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
second most abundant wetland type, accounting for 4.3 % of the habitat mapped within the drawdown
zone. Shrub-swamp (0.9 %) and palustrine emergent (0.06 %) were present in lesser amounts.
Rock substrates combine to cover 0.74 % of the 12-foot drawdown zone (Table 4.2-25). In the
tributary arms, it ranged from 2.1 % of the total habitat in Flat Swamp Creek to 0.3 % in Second
Creek. Overall, rip-rap was the dominant rock substrate in the reservoir, comprising anywhere from
1.1 % of the total habitat in Swearing Creek to 0.1 % in both Flat Swamp Creek and the upper portion
of the main reservoir (Table 4.2-24). Boulders are the second most abundant rock substrate in the
reservoir. While boulders comprised 1.2% of the habitat in Flat Swamp Creek, they were not as
abundant in the other four tributary arms, with a high of 0.3 % in Abbotts Creek and a low of 0.04 %
in Swearing Creek. Cobble (0.08%) was present in lesser amounts in each of the five tributary arms
and both sections of the reservoir. Ledge (0.1%) was present in four of the five tributary arms and
both sections of the reservoir. There was no ledge habitat present within the drawdown zone in
Second Creek.
Woody cover types combined to cover 0.44% of the 12-foot drawdown zone (Table 4.2-25). Within
the tributary arms, it ranged from a high of 1.0% of the habitat in Swearing Creek to a low of 0.1 % of
the habitat in Abbott's Creek. Within the main body of the reservoir, only 0.2 % and 0.6% of the
drawdown zone habitat in the upper and lower sections of the reservoir respectively, were woody
cover. Reservoir-wide, medium branched trees were the most abundant form of woody cover,
comprising 0.3 % of the total habitat within the 12-foot drawdown zone. Within the tributary arms,
medium branched trees ranged from a high of 0.7 % of the habitat in the Crane Creek tributary arm to
a low of 0.1 % of the habitat in Abbott's Creek tributary arm. Medium branched trees were
responsible for 0.1 % of the habitat in the upper main reservoir and 0.4% of the habitat in the lower
section of the main reservoir. Stumps were the second most abundant form of woody cover. They
were present in 3 of the 5 tributary arms with a high of 0.2 % of available habitat in the Second Creek
tributary arm to a low of 0.06% of drawdown zone habitat in the Swearing Creek tributary arm.
Docks provide 0.7 % of the available habitat in High Rock Reservoir (Table 4.2-24). They range
from a high of 2.2 % of the available drawdown zone habitat in the Swearing Creek tributary arm to a
low of 0.3% of the available habitat in the upper portion of the main reservoir.
Table 4.2-26 shows the distribution of wetland habitat types within the main body of High Rock and
all five tributary arms. This table does not break the tributary arms down by upper and lower but
presents the wetlands as a total for each area. Wetland habitat was present within all five tributary
arms and the main body of the reservoir. Palustrine emergent vegetation, mainly consisting of water
willow was present in two of the five tributary arms and in the upper half of the main reservoir.
Flood plain forests were present in all five of the tributary arms and both the upper and lower sections
of the main reservoir. Species composition within these forests is very diverse. However, where this
community type is present on the frequently flooded, shallow delta areas within High Rock, black
willow is the dominant tree species. Shrub-swamp habitat was present in all five tributary arms and
both the upper and lower parts of the main reservoir. Shrub-swamp habitat on High Rock is
dominated by black willow seedlings. Sparse shrub-swamp habitat was present within four of the
five tributary arms and both the upper and lower sections of the main reservoir body. Sparse shrub-
swamp on High Rock can be found on the shallower bars that are beginning to seed in and is mainly
composed of the widely scattered seedlings of black willow and buttonbush. Within the drawdown
zone of High Rock, wetland vegetation (both aquatic and terrestrial) comprises 1,013.17 acres of
habitat that is available to aquatic biota when water level conditions are ideal.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 65 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.2-26. Comparison of Wetland Habitat Types Mapped by Overflight, in the Major Tributary Arms and Main Reservoir
Segments of High Rock Reservoir.

Wetland Habitat Type
Flat Swamp Creek
Tributar Arm
Crane Creek
Tributary Arm
Swearing Creek
Tributary Arm
Abbotts Creek
Tributary Arm
Second Creek
Tributary Arm
Upper Main
Reservoir
Lower Main
Reservoir Total
Reservoir
Combined
Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet Acres Sq. Feet
Palustrine Emergent 0.14 5,966 0.00 0 0.00 0 3.82 166,585 0.00 0 0.65 28,127 0.00 0 4.61 200,678

Flood Plain Forest 8.94 389,466 46.52 2,026,348 22.52 980,904 186.12 8,107,295 56.79 2,473,961 131.22 5,716,022 10.15 442,001 462.26 20,135,996

Shrub-swamp 0.39 17,168 0.55 24,160 10.40 453,225 22.74 990,559 2.39 104,166 32.63 1,421,387 0.47 20,435 69.57 3,031,100

Sparse Shrub-swamp 0.50 21,680 8.76 381,595 0.00 1 2.97 129,272 0.94 40,971 462.19 20,132,785 1.37 59,650 476.73 20,765,955

Sum 9.97 434,280 55.83 2,432,103 32.92 1,434,130 215.65 9,393,711 60.12 2,619,099 626.69 27,298,321 11.99 522,085 1013.17 44,133,729
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
4.2.2.10 Erosion
Areas of erosion were present in all five tributary arms and both the upper and lower portions of the
main reservoir (Figure 4.2-24). There were 136 sites showing erosion throughout the entire reservoir.
These sites covered a total of 8.34 miles of shoreline (Table 4.2-27). Within the tributary arms,
Abbott's Creek showed the greatest amount of erosion with a total of 1.47 miles of shoreline.
Swearing Creek showed the least erosion, only 0.19 miles of shoreline. The upper portion of High
Rock had 3.45 miles of eroded shoreline where as the lower portion of the reservoir had only 1.37
miles of eroded shore.
The upper reservoir had the greatest amount of exposed eroded habitat with a surface area of 2.74
acres. The lower portion of the reservoir had an additional 0.66 acres. Within the tributary arms,
Abbott's Creek had the greatest eroded surface area (0.91 acres) while Swearing Creek had the least
(0.08 acres).
4.3 TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR
Tuckertown Reservoir covers 2,560 acres at full pool with a maximum and mean depth of 55 ft and
16 ft, respectively. The Tuckertown Reservoir is narrow relative to either adjacent High Rock or
Narrows Reservoirs, and is mainly an enlargement of the old river channel with only a few small-to-
moderately sized flooded tributary arms. The Tuckertown Development is operated as a run-of-river
facility. Normal daily fluctuation in water surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft, with a
daily maximum fluctuation of 1 to 3 ft (Yadkin ICD 2002). Annual drawdown is limited to 3 ft by the
Yadkin FERC license, and the annual drawdown has averaged 2 ft historically. The Tuckertown
Reservoir (Figure 4.3-1) habitat field survey ran from July 20 to 28, 2004. Tuckertown Reservoir's
maximum full pond elevation is 564.7 feet. Fluctuations in reservoir water level average 2-feet
during the annual cycle (Figure 4.3-2). Water surface elevations during the field effort ranged from
562.0 to 562.9 with an average elevation of 562.3 ft. The 2-foot drawdown assisted the field effort in
that biologists were able to map habitat not only within the littoral zone but also habitats that visibly
extended into the reservoir.
Tuckertown Habitat Type Descriptions
Significant habitat types important to aquatic biota that were mapped during this study included:
1. aquatic vegetation
2. trees and woody debris (brush, fallen trees, standing trees, stumps)
3. docks
4. riprap
5. ledge, boulder, cobble, gravel
6. mud/sand/clay
Aquatic Vegetation
Aquatic vegetation beds found during the July 2004 habitat survey were mapped. Figure 4.3-3 shows
examples of the aquatic vegetation mapped by field biologists. In addition to data collected during
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 67 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

inwo
Photo A. High Rock Reservoir bank erosion. Photo B. High Rock Reservoir bank erosion.

Photo C. High Rock Reservoir bank erosion.
Figure 4.2-24. Examples of bank erosion on High Rock Reservoir during the habitat mapping
survey, January/February 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 68 Normandeau Associates, inc.

Z
O
O
Q
fD
n
y
y
O
n
Ci
fD
y
n
Table 4.2-27. Amount of erosion mapped by tributary arm and reservoir segment.
Flat Swamp
Creek
Tributary Arm
Crane Creek
Tributary Arm
Swearing Creek
Tributary Arm
Abbotts Creek
Tributary Arm
Second Creek
Tributary Arm
Upper Main
Reservoir
Lower Main
Reservoir
All Areas
Combined
Length of eroded shore (ft.) 4,377.17 4,244.25 1,019.99 7,785.24 1,108.37 18,235.87 7,257.19 44,028.08

Length of eroded shore
(miles)
0.83
0.80
0.19
1.47
0.21
3.45
1.37
8.34

Area of eroded shore (sq. ft.) 13,928.31 18,090.38 3,631.95 39,807.43 8,141.21 119,577.10 28,800.56 231,976.94

Area of eroded shore (acres) 0.32 0.42 0.08 0.91 0.19 2.74 0.66 5.32
Q
fD
C4
O
y
Qo
n
a
y
y
fD
C4
y
fD
O
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Figure 4.3-1 Habitat located within Tuckertown Reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 70 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
566
565
H
LL
564
C
563
Cu
Lu
562
561
560
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
?H„wFr;rPDw
Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec
Minimum Daily Value
Mean Daily Value
Maximum Daily Value
Figure 4.3-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Tuckertown
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 71 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A:
Cdr _??. ? ?f 'fir
f'.
Photo C:
Photo B:
Photo D:
Figure 4.3-3. Examples of aquatic vegetation mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 72 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
the July 2004 habitat survey, additional wetland habitats were added through the analysis of
overflight pictures taken during July and August of 2003. After habitat types were mapped out on the
collected photographs, biologists in the field were used to verify the wetland habitat types that were
present. Wetlands information collected through both methods is presented in this report. Five major
wetland types of importance to aquatic biota within Tuckertown Reservoir were identified through
overflight photograph analysis.
1. Palustrine Emergent: (PEM) Consisted mainly of water willow beds
2. Flood Plain Forest: (PFO1/c) Species composition within this wetland type can be very
diverse. However, where this community type is present, black willow is the dominant tree
species. This habitat type is typically flooded only during high water events.
3. Shrub-Swamp: (PSS1) Shrub-swamp habitat in Tuckertown is dominated by loosely
bunched stands of black willow, buttonbush and sycamore seedlings.
4. Sparse shrub-Swamp: (PSSp) Sparse shrub-swamp habitat is comprised of widely scattered
seedlings of black will and buttonbush.
Lacustrine Aquatic Bed: (LAB) Comprised mainly of floating leaved or submerged aquatic
plants. Dominant species within Tuckertown Reservoir is American elodea, a submerged
aquatic.
Woody Cover
Woody cover found within the littoral zone was split into several categories and mapped during the
study. Naturally falling and intentionally cut trees (lap trees) lying within the littoral zone were
mapped. These downed trees were further categorized based on the size and amount of branches
remaining on the tree. They were classified as heavy branching, medium branching or no branching
(Figure 4.3-4). Other types of woody cover located and mapped in the littoral zone included stumps,
and brush piles (Figure 4.3-4).
Substrate
All substrate types located within the littoral zone were delineated and mapped during the field
survey. These included ledge, boulder, cobble, and riprap (Figure 4.3-5). Substrate that did not
provide good habitat for aquatic biota, such as heavily embedded gravel, was not measured and was
included in the default (mud/sand/clay) substrate category. All habitats that were not mapped due to
their not providing decent habitat for aquatic biota were put into the default category.
Docks
Docks were plotted from overflight pictures taken during 1997. Docks constructed after 1997 are not
included in this report. Figure 4.3-6 shows examples of dock habitat in Tuckertown Reservoir.
Yadkin estimates that approximately docks have been added since 1997.
Erosion
¦ Areas of significant erosion were mapped during the field effort. "Significant erosion" was
defined in the final study scope as areas that are observed to have active and ongoing erosion
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 73 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
wrrrg _.y?i1 ? ?-? d: +? 9l` h ?• i y9 y??t ?r. ,.,
Ile.
?r x J`y1
F..++ " ?'' r `Stiti? ??r7 ? ??i,? ?'. ,? Mlr ???. •??::i?il ..?o- ? ? r R', tG?.?????': i,.wk?*'?
Photo A: Heavy branched tree Photo B: Medium and heavy branched trees
r rjfT
t ?.
VAL*
Photo C: Stumps

Photo D: Brush
Figure 4.3-4. Examples of woody cover types mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 74 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A: Ledge and boulders

Photo C: Cobble
99
Photo B: Rip rap
I
r?
f;Y+ ti
*?M Lit.
r
Photo D: Boulder
u.
.a ?
? ?r1
i?
Figure 4.3-5. Examples of rock substrate mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 75 Normandeau Associates, inc.
77-
?{
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A: Dock habitat Photo B: Dock habitat
Photo C: Dock habitat
Figure 4.3-6. Examples of dock habitat mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 76 Normandeau Associates, inc.
}
i
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
¦ and observable impacts to important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Such areas included
but were not necessarily limited to:
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are noticeably
affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in the loss of vegetation from a significant
community or habitat type
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline are impacting public recreation facilities
4.3.1 Mapped Available Habitat
This section presents all habitats mapped at elevations below 564.2 feet. Within the Tuckertown
Reservoir shapefile, the 564.2 foot contour line was the closest available to the full pond value of
564.7 ft. The two-foot drawdown allowed for the field crew to map all habitat types providing quality
cover for aquatic biota found within and just below the littoral zone.
Locations of habitats mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir are shown in Figure 4.3-1 (see attached CD).
Without the bathymetry below the full pond mark, the percentage of mapped high quality habitats that
lay within or below the low mark of the littoral zone could not be determined.
Sixteen different types of high quality habitat were mapped within the littoral zone of Tuckertown
Reservoir, covering 151.73 acres (Table 4.3-1). Wetland habitats comprised the majority of the
quality habitat, accounting for over 85% of the 151.73 acres mapped (Table 4.3-2). Aquatic
vegetation mapped by the NAI field biologists covered 71.46 acres and comprised 47.1 % of the total
habitat mapped. In addition, five major wetland habitat types were identified from aerial photographs
and added into the GIS map after sufficient ground-truthing. Palustrme emergent vegetation, mainly
water willow, covered 15.61 acres and comprised 13.05 % of the total habitat mapped. Flood plain
forest, dominated by black willow trees, covered 19.8 acres and comprised 13.05 % of the total
habitat. Lacustrme aquatic plant beds, comprised of floating and submerged aquatic plants covered
7.62 acres (5.02 % of total). Shrub-swamp (8.52 acres; 5.62 %) and sparse shrub-swamp (3.15 acres;
2.07 %) habitat types were also present in Tuckertown Reservoir. The total acreage covered by some
wetland types may be underestimated. Due to a limited drawdown (2 ft) and low water clarity, areas
of some wetland types (particularly palustrine emergent and lacustrine aquatic beds) may be more
extensive than is visible from the surface.
Boulders were the dominant form of rock substrate found in Tuckertown Reservoir. They covered
4.43 acres and accounted for 2.82 % of the total habitat mapped. Cobble covered 1.02 acres and
comprised 0.67 % of the habitat mapped. Lesser amounts of rip rap (0.3 acres; 0.2 %) and ledge (0.2
acres; 0.13 %) were mapped within the Tuckertown littoral zone.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 77 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.3-1. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, below the full
pond USGS elevation of 564.2'.
Tuckertown Reservoir
Available Habitat mapped below full pond 1
Type Square Feet Acres
Aquatic Vegetation2 3,112,900.87 71.46
Palustrine emergent' 679,969.00 15.61
Flood plain forest' 862,485.00 19.80
Shrub-swamp' 371,130.00 8.52
Sparse shrub-swamp' 137,213.00 3.15
Lacustrine Aquatic Bed' 331,926.00 7.62
Docks 7,13 8.04 0.16
Boulder 192,906.20 4.43
Cobble 45,817.79 1.02
Ledge 8,680.56 0.20
Rip rap 12,977.66 0.30
Brush 5,034.41 0.12
Heavy branched trees 3,352.79 0.08
Medium branched trees 713,945.70 16.39
No branched trees 10,023.41 0.23
Stumps 115,800.92 2.66
Sum 6,611,301.32 151.73
1 Full pond elevation is equal to USGS 564.2'.
2 Aquatic vegetation in this category was mapped by field crew using the laser rangefinder and DGPS.
3 These wetland types were mapped through the use of aerial photographs.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 78 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.3-2. Habitat type by percentage of total mapped acreage in Tuckertown Reservoir,
below the full pond USGS elevation of 564.2'.
Tuckertown Reservoir
Habitat mapped below full pond 1
Type Acres % of Total 4
Aquatic Vegetation 2 71.46 47.10%
Palustrine emergent' 15.61 10.29%
Flood plain forest' 19.80 13.05%
Shrub-swamp' 8.52 5.62%
Sparse shrub-swamp' 3.15 2.07%
Lacustrine Aquatic Bed' 7.62 5.02%
Docks 0.16 0.11%
Boulder 4.43 2.92%
Cobble 1.02 0.67%
Ledge 0.20 0.13%
Rip rap 0.30 0.20%
Brush 0.12 0.08%
Heavy branched trees 0.08 0.05%
Medium branched trees 16.39 10.80%
No branched trees 0.23 0.15%
Stumps 2.66 1.75%
Sum 151.73 100.00%
1 Full pond elevation is equal to USGS 564.2'.
2 Aquatic vegetation in this category was mapped by field crew using the laser rangefinder and DGPS.
3 These wetland types were mapped through the use of aerial photographs.
4 Percentages presented are of the quality habitat types mapped within the littoral zone only.
Does not include areas classified as low quality habitat (mud/sand/clay).
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 79 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Woody cover was dominated by medium branched trees. Medium branched trees covered 16.39
acres and were accountable for 10.8 % of the total habitat mapped in Tuckertown. Stumps were the
second most abundant woody cover type, covering 2.66 acres and comprising 1.75 % of the total
habitat. No branched trees (0.23 acres; 0.15 %), brush (0.12 acres; 0.08%), and heavy branched trees
(0.08 acres; 0.05 %) were also present within the littoral zone area.
In addition to natural cover types, a small number of docks covered 0.16 acres and accounted for 0.11
% of the total quality habitat that was mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir below elevation 564.2'.
4.3.2 Erosion
There were 4 sites, varying in length from 21 to 106 feet, which showed signs of erosion throughout
Tuckertown Reservoir (Figure 4.3-7). These sites covered atotal of 0.05 miles of shoreline (Table
4.3-3). This represents 0.08 % of the total shoreline in Tuckertown Reservoir. A total area of 0.01
acres is eroded between the 4 sites mapped.
4.4 NARROWS RESERVOIR
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) is the deepest of the four project impoundments and covers 5,355
acres at full pool. The reservoir is broad with two main basins, each with numerous coves and
flooded tributary mouths. The maximum depth is 175 ft and the mean depth is 45 ft. The Narrows
Development is usually operated as a run-of-river facility, but does have available storage to augment
required minimum downstream releases in low flow periods. Normal daily fluctuation in water
surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft with a daily maximum fluctuation of 1 to 2 ft
(Yadkin 2002). The maximum average annual drawdown is approximately 3 ft. The Narrows
Reservoir (Figure 4.4-1) habitat field survey ran from December 7 through December 21, 2003.
Narrows Reservoir's maximum full pond elevation is 509.8 feet with an average, annual drawdown of
2 feet (Figure 4.4-2). Water surface elevations during the field effort ranged from 493.2 to 501.7 with
an average elevation of 495.4 ft. The drawdown assisted the field effort in that biologists were able to
map habitat not only within the 2-foot littoral zone but also well below, in what could potentially be a
drawdown zone.
Narrows Habitat Type Descriptions
Significant habitat types important to aquatic biota that were mapped during this study included:
1. aquatic vegetation
2. trees and woody debris (brush, fallen trees, standing trees, stumps)
3. Christmas trees added for habitat enhancement
4. docks
5. riprap
6. ledge, boulder, cobble, gravel
7. mud/sand/clay
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 80 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A: Bank Erosion
Figure 4.3-7. Example of bank erosion mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir, July 2004.
Table 4.3-3. Amount of erosion mapped within Tuckertown Reservoir.
Tuckertown Reservoir Erosion
Length of eroded shore (ft.) 261.00
Length of eroded shore (miles) 0.05
Area of eroded shore (sq. ft.) 535.34
Area of eroded shore (acres) 0.01
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 81 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Figure 4.4-1 Habitat Types Mapped in the Narrows Reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 82 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
512
510
508
H
LL
C
506
Cu
Lu
504
502
500
FULL POND
Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec
Minimum Daily Value
Mean Daily Value
Maximum Daily Value
Figure 4.4-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Narrows
Reservoir for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 83 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Aquatic Vegetation
The data presented in this section was collected through the use of overflight pictures taken during
July and August of 2003. After habitat types were mapped out on the collected photographs,
biologists in the field were used to verify the wetland habitat types that were present. Three major
wetland types of importance to aquatic biota were identified within Narrows Reservoir.
1. Palustrine Emergent: (PEM) Consisted mainly of water willow beds
2. Flood Plain Forest: (PFO1/c) Species composition within this wetland type can be very
diverse. However, where this community type is present, black willow is the dominant tree
species. This habitat type is typically flooded only during high water events.
3. Shrub-Swamp: (PSS1) Shrub-swamp habitat on Narrows is dominated by loosely bunched
stands of black willow seedlings.
In addition to the wetland acreage mapped through aerial photography, there were additional areas of
palustrine emergent (water willow) vegetation added to the final acreage total. The following
explanation was taken from Section 5.4 of the 2005 NAI Draft Study Report entitled Wetland and
Riparian Habitat Assessment.
In the 2004 NAI study, the distribution of water willow on Narrows was delineated as part of the
cover type mapping. As described in the vegetation mapping methods section (Section 5.2), emergent
and submergent vegetation communities were mapped on all four reservoirs from true color aerial
photographs flown in mid-summer 2003, at a scale of 1:9600. Field verification of the mapped limits
and species composition of the cover types occurred throughout the growing season 2004. While the
aerial photography was suitable for identifying the larger beds, it was less effective for detecting
small or narrow stands of emergent vegetation. These are beds that were typically less than 6 feet
wide, or occurred under trees overhanging the shoreline. To compensate for this difficulty, the cover
type maps were supplemented in the field by a more quantitative assessment that estimated the
percentage of the shoreline which supported water willow. As the shoreline was traveled, the
percentage of the shoreline that supported water willow was noted in general categories: 0%, 1-20%,
21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and >80%. Almost 80% of the shoreline of Narrows was reviewed for
this purpose. In the office, the perimeter of the shoreline falling into each category was measured.
The beds were assumed to be 5 feet wide, and therefore the acreage of water willow formed by these
small beds could be estimated. These small beds are not shown on the cover type maps, but add an
additional 92 acres of emergent wetlands on Narrows, or slightly more then the total mapped from
aerials.
This additional palustrine emergent vegetation was presented in this habitat report within the total
reservoir analysis but because it was not shown on the ArcView cover type maps, it could not be
broken down as being within the littoral zone (elevation 510-508), drawdown zone (elevation 508-
494), or below the drawdown zone (elevations <494). Therefore it is excluded from analysis in
sections 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3 of this report.
Woody Cover
Woody cover found within the littoral and potential drawdown zones was split into several categories
and mapped during the study. Naturally falling and intentionally cut trees (lap trees) lying within the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 84 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
drawdown zone were mapped. These downed trees were further categorized based on the size and
amount of branches remaining on the tree. They were classified as heavy branching, medium
branching or no branching. Christmas tree bundles added to the reservoir to provide and improve
habitat for fish were also mapped. Other types of woody cover located and mapped in the drawdown
zone included stumps, brush piles, and standing trees (Figure 4.4-3).
Rock Substrates
All substrate types located within the littoral and potential drawdown zone were delineated and
mapped during the field survey. These included ledge, boulder, cobble, gravel, and riprap (Figure
4.4-4; Figure 4.4-5). Substrate that did not provide good habitat for aquatic biota, such as heavily
embedded gravel, was not measured and was included in the default (mud/sand/clay) substrate
category. All habitats that were not mapped due to their not providing decent habitat for aquatic biota
were put into the default category.
Docks
Docks were plotted from overflight pictures taken during 1997. Docks constructed after 1997 are not
included in this report. Figure 4.4-5 shows examples of dock habitat from Narrows Reservoir.
Yadkin estimates that approximately docks have been added since 1997.
Erosion
Areas of significant erosion were mapped during the field effort. "Significant erosion" was defined in
the final study scope as areas that are observed to have active and ongoing erosion and observable
impacts to important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Such areas included but were not necessarily
limited to:
Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are noticeably
affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are noticeably
affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in the loss of vegetation from a significant
community or habitat type
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline are impacting public recreation facilities
4.4.1 Total Available Habitat
Locations of habitats mapped in Narrows Reservoir are shown in Figure 4.4-1 (see attached CD).
The total habitat available within the upper 16 feet of Narrows Reservoir is shown in Table 4.4-1.
Mud/sand/clay was the dominant substrate present within the mapped area of the reservoir,
accounting for 78.59 % of all habitat mapped. This substrate type is of low value to aquatic biota as it
provides little in the way of cover and protection. Three wetland types covered 178.2 acres and
comprised 12.8 % of the habitat within the upper 16 feet of Narrows Reservoir. Rock substrates
(70.31 acres; 5.05 %), woody cover (33.99 acres; 2.44 %), and docks (15.53 acres; 1.12 %) accounted
for the remaining 8.61 % of mapped habitat and provided 119.83 acres of quality habitat for aquatic
biota.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 85 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
1 \ I yf ? F y., Y. ]t...
r 'La' 7 ?: 1
a a
?iy+ ? ?. + C k gy i
j,m
mw.i ?'" l ? T ?rp?lss n, f
t*J. ?SfJ'. 4 ? r !' K ? ? ffrf
r
Photo A. Heavily branched tree over cobble
and gravel.
r"+
Photo C. Stump habitat. Photo D. Christmas trees and brush piles
anchored by cinder blocks.
Figure 4.4-3. Examples of woody cover habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 86 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Photo B. Medium branched tree over cobble
and gravel.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

.. t_ z
Photo A. Mixed boulder/cobble substrate.
?
??? ?` •. Ate"
ryk ?C
Ir.?1
4 z -
W a?
Photo C. Mixed boulder cobble gravel
habitat.

Photo D. Ledge habitat.
Figure 4.4-4. Examples of rocky substrate habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 87 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Photo B. Boulder pile habitat.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A. Rip-rap habitat near a railroad Photo B. Dock habitat.
trestle.
Figure 4.4-5. Examples of rip-rap and dock habitat types mapped within Narrows Reservoir
during December 2003.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 88 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.4-1. Total habitat available (in acres and %) within the upper 16 feet of Narrows Reservoir with all woody cover, rock
substrate and wetland types combined. 1
Mud/Sand/Clay
(Default) Substrate
Rock Substrate
Woody Cover
Docks
Wetlands z
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
1,093.82 78.59% 70.31 5.05% 33.99 2.44% 15.53 1.12% 178.20 12.80%
1 The upper 16 feet of elevation comprises both the littoral zone (el 510-508') and the potential drawdown zone (el 508-494') in Narrows Reservoir.
2 Wetlands includes additional 92 acres of PEM habitat added after completion of aerial photograph analysis (See Section 4.4 for explanation).

91
a
y
y
fD
y
y
fD
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
4.4.2 Littoral Zone
This section looks at the habitat mapped within the littoral zone, or the upper two feet of elevation
within Narrows Reservoir (elevations 510 to 508). The low quality mud/sand/clay substrate is the
dominant cover type within the Narrows Reservoir littoral zone (Table 4.4-2). Wetland cover is
abundant within the littoral zone. Flood plain forest is the most abundant of the wetland habitat types,
covering 28.92 acres and comprising 14.93 % of the littoral zone. Palustrine emergent wetlands
(mainly water willow beds) are the second most abundant wetland type, covering 25.31 acres and
composing 13.06 % of the littoral zone. As mentioned in Section 4.4, an additional 92 acres of
palustrine emergent habitat was added during the ground-truthing process that took place after the
aerial photography analysis. Because this data is not available in the ArcView cover type maps, the
percentage of that acreage present in the littoral, potential drawdown and areas below the potential
drawdown could not calculated. Rock substrates within the littoral zone are dominated by boulder
(2.1 acres; 1.09%) and cobble (1.93 acres; 1.0 %). Rip-rap (0.88 acres; 0.45 %), ledge (0.83 acres;
0.43 %) and gravel (0.18 acres; 0.09 %) are present in lesser amounts in the littoral zone. Medium
branched trees (1.65 acres; 0.85%) and heavy branched trees (1.58 acres; 0.82 %) are the two
dominant forms of woody cover. Small amounts of brush, Christmas trees, and no branched trees
were found and mapped within the littoral zone. Docks covered an additional 2.19 acres of the littoral
zone, accounting for 1.13 % of the habitat present there.
A two foot change in water surface elevation in Narrows Reservoir will dewater the littoral zone and
reduce the water surface acreage from a full pond value of 5,887.3 acres to 5,695.16 acres, a loss of
192.4 acres or 3.26 % (Table 4.4-3).
4.4.3 Potential Drawdown Zone
Water levels at Narrows were dropped sixteen feet in order to evaluate the potential impacts
associated with increasing the annual drawdown at Narrows Reservoir, similar to that currently done
at High Rock Reservoir. This section looks at the habitat within this zone (between elevations 508
and 494) that would be affected if this drawdown regime was to be implemented at Narrows
Reservoir. Of note here is that the bathymetry provided assumes that there is no flow being released
from the dam on the downstream end of High Rock Reservoir. The 494' contour line stops
approximately 3,600 feet shy of the High Rock Reservoir dam, leaving an area that is suggested to be
dewatered. However, this area is not dewatered as flow is continuously moving down system from
High Rock. Of the area mapped within the potential drawdown zone in Narrows Reservoir, 87.73 %
was classified as low value mud/sand/clay habitat (Table 4.4-4). Emergent wetland habitat (mainly
water willow beds) was the second most abundant habitat type, covering 53.83 acres and accounting
for 4.08 % of the total habitat mapped. As mentioned in Section 4.4, an additional 92 acres of
palustrine emergent habitat was added during the ground-truthing process that took place after the
aerial photography analysis. Because this data is not available in the ArcView cover type maps, the
percentage of that acreage present in the littoral, potential drawdown and areas below the potential
drawdown could not calculated. Two other wetland types, flood plain forest (4.47 acres; 0.34 %) and
shrub-swamp (1.08 acres; 0.08 %) were also present within the potential drawdown zone. Rock
substrate within the potential drawdown zone was dominated by both boulder (25.43 acres; 1.93 %)
and cobble (22.94 acres; 1.74 %). Ledge (6.59 acres; 0.5 %), rip-rap (5.17 acres; 0.39 %) and gravel
(4.26 acres; 0.32 %) were also available for aquatic biota, within the potential drawdown zone.
Woody cover was dominated by medium branched trees which covered 10.42 acres and comprised
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 90 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.4-2. Percentage by type of all habitats mapped within the 2-ft littoral zone2 of Narrows
Reservoir.
Habitat Type Square Feet Acres % of Total
Palustrine Emergent 1,4 11,021,151.61 25.31 13.06%
Flood Plain Forest' 1,259,772.76 28.92 14.93%
Shrub-swamp' 38,969.60 0.90 0.46%
Docks 95,096.58 2.19 1.13%
Misc. Man-made 3 0.69 0.00 0.00%
Boulder 91,746.85 2.10 1.09%
Cobble 84,319.04 1.93 1.00%
Gravel 7,859.49 0.18 0.09%
Ledge 36,148.04 0.83 0.43%
Rip-rap 38,156.66 0.88 0.45%
Brush 45.90 0.00 0.00%
Christmas Trees 389.05 0.01 0.00%
Heavy Branched Trees 69,007.24 1.58 0.82%
Medium Branched Trees 72,312.28 1.65 0.85%
No Branched Trees 1,247.26 0.03 0.01%
Stumps 0.00 0.00 0.00%
Mud/Sand/Clay 5,541,439.77 127.22 65.67%
Total 18,357,662.81 193.72 100.00%
' These wetland habitat types were mapped from aerial photographs.
z Littoral zone represents habitat found between the 510 and 508 elevations.
3 Miscellaneous man-made includes blocks, toilets, PVC-structures, tires, etc.
4 Does not include PEM acreage added post aerial photograph analysis (See Section 4.4 for explanation).
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 91 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.4-3. Water surface area reductions within Narrows Reservoir.
Surface Acreage Reduction
At Full Pond At 2' Drawdown At 16' Drawdown Full Pond to 2' Drawdown Full Pond to 16' Drawdown
Narrows Reservoir (El 510') (El 508') El (494') Acres % Acres 1 %
5,887.30 5,695.16 4,382.46 192.14 3.26% 1,504.84 25.56%
' Area that would be dewatered if a 16' drawdown was implemented at Narrows Reservoir.
N
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.4-4. Percentage by type of all habitats mapped within the potential drawdown zone2 of
Narrows Reservoir.
Habitat Type Square Feet Acres % of Total
Palustrine Emergent 1,4 2,344,986.24 53.83 4.08%
Flood Plain Forest' 194,834.31 4.47 0.34%
Shrub-swamp' 47,144.42 1.08 0.08%
Docks 580,620.84 13.34 1.01%
Misc. Man-made s 3,172.07 0.07 0.01%
Boulder 1,107,651.24 25.43 1.93%
Cobble 999,350.46 22.94 1.74%
Gravel 185,445.83 4.26 0.32%
Ledge 287,138.41 6.59 0.50%
Rip-rap 225,363.12 5.17 0.39%
Brush 10,949.33 0.25 0.02%
Christmas Trees 6,204.21 0.15 0.01%
Heavy Branched Trees 378,087.58 8.70 0.66%
Medium Branched Trees 454,095.61 10.42 0.79%
No Branched Trees 8,053.65 0.18 0.01%
Stumps 216,958.12 4.98 0.38%
Mud/Sand/Clay 52, 923,757.67 1,157.51 87.73%
Total 59,973,813.11 1,319.37 100.00%
' These wetland habitat types were mapped from aerial photographs.
z Drawdown zone represents habitat found between the 508 and 494 elevations.
3 Miscellaneous man-made includes blocks, toilets, PVC-structures, tires, etc.
4 Does not include PEM acreage added post aerial photograph analysis (See Section 4.4 for explanation).
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 93 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
0.79 % of the available habitat. Heavy branched trees (8.7 acres; 0.66 %) and stumps (4.98 acres;
0.38 %) were also abundant within the potential drawdown zone. Lesser amounts of brush (0.25
acres; 0.02 %), no branched trees (0.18 acres; 0.01 %) and Christmas trees (0.15 acres; 0.01 %) were
also present within the potential drawdown zone. An additional 13.34 acres of the potential
drawdown zone was covered by docks. These accounted for 1.01 % of the total habitat between the
508 and 494 foot elevations.
An annual drawdown in Narrows reservoir, similar to that done at High Rock, would reduce the water
surface acreage from a full pond value of 5,887.3 acres to 4,382.46 acres, a loss of 1,504.84 acres or
25.56 % (Table 4.4-3).
4.4.4 Additional Mapped Habitat
Where suitable conditions existed, biologists mapped habitats as far into the water as possible below
the base of the potential drawdown zone (< el. 494) (Table 4.4-5). This provided an additional 24.42
acres of high quality habitat within Narrows Reservoir. Of this additional habitat, 82.7 % was
comprised of rock substrates. Rip-rap covered 7.73 acres and accounted for 31.7 % of the additional
habitat. Ledge (5.47 acres; 22.3 %), cobble (3.87 acres; 15.8 %) and boulder (3.02 acres; 12.4 %)
substrates were also present in the area below the potential drawdown zone. Medium branched trees
were the dominant woody cover type, accounting for 9.3 % of the habitat and covering 2.26 acres.
Stumps (1.37 acres; 5.6 %) and heavy branched trees (0.27 acres; 1.1 %) also comprised a significant
portion of the woody cover present. Lesser amounts of Christmas trees and no branched trees were
also mapped. Wetland habitat mapped below the potential drawdown zone was limited. Only 0.2
acres (0.8 % of total habitat) of palustrine emergent, flood plain forest, and shrub-swamp habitats
were found in areas below the potential drawdown zone. As mentioned in Section 4.4, an additional
92 acres of palustrine emergent habitat was added during the ground-truthing process that took place
after the aerial photography analysis. Because this data is not available in the ArcView cover type
maps, the percentage of that acreage present in the littoral, potential drawdown and areas below the
potential drawdown could not calculated. An additional 0.27 acres of docks, accounting for 1.1% of
the total habitat mapped below the drawdown zone, were also present.
4.4.5 Erosion
There were 33 sites, varying in length from 53 to 792 feet, which showed signs of erosion in Narrows
Reservoir (Figure 4.4-6). These sites covered a total of 2.15 miles of shoreline (Table 4.4-6). This
represents 2.2 % of the total shoreline in Narrows Reservoir. A total area of 0.92 acres is eroded
between the 33 sites mapped.
4.5 FALLS RESERVOIR
Falls Reservoir is a small, narrow impoundment that covers 204 acres at full pool. The reservoir is
located on the Yadkin River approximately one mile above its confluence with the Uhwarrie River,
forming the Pee Dee River. Maximum depth is 52 ft and mean depth is 27 ft. Falls Reservoir has a
comparatively straight, steep shoreline with only one moderately sized, flooded tributary arm. Daily
water level fluctuations due to the run-of-river operation mode normally range 0-2 ft, with a
maximum fluctuation up to 4 ft. No seasonal drawdowns occur due to limited storage capacity. The
Falls Reservoir (Figure 4.5-1) habitat field survey ran from July 28 to 29, 2004. Falls Reservoir's
maximum full pond elevation is 332.8 feet. Seasonal fluctuations in water level average in range
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 94 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 4.4-5. Amount of habitat mapped in Narrows Reservoir within the littoral zone (el. 510 to 508 ft), the possible drawdown zone (el.
508 to 494 ft), and the area below the possible drawdown zone (el. <494 ft).
v,
Available Habitat
Elevation
Littoral Zone
(El. 510 - 508 ft) Possible Drawdown Zone
(El. 508 - 494 ft) Habitat Extending Below
Drawdown (<494 ft)
Habitat Type S q. Feet Acres S q. Feet Acres S q. Feet Acres
Palustrine Emergent 1,102,151.61 25.31 2,344,986.24 53.83 2,447.57 0.06
Flood Plain Forest' 1,259,772.76 28.92 194,834.31 4.47 1,490.59 0.03
Shrub-swamp' 38,969.60 0.90 47,144.42 1.08 4,714.59 0.11
Docks 95,096.58 2.19 580,620.84 13.34 11,764.06 0.27
Misc. Man-made z 0.69 0.00 3,172.07 0.07 0.00 0.00
Boulder 91,746.85 2.10 1,107,651.24 25.43 131,635.70 3.02
Cobble 84,319.04 1.93 999,350.46 22.94 168,726.55 3.87
Gravel 7,859.49 0.18 185,445.83 4.26 4,349.62 0.10
Ledge 36,148.04 0.83 287,138.41 6.59 238,128.52 5.47
Rip-rap 38,156.66 0.88 225,363.12 5.17 336,731.94 7.73
Brush 45.90 0.00 10,949.33 0.25 35.57 0.00
Christmas Trees 389.05 0.01 6,204.21 0.15 1,774.41 0.04
Heavy Branched Trees 69,007.24 1.58 378,087.58 8.70 12,004.58 0.27
Medium Branched Trees 72,312.28 1.65 454,095.61 10.42 98,507.62 2.26
No Branched Trees 1,247.26 0.03 8,053.65 0.18 922.09 0.02
Stumps 0.00 0.00 216,958.12 4.98 59,770.38 1.37
Mud/San d/Cla 5,541,439.77 127.22 52,923,757.67 1157.51 --- ---
Sum 6,037,768.84 138.60 57,386,848.13 1259.98 1064351.05 24.42
' These wetland habitat types were mapped from aerial photographs.
z Miscellaneous man-made includes blocks, toilets, PVC-structures, tires, etc.
3 Does not include PEM acreage added post aerial photograph analysis (See Section 4.4 for explanation).
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
a.
e
J?
l

5
? k
+
x F1?

S 1Xr?(S y ;3+ ire c qx ,e.. _ t ';,G
I

Photo B: Bank Erosion
Figure 4.4-6 Examples of erosion mapped within Narrows Reservoir during December 2003.
Table 4.4-6. Amount of erosion mapped within Narrows Reservoir.
Narrows Reservoir Erosion
Length of eroded shore (ft.) 11,368.31
Length of eroded shore (miles) 2.15
Area of eroded shore (sq. ft.) 40,220.29
Area of eroded shore (acres) 0.92
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 96 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Photo A: Bank Erosion
Photo C: Bank Erosion
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

..?"? q 9 1

Y k y? F
I "A(
6 r,

p,? 3".t ? a r l
4
?
s e ,?
,
I
_?+x?,
+ryw ?
x & 'i

r3 F .Y
W°Y1:
f
r
. ,

!
? ,ti?
? bsAy `
1
;" ,
w 4rfk
%. 2 i?
{
4
l u
;

.r.
16
'

''sir d ti ' A+

a

Habitat
Aquatic regeMw
Boulder
M Brush
- COble
H -`7 U-M tree
Madium b-dwd 1r
No dandmd tree.
M Ledge
- R.? rap
sl .ips
- DocAs
Wetland Habitat
PEM
PF01k
P551
P59P
Other
f ? j E.-
Elevation
Elevation 564
0 0.1 02 Miles
N-- -J.. Associates
Ernim -Wl Ca IWnls
25 Nashua Road
Bedfrad New H-p5hire 03110.5$00
lfxl`id J>.i, Vt.

n^ i ' Y wr.
41
5? S-1
JR,
s10 r
'e llI"l' l-I A?4 i h {
?'lla ritat located within Falls Re%crcnir
H,
Figure 4.5-1. Habitat located within Falls Reservoir.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 97 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
from 0-2 feet (Figure 4.5-2). Water surface elevations during the field effort ranged from 330.3 to
330.7 with an average elevation of 330.5 ft. The 2-foot drawdown assisted the field effort in that
biologists were able to map habitat not only within the littoral zone but also habitats that visibly
extended into the reservoir.
334
333
H
LL
332
C
331
Cu
Lu
330
329
328
FULL POND
------- --- --- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
i?'^'"?mM?"?M?, Ti yl`w?"'^IMniNw?s.IWM? N ?r ?A.
9 ? ?^ 1? ? y I
Jan I Feb I Mar I Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov I Dec
Minimum Daily Value
Mean Daily Value
Maximum Daily Value
Figure 4.5-2. Minimum, Mean and Maximum Daily Water Elevations in the Falls Reservoir
for the Period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003.
Falls Habitat Type Descriptions
Significant habitat types important to aquatic biota that were mapped during this study included:
1. aquatic vegetation
2. trees and woody debris (brush, fallen trees, stumps)
3. rock substrates (boulder, cobble)
4. mud/sand/clay
Aquatic Vegetation
Aquatic vegetation beds found during the July 2004 habitat survey were mapped. Figure 4.5-3 shows
examples of the aquatic vegetation mapped by NAI biologists. In addition to data collected during
the survey, additional wetland habitats were added through the analysis of overflight pictures taken
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 98 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Photo A: Aquatic Vegetation
Figure 4.5-3. Example of aquatic vegetation mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004.
during July and August of 2003. After habitat types were mapped out on the collected photographs,
biologists in the field were used to verify the wetland habitat types that were present. Wetlands
information collected through both methods is presented in this report. Three major wetland types of
importance to aquatic biota within Falls Reservoir were identified through the analysis of overflight
photographs.
1. Palustrine Emergent: (PEM) Consisted mainly of water willow beds
2. Flood Plain Forest: (PFO1/c) Species composition within this wetland type can be very
diverse. However, where this community type is present, black willow is the dominant tree
species. This habitat type is typically flooded only during high water events.
3. Shrub-Swamp: (PSS1) Shrub-swamp habitat in Falls is dominated by loosely bunched
stands of black willow, buttonbush and sycamore seedlings.
Woody Cover
Woody cover found within the littoral zone was split into several categories and mapped during the
study. Naturally falling and intentionally cut trees (lap trees) lying within the littoral zone were
mapped. These downed trees were further categorized based on the size and amount of branches
remaining on the tree. They were classified as heavy branching, medium branching or no branching.
Other types of woody cover located and mapped in the littoral zone included stumps and brush piles
(Figure 4.5-4).
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 99 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

F =?
Photo A: Medium branched tree
Photo B: Medium branched tree
IRV.
f ^ r \
• j`am' _ ? _y - .r - ? _- +Photo C: No branched tree
Figure 4.5-4. Examples of woody cover types mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004.
Substrate
All substrate types located within the littoral zone were delineated and mapped during the field
survey. These included boulder and cobble (Figure 4.5-5). Substrate that did not provide good
habitat for aquatic biota, such as heavily embedded gravel, was not measured and was included in the
default (mud/sand/clay) substrate category. All habitats that were not mapped due to their not
providing decent habitat for aquatic biota were put into the default category.
Erosion
Areas of significant erosion were mapped during the field effort. "Significant erosion" was defined in
the final study scope as areas that are observed to have active and ongoing erosion and observable
impacts to important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Such areas included but were not necessarily
limited to:
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 100 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment

Photo A: Boulder

-A.
Photo B: Cobble and boulder
Figure 4.5-5. Examples of rock substrate mapped in Falls Reservoir, July 2004.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 101 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are noticeably
affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
Areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in the loss of vegetation from a significant
community or habitat type
¦ Areas where eroding shoreline are impacting public recreation facilities
4.5.1 Mapped Available Habitat
This section presents all habitats mapped at elevations lower then 331.0 feet. Within the Falls
Reservoir shapefile, the 331.0 foot contour line was the closest available to the full pond value of
332.8 ft. The two-foot drawdown allowed for the field crew to map all habitat types providing quality
cover for aquatic biota found within and just below the littoral zone.
Locations of habitats mapped in Falls Reservoir are shown in Figure 4.5-1 (see attached CD). The
total area of mud/sand/clay within the 2 foot littoral zone band could not be calculated. No
bathymetry was available below the full pond contour of 331.0'. Without the bathymetry below the
full pond mark, the percentage of mapped high quality habitats that lay within or below the low mark
of the littoral zone could not be determined.
NAI biologists mapped 5.75 acres of habitat that was considered to be of high quality to aquatic biota
(Table 4.5-1). Wetland habitat types accounted for over 60 % of the 5.75 acres of quality habitat
mapped in the Falls Reservoir littoral zone (Table 4.5-2). Palustrine emergent vegetation, consisting
mainly of water willow, covered 1.99 acres of the littoral zone and accounted for 34.66 % of the total
quality habitat mapped. This wetland type was one of three that were mapped by the use of aerial
photographs. Flood plain forest (0.05 acres; 0.83 %) and shrub-swamp (0.17 acres; 2.87 %) were the
two other habitat types to be mapped from aerial photographs. The remainder of the aquatic
vegetation was mapped by the field crew during July. These areas combined to cover 1.49 acres and
account for 25.97 % of the habitat mapped. Rock substrate was present in the form of boulders and
cobble. Boulders were the more abundant of the two, covering 1.05 acres of the littoral zone and
comprising 18.21 % of the habitat mapped. Smaller amounts of cobble (0.21 acres; 3.6 %) were
present in areas of the littoral zone. Medium branched trees were the dominant form of woody cover
within the Falls Reservoir littoral zone. They covered 0.79 acres and accounted for 13.76 % of the
quality habitat. Small amounts of stumps (0.01 acres; 0.09 %) and no branched trees (0.003 acres;
0.05 %) were also found in Falls Reservoir.
4.5.2 Erosion
No areas of "significant erosion" were identified in Falls Reservoir during the July 2004 habitat
survey.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 102 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 4.5-1. Total amount of all habitat types mapped in Falls Reservoir, below the full pond
USGS elevation of 334'.
Falls Reservoir
Available Habitat mapped below full pond 1
Type Square Feet Acres
Aquatic Vegetation2 65,055.86 1.49
Palustrine emergent s 86,684.10 1.99
Flood plain forests 2,177.99 0.05
Shrub-swamps 7,405.17 0.17
Boulder 45,579.41 1.05
Cobble 9,028.30 0.21
Medium branched trees 34,428.00 0.79
No branched trees 118.11 0.00
Stumps 217.01 0.01
Sum 250,693.95 5.75
1 Full pond elevation is equal to USGS 334.0'.
z Aquatic vegetation in this category was mapped by field crew using the laser rangefinder and DGPS.
3 These wetland types were mapped through the use of aerial photographs.
Table 4.5-2. Habitat type by percentage of total mapped acreage in Falls Reservoir, below the
full pond USGS elevation of 334'.
Falls Reservoir
Habitat
below full
Type Acres % of Total 4
Aquatic Vegetation z 1.49 25.97%
Palustrine emergent s 1.99 34.66%
Flood plain forests 0.05 0.83%
Shrub-swamps 0.17 2.87%
Boulder 1.05 18.21%
Cobble 0.21 3.60%
Medium branched trees 0.79 13.76%
No branched trees 0.00 0.05%
Stumps 0.01 0.09%
Sum 5.75 100.00%
1 Full pond elevation is equal to USGS 334.0'.
z Aquatic vegetation in this category was mapped by field crew using the laser rangefinder and DGPS.
3 These wetland types were mapped through the use of aerial photographs.
4 Percentages presented are of the quality habitat types mapped within the littoral zone only. Does not include areas
classified as low quality habitat (mud/sand/clay).
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 103 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
5.0 IMPACTS OF YADKIN RESERVOIR OPERATIONS ON AQUATIC BIOTA
AND HABITAT IN THE FOUR IMPOUNDMENTS
5.1 HIGH ROCK RESERVOIR
5.1.1 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Aquatic Biota and Habitat in High Rock
Project operations at High Rock that have the greatest impact on aquatic biota and habitat are the
fluctuating water levels and seasonal drawdowns. Ecological changes associated with fluctuations in
reservoir water levels can generally be divided into three categories - effects on fish habitat, effects
on supporting trophic levels and the effects on fish populations, such as reproduction and behavior
(Culver et al 1980). The shallow littoral zone is the most important area of a reservoir from the
standpoint of aquatic biota (fish, aquatic insects, etc) and higher aquatic plants. The littoral zone is
where most fish spawn, where their young find food and cover and where the larger predators
frequent for feeding opportunities. Before analyzing the impacts of operations on aquatic biota and
habitat, this section first presents data on High Rock Reservoir's current hydrologic regime, water
quality and fish populations.
5.1.2 Existing Hydrologic Regime in High Rock
High Rock Reservoir is the largest of the four Yadkin Project impoundments, and covers 15,180 acres
with a maximum and mean depth of 62 ft and 17 ft, respectively. High Rock features five major
flooded tributary arms, several smaller ones, and a lengthy convoluted shoreline (411.3 miles). Its
large size enables High Rock Reservoir to serve as the main storage and water regulation reservoir for
the Yadkin-Pee Dee system downstream. The High Rock Development is operated in a store-and-
release mode. Normal daily fluctuation in water surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft,
with a daily maximum of 2 to 4 ft (Yadkin ICD 2002). High Rock is drawn down seasonally and the
average winter drawdown at the reservoir is about 12 ft. The maximum annual drawdown typically
occurs in late winter.
Daily water levels in the High Rock reservoir over the 18-year period of record used for this study are
plotted in Figure 4.2-1. Full-pond elevations have occurred during all months of the year, though
more frequently during spring. Water levels in the reservoir were generally highest during the spring
and declined as summer progressed, with the lowest daily values observed in July and August. Out of
the four reservoirs in the Yadkin system, High Rock exhibited the greatest range in elevation on an
annual basis (Table 5-1). On the shorter time scales, however, elevations varied to a similar or lesser
extent than in the other reservoirs, and declined to zero at the weekly and daily time scales.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 104 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 5-1. Summary of Water Elevation (FT) Statistics in the Yadkin Reservoirs Based on Daily Data (1986-2003)' and Hourly Data
(1997-2003)e. Elevations Referenced to the USGS Datum.
0
v,
Occurred more than once during period of record.
Occurred multiple times between 24 April and 4 May 1997, 28-31 January 1998, 5-7 February 1998, 10-13 March 1998, 18-25 April 1998, 8-12 May 1998, and on
several dates in March, April, July, August and September of 2003
RESERVOIR AND NORMAL FULL POND ELEVATION
Time Scale High Ro ck (623.9 FT) Tuckertown (564.7 FT) Narrows (509.8 FT) Falls (332.8 FT)
Statistic Date(s) Statistic Date(s) Statistic Date(s) Statistic Date(s)
Annual Range'
Minimum 8.83 1990 1.60 1988 2.19 1989 2.60 1994
Mean 13.49 2.42 4.09 5.90
Maximum 23.62 2002 3.30 2000 11.92 2002 17.83 1998
Monthly Range'
Minimum 0.88 Jun-99 0.25 * 0.30 Feb-98 0.57 Jul-87
Mean 4.38 1.22 1.50 2.01
Maximum 15.66 Feb-89 2.90 Mar-91 8.07 Oct-95 17.67 Mar-98
Monthly Elevation'
Minimum 599.86 Jul-02 561.38 Jul-00 497.82 Aug-02 314.80
Mean 618.87 563.75 508.23 331.47
Maximum 623.90 * 564.70 * 510.30 Oct-90 332.80
Weekly Range'
Minimum 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00
Mean 1.62 0.60 0.59 1.13
Maximum 10.35 29-31 Dec-96 2.90 3-9 Mar-91 8.07 1-7 Oct-95 17.51 1-7 Mar-98
Weekly Elevation'
Minimum 599.86 14-20 Jul-02 561.38 2-8 Jul-00 497.82 25-31 Aug-02 314.80
Mean 618.84 563.75 508.22 331.47
Maximum 623.90 * 564.70 * 510.30 14-20 Oct-90 332.80
Daily Rangeb
Minimum 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00 * 0.00
Mean 0.38 0.32 0.20 1.09
Maximum 4.02 15 Feb-97 2.68 14 Jun-00 1.60 21Mar-03 17.51 6 Mar-98
Daily Elevationb
Minimum 599.82 20 Jul-02 561.38 8-9 Jul-00 497.71 31 Aug-02 314.80
Mean 618.28 563.70 508.22 331.54
Maximum 623.90 ** 564.77 10 Jan-00 509.91 29 Aug-02 332.90 20 Mar-03
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
5.1.3 High Rock Water Quality
This section provides a brief review of High Rock Reservoir water quality, however, a more detailed
assessment of reservoir water quality is in Normandeau's separate report on water quality at the
Yadkin Project (NAI 2005b). High Rock Reservoir is classified as a eutrophic system with a
hydraulic retention time that ranges from 3 to 30 days, depending on river flows and dam release
schedules (NCDWQ 1998). The reservoir is very turbid with large concentrations of suspended
sediments and poor water clarity which causes a shallow photic zone. The average Secchi depth
reading in High Rock Reservoir is about a half meter, which means that light penetration and algal
productivity is generally limited to the top one meter (- 3 ft). Because it is the furthest upstream of
the four developments, High Rock receives the heaviest load of sediment from the Yadkin River and
other tributaries that flow into it, compared to the other three reservoirs. The heavy sediment load
carries greater concentrations of nutrients, including high concentrations of phosphorus and total
nitrogen that can support nuisance algae blooms. The availability of nutrients in High Rock has
created a large standing crop of algae, as indicated by the high chlorophyll a concentrations, a
surrogate measure for algal biomass.
The large standing crop of algae and the shallow photic zone tend to produce near-saturated to
supersaturated oxygen levels in the photic zone, but as the micro-organisms settle into the underlying
water, respiration and decomposition quickly deplete oxygen concentrations, creating anoxic
conditions. This oxygen depletion in High Rock occurs during the warmer months and extends from
the reservoir bottom up to the lower limit of the photic zone. In a typical year, lower dissolved
oxygen levels first appear around May and extend through October or November.
5.1.4 Existing Management and Fisheries Data for High Rock
NAI sampled fish in the tailwaters of High Rock, Tuckertown, Narrows, and Falls during 2003-2004
and the results of that effort are presented in a companion report entitled Yadkin Tailwater Fish and
Aquatic Biota Assessment (NAI 2005a). NAI did not sample for fish in High Rock Reservoir during
the 2003 and 2004 field seasons. However, High Rock and the other three Project reservoirs have
been sampled for fish species recently by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) biologists and by consultants retained by Yadkin. Most of the sampling conducted by
NCWRC has focused on selected game fish, such as crappie (Dorsey 2000; Nelson and Dorsey 2005)
and largemouth bass (Dorsey 2001; Dorsey 2002). Reconnaissance-level fish sampling was
conducted on the four reservoirs by Dames and Moore (D&M) in 1996 and 1997 for use in
developing Yadkin's Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). Additionally, Carolina Power & Light
(CP&L) biologists under contract to Yadkin conducted an intensive year-long electrofishing and gill
net survey on the four reservoirs in 2000. During the effort, CP&L also collected fish scales from
three species, blueback herring, striped bass, and white bass for age and growth analyses. Table 5-2
presents a cumulative species list for all four reservoirs compiled from NAI, NCWRC, and CP&L
work within the project reservoirs. The combined total from these studies represents 51 species and 3
hybrids found within the four project reservoirs.
High Rock Reservoir is actively managed by the NCWRC as a warm water fishery. Major sport
fisheries exist for largemouth bass, black and white crappie, striped bass, and several species of
catfish. The NCWRC currently regulates game species through a combination of size and creel
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 106 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 5-2. Compiled species list for all four project reservoirs
Scientific Name Common Name High Rock Tuckertown Narrows Falls
Alosa aestivalis Blueback Herring C B,C B,C
Alosa pseudoharengus Alewife B
Ameiurus melas Black bullhead A B
Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead A,B A,B A,B
Amia calva Bowfin A,B C
Aphredoderus sayanus Pirate perch
Carassius auratus Goldfish A,B C B
Carpiodes carpio River Carpsucker B B B
Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback A,B A,B,C A,C
Catostomus commersoni White sucker A A
Cyprinus carpio Common carp A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Cyprinella analostana Satinfin shiner B,C C C
Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Erimyzon oblongus Creek chubsucker A,B A,B,C A,B,C
Esox americanus Redfin pickerel A
Esox niger Chain pickerel A
Etheostoma nigrum Johnny Darter B
Etheostoma olmstedi Tesselated darter C
Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish B A,B B
Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow C
Ictalurus brunneus Snail bullhead B C
Ictalurus cams White catfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Ictalurus furcatus Blue catfish B,C B,C B,C
Ictalurus natalis Yellow bullhead A,B
Ictalurus platycephalus Flat bullhead A B B C
Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Ictiobus bubalus Smallmouth buffalo A C A B,C
Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar A,B B,C A,B,C C
Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed A,B B,C A,B,C B
Lepomis gulosus Warmouth A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker B
Morone americana White perch A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Morone chrysops White bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C C
Moronesaxatilis Striped bass A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Moxostoma anisurum Silver redhorse A B,C A,C C
Moxostoma macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorse B B,C A,B,C B,C
Moxostoma pappillosum V-lip redhorse A A A
Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead chub B
Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner A,B B A,B,C B,C
Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner C
Perca flavescens Yellow perch A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Pomoxis annularis White crappie A,B B,C A,B,C B,C
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie A,B A,B,C A,B,C B,C
Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish A,B A,B,C B,C B,C
Scartomyzon spp. Brassy jumprock A
Striped bass x White bass B B,C B,C
Carp x Goldfish B
Sunfish Hybrid B B
A - Source = NCWRC Surveys (taken from Fisheries and Wildlife Management Plan for the Yadkin-PeeDee River Basin (NCWRC 2004))
B - Source = Carolina Power and Light 2000 Survey
C - Source = Normandeau Associates Inc. 2003/2004 Tailwater Surveys
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 107 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
restrictions. Table 5-3 shows the historic stocking records from the NCWRC for the project
reservoirs. Striped bass fingerlings are stocked into High Rock at a rate of 5 per acre, or about 79,000
fish per year. The number of striped bass fingerlings stocked into the reservoir was doubled in 2003
to compensate for potential losses incurred during the severe drought in 2002.
Table 5-4 shows historic sampling efforts of the NCWRC within three of the four project reservoirs.
Summarized past studies indicate that High Rock Reservoir is supporting at least 36 species of game
and non-game fish species and two hybrids, representing all trophic levels (Table 5-3). In 2000,
Carolina Power and Light (CP&L) conducted a baseline fisheries study on High Rock Reservoir and
captured 28 fish species and two hybrids in the reservoir using gill nets and a boat electrofishing unit.
Data collected during this study can be found in Appendix 2, Table 2-1. Gizzard shad, bluegill,
threadfin shad, largemouth bass and black crappie comprised the five most abundant species captured
by electrofishing, making up 84% of the total catch. Threadfin shad, white perch, channel catfish,
black crappie and gizzard shad were the five species most commonly captured in gill nets, and these
five species made-up 91% of the total gill net catch. Gizzard shad and threadfin shad had the highest
CPUE's for electrofishing whereas threadfin shad and white perch had the highest gillnet CPUE.
CP&L conducted age and growth analysis on 41 striped bass and 24 white bass captured within High
Rock Reservoir and the results of this analysis can be found in Appendix 2 (Tables 2-2 & 2-3). High
Rock striped bass ranged in age from 1 to 8 years and the white bass ranged in age from 1 to 5 years.
The NCWRC examined the health and status of the crappie populations in High Rock during 2000
(Dorsey 2000a). A total of 924 black crappie and 160 white crappie were captured by trap net and
examined during this study. Relative weight scores averaged 94 for black crappie and 89 for white
crappie, which is close to the ideal relative weight range of 95 to 100 reported in the literature. The
mean total length for black crappie was 214 mm and of those collected, 57% were greater then the
203 mm minimum size limit. Additionally, 84% of white crappie collected were bigger than the
minimum limit. Length at age calculations indicated that both species reached harvestable size in 1.5
years. With good catch rates, growth rates, and a large percentage of the populations at or over the
minimum size, the black and white crappie populations within High Rock were in good condition in
2000.
A follow up survey to assess population characteristics in the High Rock crappie populations was
conducted in 2003, following the severe drought conditions observed in 2002 (Nelson & Dorsey
2005). A total of 328 black crappies and 92 white crappies were captured by trapnet and examined.
Differences between the 2000 and 2003 crappie populations were observed. The percentage of fish
greater than the 203 mm minimum size limit was lower in both black (12%) and white crappie (37%)
during the 2003 sampling, indicating a loss of larger individuals in the population that may have been
caused by the severe drought. The average relative weight score for black crappie was 98, a slight
increase from the average value (94) reported for 2000, indicating the remaining fish did not have a
problem securing enough food. Mean total length for black crappie captured in 2003 (186 mm) was
lower than the 2000 average. The average relative weight for white crappie decreased to 83 from the
89 value reported in 2000, suggesting a problem securing enough food. Similar to 2000 findings,
length at age calculations indicated that both species are reaching harvestable size in 1.5 to 2 years.
Largemouth bass length and weight data collected by the NCWRC in High Rock during 1999, 2001
and 2003, was used to calculate relative weight, total length and CPUE values. Calculated relative
weight values for largemouth bass were 100 (1999), 98 (2001), and 101 (2003) and were within or
just above the recommended ideal range of 95 to 100 reported for this fish. These relative weight
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 108 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 5-3. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Stocking Records for High Rock,
Tuckertown, Narrows, Falls and Tillery Reservoirs
Waterbod Species Years Stocked
High Rock Reservoir Bluegill 1950,51,55,57-60
Crappie 1941
Largemouth bass 1949-59,61,62
Smallmouth bass 1966,67
Striped bass 1959-61,63,65-67,69,70,75,77-79,81-87,90,92-95,98-03
Threadfin shad 1961,63,65
Walleye 1950,54
White bass 1954
Tuckertown Reservoir Striped bass 1977-79,81-85,87-90,92-95,98-03
Narrows (Badin) Reservoir Bluegill 1949-51,58,60
Largemouth bass 1949-53,55-58,61,82
Striped bass 1971,72,75,77-79,81-87,89,91,93-03
Walleye 1954
White bass 1954
Falls Reservoir Bluegill 1958,60
Largemouth bass 1953,58,60
Lake Tillery Bluegill 1949-51,60,63
Largemouth bass 1949-53,55-58,61
Northern pike 1958,61
Sauger 1963
Striped bass 1965,66,75,78,79,81-87,90,92,93-95,97-03
*From Fisheries and Wildlife Management Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (NCWRC 2004)
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 109 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Table 5-4. Fisheries sampling efforts conducted on impoundments within the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River Basin, by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (1972 -
2001).

Reservoir
Years Data Collected
Source Gear Type
CR EF GN TP
CS
High Rock 1992 NCWRC x
1999 NCWRC x
2000 NCWRC x
2001 NCWRC x
Tuckertown 1977 NCWRC x
1987-89 NCWRC x
1988 NCWRC x
1988-90 NCWRC x
1993 NCWRC x
1994 NCWRC x
1995 NCWRC x
1998 NCWRC x
1998 NCWRC x
Narrows 1972-73,80-81 NCWRC x
1972-73,80,82,84 NCWRC x
1980 NCWRC x
1982 NCWRC x
1983-84, 90, 95 NCWRC x
1987-89 NCWRC x
1989, 93-95, 98 NCWRC x
1990 NCWRC x
1990,95 NCWRC x
1990,96-97 NCWRC x
1998 NCWRC x
2000 NCWRC x
2001 NCWRC x
Tillery 1989-90,99 NCWRC x
1997 NCWRC x
CR = Cove rotenone
EF = Electrofishing
GN = Gill net
TP = Trap net
CS = Creel survey
* From Fisheries and Wildlife Management Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (NCWRC 2004
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 110 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
values were consistent over the 5 year period that encompassed the severe drought. The average total
length of largemouth bass in High Rock reservoir shows an upward trend. Prior to the drought
(1999), mean total length was 335 mm, compared to 344 mm during the drought (2001) and 390 mm
during the post-drought (2003). It appears as if some of the smaller individuals were lost during the
low water period, perhaps due to the increased predation associated with the lower water levels.
Average largemouth bass CPUE for the three years of sampling were 51 (1999), 78 (2001), and 44
(2003). The high CPUE value for 2001 could be associated with a large number of fish being forced
into a smaller area of water due to the drought conditions.
5.1.5 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Habitat in High Rock
Fluctuating water levels have the greatest impact on aquatic habitat found in High Rock Reservoir.
Impacts from the drawdown include exposing high quality habitat types such as wetlands, rock
substrate, woody cover and docks. Portions of these high quality habitat types cannot be used by
aquatic biota for up to 8 months a year due to the current annual drawdown regime. Additionally, the
sediment exposed during the drawdown is subject to desiccation and in the winter, freezing. These
processes may reduce aquatic plant stands that would provide cover and food for various aquatic biota
and increase sediment loading during large storm events (NAI 2005c).
As discussed earlier in section 4.2 of this report, within the average 12 ft drawdown zone of High
Rock Reservoir, poor quality mud and sand accounted for 80.6 % (4,637 acres) of the total habitat.
The remaining 19.4% of habitat exposed at a 12 ft drawdown was classified as high quality and of
this, four wetland habitat types accounted for 17.6 % (1,013 acres). The wetland habitat types
mapped included palustrine emergent (<1%), flood plain forest (8%), shrub-swamp (1.2%) and sparse
shrub-swamp (8.3%). The remaining 101 acres (1.8%) of high quality habitat mapped in High
Rock's drawdown zone included rock substrate (0.58%) woody cover (0.65%) and docks (0.52%).
An additional 747 acres of wetland habitat types were mapped in the lower Yadkin River area that
were not included in the 1,013 acres of wetlands reported above (see Section 4.3.1 and Figure 4-3).
The lower Yadkin River section of the reservoir was above elevation 612 or the 12 ft drawdown mark
(full pool is el. 624) and because of incomplete bathymetry in some areas, this reach was treated
separately. This section of the reservoir is mostly riverine in nature, and unlike most of the main body
and tributary arms of High Rock Reservoir, the effects of the planned 17 ft drawdown during the
winter of 2004 were minimal. The majority of this area remained at or near full bank during the
drawdown. A narrow bend in the river upstream of the I-85 Bridge coupled with a rapid rise in
bottom elevations in this area act as a natural hydraulic control. During periods of high inflow, this
hydraulic control helps maintain the river at or near full bank even during periods of lower water
elevations in the lower portion of the reservoir. Inflow to High Rock Reservoir during the planned
drawdown period was approximately 4,000 cfs and this was enough to keep water elevations within 2
ft of full bank in this reach.
Wetland habitat types mapped in the 12-foot drawdown zone of High Rock reservoir (not including
the lower Yadkin River area mentioned above) are the dominant high quality habitat type, making up
91% of the high quality habitat present. The vast majority of these wetland habitats are located
within the upper six ft of the reservoir and in most areas of High Rock (excluding the upper reservoir
area) they are unavailable to aquatic biota for approximately 8 months a year (see Figure 4-1). Flood
plain forest represents nearly 46% (462.3 acres) of the wetlands mapped in High Rocks drawdown
zone, but it should be noted that this habitat type is typically only inundated when the reservoir is at
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 111 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
or very near full pool. Most of the flood plain forest habitat type is found in the upper reservoir,
especially on the shallow delta areas located in the upper Main Reservoir area and in the upper
regions of the major tributary arms.
The most extensive areas of wetland habitats found in High Rock are located in the lower Yadkin
River and confluence area (747 acres), where the Yadkin River enters the reservoir and the upper
Main Reservoir section (627 acres), located just downstream (see Sections 4.3.1 & 4.3.2). The lower
Yadkin River and confluence area is very important to the aquatic biota in High Rock because it
resists dewatering when inflows are low, even when the reservoir water levels are below full pond.
5.1.6 Impacts of Current Project Operation on Aquatic Biota in High Rock
Impacts to the existing fish community and aquatic habitats from Project operations on High Rock
Reservoir do result from fluctuations in water level. Because High Rock is operated as a store-and-
release reservoir, water levels in the reservoir are highest during the spring season and decline as
summer progresses. During the 18-year period (1986-2003), High Rock reservoir reached its
maximum mean water surface elevation during the first week of May (Figure 4.2-1). After peaking
during early May, the mean daily elevation value tends to decrease as the summer progresses. Later
in the fall, a more dramatic decline in reservoir water levels occurs as APGI commences its winter
drawdown cycle at High Rock. Daily fluctuations in water elevations can also impact aquatic biota in
High Rock Reservoir but the impacts are minor compared to the more significant seasonal
drawdowns. Daily fluctuations in High Rock are usually less than one foot with maximum daily
values of one to four feet. However, daily fluctuations during the spawning season (April and May)
are rare because the reservoir is being refilled at this time. In addition, in cooperation with NCWRC,
in recent years, APGI has voluntarily operated High Rock reservoir during the spring spawning
period (typically mid-April through mid-May) to try to maintain water levels in the reservoir at or
above the level that occurred at the commencement of the spring spawning season.
Table 5-5 presents the spawning times for fish species found within the four Yadkin reservoirs and
shows that many of the management species identified by NCWRC, such as largemouth bass, black
and white crappies, sunfish species (bluegill, pumpkinseed, redbreast, redear) begin spawning during
April and May. The key for these species and other shallow water spawners is to have the reservoir
stable during their spawning season so the fish eggs do not become dewatered. Many fish species
probably begin spawning at lower water surface elevations in years when the reservoir is not filled on
time, and in most cases, this will not negatively impact spawning success. However, if the water
becomes too deep during the spawning process, centrarchids (sunfish and bass) have been known to
abandon their nests.
To minimize impacts to the spawning populations of fish in High Rock Reservoir, it has been
beneficial to have water levels raised to their near maximum level by early April. This allows fish
species requiring shallow areas in the vicinity of natural covers access to the wetland habitats that are
responsible for 91% of the high quality habitat within the current drawdown zone. The majority of
this wetland habitat is flood plain forest and sparse shrub-swamp habitats that are located near the full
pond water line. APGI's current voluntary program to attempt to stabilize reservoir water levels
during the mid-April to mid-May period has undoubtedly had positive effects on the resident fish
community. In the future, further enhancement to spawning fish might be possible by maximizing the
availability of the critical habitats for use by the fish community for spawning and subsequent
protection for young-of-year fish, by bringing water levels in High Rock to near full pool (within 1-2
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 112 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
feet of full) by early April and maintaining the reservoir at as stable a level as possible into the early
summer. This type of reservoir management would be particularly important for several of the game
fish species such as largemouth bass, crappie and sunfishes (bluegill, redear, and redbreast) that
require shallow areas of water near brushy cover to spawn.
Gizzard and threadfin shad, which form a large percentage of the fish community and the primary
forage base in High Rock, also rely on stable, shallow water to successfully spawn. Threadfin shad
will gather in spawning groups in areas of shallow water along the shoreline where they deposit
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 3/18/05 113 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Table 5-5. Spawning times for fish species found in Falls, Narrows, Tuckertown and High Rock Reservoirs (From Menhinick,1991)
Species captured by CP&L sampling in 2000

Common Name J F M A M JN JL A S O N D Range Temperature Substrate
Longnose gar 3Apr-4May shallow, heavy vegetation
Bowfin 2May-4May 16-19 °C
Gizzard shad 1May-2Jun shallow water
Threadfin shad Apr-Sep 21 °C shallow shorelines, bolders,logs debris
Blueback herring Mar
Alewife * Mar
Common carp Mar-Jun shallow, submerged vegetation
Goldfish Mar-May submerged vegetation
Golden shiner 4Apr-1Aug 68-80F submerged vegetation
Bluehead chub * Apr-Jun
Eastern silvery minnow Mar-May
Satinfin shiner 3Apr-1Jul
Spottail shiner 4Apr-4May
Spotted sucker 2Apr-3May 12.2-19.4 °C shallow gravel shoals
White sucker 2May-4Apr 10 °C gravel areas
Quillback 4Apr-3May
River carpsucker * 4May-1Jul 19-24 °C Silty sand
Creek chubsucker Mar-1May 17-18 °C gravel substrate, slow water
Smallmouth buffalo 1Mar-2Jun 15-16 °C 1-6m submerged vegetation
Silver redhorse Mar-lApr 14-15 °C gravel shoal areas
Shorthead redhorse 2Apr-2May 14 °C gravel shoals (15-21cm)
Flathead catfish Jun-2Jul spawning shelters
Blue catfish Apr-May
Channel catfish 4May-1Jul 22-30 °C spawning shelters
Yellow bullhead Apr-2May
Flat bullhead Jun-Jul 21-24 °C
Snail bullhead 4May-1Jun
White catfish 3May-3Jun
Black bullhead * 2Apr-2Jun gravel substrate
Brown bullhead * Apr- 1May 21 °C
Eastern mosquitofish * Apr-Aug
White perch 1Mar-2Apr
Striped bass 3May-4Apr 15 °C mid-water, eggs must stay suspended
White bass Mar-4Apr mid-water- demersal eggs
Redbreast sunfish 4Apr-Jun nests in sandy substrate
01
a
01
n
y
y
fD
y
y
fD
(continued)
Table 5-5. (Continued)

Z
O
O
Q
fD
n
y
y
O
n
Ci
fD
y
n
Common Name J F M A M JN JL A S O N D Range Temperature Substrate
Warmouth 2May-Aug shallow, silty debris near cover
Green sunfish 1May-Aug sunny areas near cover
Bluegill 1May-Oct shallow gravel substrate
Pumpkinseed 1May-Oct shallow water, less the lm
Redear sunfish May-Aug shallow water
Largemouth bass 1May-Jun firm substrate along shallow edges
Smallmouth bass Apr-1Jun 15-18 °C coarse gravel, less then lm
White crappie 1Apr- 1Jun shallow protected areas near brush
Black crappie 1Apr- 1Jun shallow protected areas near brush
Yellow perch 2Feb-Mar vegetation, brush, sand and gravel
Tesselated darter Mar-May
Johnny darter * lApr-2May clear areas under submerged objects

y
fD
O
y
Qo
n
01
a
y
y
fD
y
y
fD
O
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
adhesive, demersal eggs on the bottom substrate, rocks and logs. Gizzard shad also require shallow
water for group spawning. Water levels in High Rock Reservoir need to be brought to near full pond
for early spring in order to flood the quality habitat that is present.
The impacts of seasonal reservoir hydrology and water level manipulation on the recruitment and
success of two important game fish, largemouth bass and crappie, have been well studied. When
managing for largemouth bass, year class strength has shown to be enhanced by the spring flooding of
the littoral zone (Miranda et al. 1984; Fisher and Zale 1992; Reinert et al. 1997). However, while
spring flooding does enhance year class strength, largemouth bass year class strength in Normandy
Reservoir (Tennessee) was not fixed until late in the season and was dependent upon how much water
was in the system throughout the summer (Sammons and Bettoli 2000). Lower water levels during
the summer months led to decreased survival and abundance of young-of-year largemouth bass
(Reinert et al. 1997; Sammons et al. 1999). Lower water levels reduce the shoreline cover available
to age-O largemouth bass, increasing predation and decreasing feeding efficiency. Reduced habitat at
low water levels has been shown to limit carrying capacity for age-0 bass (Irwin et al. 1997). In
Jordan Lake (North Carolina), good year class success was not linked to high mean water or inversely
linked to low mean water, but it was found that seasons with high instability of water levels during
the spawning period yielded the poorest year classes of bass (Jackson and Noble 2000). Kohler et al.
(1993) reported that extreme fluctuations in Illinois reservoirs were disruptive to largemouth bass
spawning activities. While spawning behavior may be interrupted by short-term fluctuations in water
level, hatching of young-of-year largemouth will continue as long as the eggs do not become
dewatered (Phillips et al. 1995; Sammons et al. 1999). As initiation of spawning has been related to
the first day at full pool (Normandy Reservoir, Tennessee), it is suggested that the best management
strategy for largemouth bass is to reach full pool early in the spring and to maintain that level for
ninety days (Sammons et al. 1999). This allows for increased growth, survival, year-class strength
(Sammons et al. 1999) and for more harvestable sized bass in less time (Sammons and Bettoli 2000).
Water level changes can also play a role in the success of crappie spawning. Black and white crappie
make use of brushy cover in the littoral zone for spawning. Successful crappie recruitment appears to
be related to high inflows entering the reservoir just prior to the spring spawning season (Maceina and
Stimpert 1998; Sammons et al. 2000; Maceina 2003). It is suggested that crappie respond to these
inflows with increased spawning activity as it may mimic the natural flooding that would ordinarily
trigger these fish to spawn (Maceina and Stimpert 1998). Crappie recruitment was higher in tributary
storage impoundments in Tennessee during years of high reservoir discharge in the pre-spawn period
(Sammons et al. 2002). High rates of reservoir flushing during the late spring and early summer can
negatively effect the survival of crappie fry (Pope et al. 1996; Maceina and Stimpert 1998). Crappie
fry have been documented as moving from the littoral zone to the limnetic zone at a length of 50-60
mm (O'Brien et al. 1984). It is this occupation of the limnetic zone during the post larval stages that
could lead to mortality as fish are pushed out of the reservoir during periods of high water flow
(Beam 1983). In addition to being removed from the system, high flow increases turbidity and
decreases zooplankton, limiting the food availability and feeding efficiency of the larval fish (O'Brien
1984). While the exact mechanism driving the relationship between high winter flows and
recruitment in crappie is still unclear (Sammons et al. 2002), manipulating and raising water levels
both before and during the spawning season can increase crappie production along with that of other
littoral spawners (Maceina 2003). Management for largemouth bass and crappie can coincide with
one another. Conditions that produce high discharge in the late winter, which are beneficial for
crappie, usually lead to above average pool levels in the late spring and summer. Maintaining these
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 116 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
pool levels throughout the late summer to increase the success of young-of-year bass will not have an
effect on crappie fry as they have already moved off into the limnetic zone (Sammons and Bettoli
2000).
In addition to fish spawning, project operations also exert effects on the macroinvertebrate
community of High Rock Reservoir. In general, aquatic insects are adversely impacted by the current
drawdown regime that dewaters the littoral zone. In studies conducted on mainstem Missouri River
impoundments, it was reported that aquatic macroinvertebrates took 40 days after inundation to re-
colonize exposed substrate (Benson 1973).
The current game fish populations in High Rock depend on the large forage base provided by
threadfin and gizzard shad. These two fish species combined make up nearly 50% of the fish
captured in High Rock Reservoir and are doing well because they are taking advantage of the large
standing crop of plankton produced in the reservoir (see Section 5.1.3 above). Predators such as
largemouth bass, crappies, striped bass, catfish and other species depend on the large numbers of shad
for food, especially since macroinvertebrate production is low due to the seasonal drawdowns.
Effects of Alternative Water Level Regimes on High Rock
As part of this study, the effects of alternative water elevations on aquatic biota and habitat in High
Rock Reservoir were also considered. As with some of the other resource studies being conducted in
support of the relicensing effort, the evaluation was conducted using several simplified water level
regimes that were developed to encompass the range of operational alternatives that might be
considered in the relicensing (Figure 5-1). The water level alternatives evaluated included:
¦ High Rock - three alternative water level regimes:
¦ Alternative I - Near-Full Year Round, reservoir maintained within 3 feet of full
pond year round;
Alternative 2 Extended Near Full Season; a 10-foot average drawdown, similar to
existing conditions but a longer full pond period, refilling in March rather than April
and drawing down in November rather than mid-September;
Alternative 3 - Additional Use of Storage; drawing down 20 feet on average, with
the same refill and drawdown schedule as existing, but refilling to within 5 feet of
full pond (618.9 feet USGS, 650.0 feet Yadkin datum).
Alternative I
A stable water level at near-full (within 3 feet of full) pond year round would give fish and other
aquatic biota access to existing high quality habitat types such as wetlands, woody cover, docks and
rock habitats found in the shallow, upper reaches of the tributary coves and along the reservoirs
shoreline. It would also result in the development of emergent wetlands and aquatic beds that are rare
under High Rocks current drawdown regime. These aquatic beds and emergent wetlands would
provide cover and feeding opportunities for many species of fish and macroinvertebrates. The sunfish
species such as bluegill, pumpkinseed, redbreast and redear would benefit from a relatively stable full
pool situation. Other important forage and game fish species that would probably increase in
abundance from a near-full pond scenario would be gizzard shad, threadfin shad and black and white
crappies. Aquatic biota such as macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) would benefit from a near- full
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 117 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
pond scenario and would soon colonize the shallow littoral zone that they are currently excluded from
most of the year due to
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 118 Normandeau Associates, inc.
;1
CD
D
n'
2
v
0
C
0
0
0
N

Z
0
3
as
Q
a?
n
y
y
O
n
Ci
y
High Rock Water Level Scenarios
660
655
r)
650
a?
a?
J
2)' 645
U
O
Q'
-r- 640
rn
2
635
630 ''
1/1 1/31 3/2 4/1 5/2 6/1 7/2 8/1 9/1 10/1 11/1 12/1
Date
t"Existing Conditions" --*-Alt 1 --*-Alt 2 Alt 3 -Normal Full Pond
Figure 5-1. High Rock water level scenarios provided by APGI.
1/1
Q
CD
C4
CD
0
1y
Qo
n
01
n'
01
a
C4
C4
y
C4
CD
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
the drawdowns. The aquatic insect populations that would colonize the littoral zone would provide a
primary food source for many species of fish and other aquatic biota.
A near-full pool water elevation in High Rock year round may also have some negative effects on the
existing fishery. The current drawdown regime has benefited the larger predators such as largemouth
bass and striped bass by drawing the young fish out of their protective cover each fall and winter,
making them more vulnerable to predation. This has kept some of the sunfish populations in check,
preventing them from overpopulating the reservoir, which can result in stunted fish populations with
fewer harvestable fish available. Under alternative 1, the current species composition would change,
but it is difficult to predict the final outcome. For instance, it is not known if largemouth bass or
striped bass would be negatively impacted by a near-full pond situation. Both predators depend on
the large forage base provided by threadfin and gizzard shad and under alternative 1, these forage
species would probably increase in abundance. This increase in these forage fish might offset the lost
foraging opportunities that the current drawdown provides each fall and winter. Undesirable fish
species, such as carp, that are detrimental to native fish populations (Etmer and Starnes 1993) would
also benefit from a near-full pond scenario and could rapidly overpopulate the reservoir. Carp,
already abundant in High Rock Reservoir, would take advantage of the feeding and spawning
opportunities provided by the predicted increase in aquatic vegetation, one of their preferred foods.
They were ranked sixth in abundance in both electrofishing and gill net catches in the fisheries study
conducted by CP&L in 2000 (Appendix 2, Table 2-1). Carp spawn during the spring in shallow
water, laying their eggs amongst submerged vegetation. Since a large female can produce more than
2 million eggs per season, they could rapidly overpopulate the reservoir under ideal conditions.
As mentioned above, alternative 1 would result in the development of emergent wetlands and aquatic
beds along much of the shoreline. However, it is also likely to have some adverse impact on the
black willow that has colonized the delta area located in the upper reservoir region, downstream of
the I-85 bridge (NAI 2005c - Section 10). Emergents such as water willow could colonize some of
these areas, but the delta area is likely to be less stable and more subject to shifting sediment during
large flood events.
Alternative 2
An extended near full pond that's refilled in March and drawn down an average of 10 ft in November
would be an improvement for fish populations in High Rock when compared to existing project
operations. Current operations begin refilling the reservoir in April and draw it down an average of
13.5 ft beginning in mid-September. Filling the reservoir in March will improve the spawning
conditions for important management species such as largemouth bass and black and white crappies
and many other fish that spawn in shallow water during April and May (see Section 5.1.6). Also,
extending the near full season until November will help increase the survival rates of young of the
year fish. The smaller fish will have access to shoreline cover for a longer time period during the
critical growing period, enabling most to grow to a larger size before the pond is drawn down. The
larger size gives the fish a better chance to avoid the predators during the winter months. Although
alternative 2 would improve survival of more young of the year fish compared to the current
drawdown scenario, it would still provide the benefit of preventing certain fish species such as
sunfish and carp from becoming severely overpopulated. The percent composition of the current fish
populations in the lake would probably remain the same, because alternative 2 is similar to the current
drawdown regime. Game fish such as black crappie, bluegill and largemouth bass would continue to
dominate the catches, because they have done well under the current drawdown regime. Gizzard and
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 120 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
threadfin shad, the primary forage fishes in the reservoir, would also continue to do well under
alternative 2, given their high abundance under the current drawdown regime.
The shorter winter drawdown proposed for alternative 2 would likely enhance emergent wetland
development around High Rock, with water willow potentially becoming the dominate species.
Water willow is able to tolerate the fluctuating water levels on Narrows and may be able to persist in
some areas during a winter drawdown in High Rock. Black willow beds in the delta region of upper
High Rock may decline somewhat, however, they would probably persist given that periodic
exposure to inundation during the growing season occurs now under the current drawdown regime.
Alternative 3
This alternative would be the most detrimental to fish and aquatic biota in High Rock Reservoir.
Refilling the lake to only within 5 ft of full pond has the potential to keep much of the high quality
habitat found along the shoreline exposed because most of the existing wetland habitat is located
within the upper 5 to 6 ft. Refilling the reservoir beginning in April would mean that in some years
water elevations would not be high enough for spawning fish and their young to take advantage of the
existing wetland habitats found along the upper shoreline. Additionally, drawing the reservoir down
as much as 20 ft each fall would bring water levels down to where they were during the severe
drought of 2002. Although hard to quantify, this severe a drawdown would be expected to cause
higher mortalities among young fish compared to the existing seasonal drawdown of about 12 feet.
This alternative would also be most detrimental to the existing wetlands around High Rock. The
black willow stands on the delta area would probably thrive and expand; however, many of the
remnant in-pond emergent wetlands around the periphery of the reservoir would be less stable. The
combination of a long winter drawdown, a lower average water level and periodic full pond levels
would create a difficult environment for emergent wetlands to persist or colonize. Woody species
such as black willow and button bush might be able to tolerate the extreme conditions and expand
around the shoreline, but their potential as fish habitat would be limited by the lower average
drawdown level, and in wet years, the higher water levels could result in considerable dieback of
these woody species.
5.2 NARROWS RESERVOIR
5.2.1 Impacts of Project Operations on Aquatic Biota and Habitat in Narrows
Fluctuations in water elevations also have impacts to aquatic biota and habitat in Narrows Reservoir.
For instance, under the current operating regime, Narrows water levels have allowed the growth and
persistence of extensive water willow beds in the reservoir. At High Rock, where seasonal
drawdowns are far more significant and the periods of drawdown tend to last much longer, this
wetland habitat type is rare. Another impact of Project operations on aquatic biota in Narrows is the
quality of the water discharged from Tuckertown Reservoir into Narrows. The low dissolved oxygen
concentrations that are drawn from Tuckertown Reservoir via the turbines during the warm months of
the year negatively impact aquatic biota in Narrows (NAI 2005a; NAI 2005b). Before analyzing the
impacts of operations on aquatic biota and habitat, this section first presents data on Narrows current
hydrologic regime, water quality and fish populations.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 121 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
5.2.2 Existing Hydrologic Regime in Narrows
Narrows Reservoir (Badin Lake) is the deepest of the four Yadkin Project impoundments and the
second largest reservoir in the Project, covering 5,355 acres at full pool. The reservoir is broad and
can be divided into two large basins, each with numerous coves and flooded tributary mouths.
Narrows receives most of its flow from Tuckertown Reservoir and average residence time in the
reservoir is estimated at about 2 days. Maximum depth is 175 ft near the dam and mean depth is 45 ft,
which is more than double that of the other three reservoirs. With its deeper water, Narrows is the
only Project reservoir where a true hypolimmon develops (>4°C difference between surface and
bottom waters). The Narrows Development is usually operated as essentially run-of-river with
minimal water level fluctuations, but the reservoir does have available storage to augment required
minimum downstream releases in low flow periods, as needed. This use of storage to augment
downstream flows results in a typical pattern of drawdown of 2-3 feet in the late summer and fall
(Figure 4.4-2), though variations in this pattern may occur every year. Normal daily fluctuation in
water surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft with a daily maximum fluctuation of 1 to 2
ft (Yadkin 2002). The maximum average annual drawdown is approximately 3 ft.
5.2.3 Water Quality in Narrows
Water quality in Narrows is considered good; it has greater water clarity and lower concentrations of
suspended solids, nutrients and algal biomass than the two upstream reservoirs and better surface
dissolved oxygen conditions than Falls Reservoir which lies downstream (NAI 2005b). The surface
waters are less turbid than the upstream reservoirs, but the photic zone is still relatively shallow, with
averages ranging from 2.4 to 3.4 meters. Nutrient concentrations in Narrows are lower than in High
Rock and Tuckertown Reservoirs, but at times they are still at levels that can produce nuisance algal
blooms. However, such blooms are likely to occur at a lower frequency in Narrows than in the two
upstream reservoirs. NCDWQ (1998) classified Narrows Reservoir as eutrophic/mesotrophic and
determined that it supports intended uses.
Unlike the other Project reservoirs, Narrows Reservoir exhibits strong thermal stratification beginning
in May and persisting until December or January. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the upper four
or five meters are usually greater than 5 mg/1; below five meters, dissolved oxygen concentrations <5
mg/l persist from June through September. Complete mixing of the reservoir usually occurs in
December or January and dissolved oxygen concentrations are similar throughout the water column
until stratification returns in late spring. Low dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 5.0 mg/l
were frequently observed from June through October in the Tuckertown tailwater (upper section of
Narrows Reservoir) and periodically in May and November from the discharge of water with low
dissolved oxygen concentration from Tuckertown Reservoir (NAI 2005b) .
5.2.4 Existing Management and Fisheries Data for Narrows
Narrows Reservoir is currently maintained by the NCWRC as a warm water fishery. Largemouth
bass and both crappie species are managed with both size and creel limits. Narrows Reservoir is also
known for its large catfish, especially blue catfish. A state record, 83-pound blue catfish was caught
in Narrows Reservoir during May of 2003. Blue catfish do not currently receive game status from
NCWRC but future management plans for the species may be investigated due to the popularity of
this fishery. Table 5-3 shows the historic stocking records for Narrows Reservoir by the NCWRC.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 122 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Striped bass are currently stocked into Narrows at a rate of 11.6 fish per acre, or about 62,000
fingerlings per year.
A summary of past studies in Narrows Reservoir (Table 5-2) indicates that the reservoir is supporting
at least 43 species of game and non-game fish species, representing all trophic levels. Table 5-4
shows the historic sampling efforts of the NCWRC within three of the four project reservoirs. The
2000 CP&L study documented thirty-five species and two hybrids within the reservoir. Appendix 2
(Table 2-7) shows the percent compositions and CPUE's for each of those species, by gear type.
Bluegill, gizzard shad, threadfin shad, yellow perch and largemouth bass comprised the five most
abundant species captured by electrofishing. White perch, striped bass, gizzard shad, channel catfish,
and white catfish were the five species most commonly captured in gill nets. Bluegill and gizzard
shad had the highest CPUE's for electrofishing whereas white perch and striped bass had the highest
gillnet CPUE. NAI sampled in the Tuckertown tailwater (upper reach of Narrows Reservoir) during
2003-2004 and catches during this effort were similar to the 2000 CP&L study. Bluegill and gizzard
shad had the highest electrofishing CPUE and white perch and channel catfish dominated the gill net
catches (NAI 2005a). CP&L conducted age and growth analysis on 225 striped bass and 41 white
bass captured within Narrows Reservoir in 2000. The results of this analysis can be found in
Appendix 2 (Tables 2-8 & 2-9). Striped bass from this sample ranged in age from 1 to 6 years, while
white bass ages ranged from 1 to 3 years. In some years, summertime dissolved oxygen levels have
dropped low enough to cause significant kills of striped bass in Narrows Reservoir (NCWRC 2004).
The NCWRC examined the health and status of the black crappie population in Narrows Reservoir
during the fall of 2000 (Dorsey 2000b). A total of 151 black crappie were captured by trapnet and
examined, and of these, 93% were greater then the 203 mm minimum size limit. The average relative
weight for black crappie was 97 and the mean total length was 261 mm. Ages of captured fish ranged
from 0 to 7 years, with 90% of fish being age-2 or younger. Crappie in Narrows Reservoir reached
harvestable size in 1.5 years. Previous NCWRC studies, along with this one, have documented a
crappie population in Narrows Reservoir made up of a small number of fast-growing fish. Without
identifying a mechanism to increase overall population density, it is doubtful that angler catch rates
will increase on Narrows Reservoir (Dorsey 2000b). A follow up survey to assess population
characteristics in the Narrows Reservoir crappie populations was conducted in 2003 (Nelson &
Dorsey 2005). A total of 252 black crappies and 30 white crappies were captured by trapnet and
examined. Minimal differences between the 2000 and 2003 crappie populations were observed. The
percentage of fish greater than the 203 mm minimum size limit was lower in 2003 (80%) than during
2000 (93%). The average relative weight score for black crappie increased to 98 while the mean total
length decreased slightly to 243 mm. Similar to 2000 findings, length at age calculations for Narrows
Reservoir black crappie indicate that fish within this population are reaching harvestable size in 1 to
1.5 years. NAI conducted fish surveys in the project tailwaters in 2003-2004 and the results of this
effort can be found in the tailwater fish report (NAI 2005a). The average relative weight of black
crappie collected in the Tuckertown tailwater (upper segment of Narrows Reservoir) during this study
was 93, slightly lower than the ideal range of 95 to 105 reported for this fish.
Largemouth bass were examined during spring of 2001 by the NCWRC (Dorsey 2002). Proportional
stock density (PSD) values for bass captured by electrofishing during this study was 80, exceeding
the species ideal range of 40 to 70. This indicates that some of the large quality bass are experiencing
low mortality and this is probably due to catch and release fishing practices. The mean relative
weight score of these bass was 91, slightly lower than the recommended range of 95 to 100. During
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 123 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
the Tuckertown tailwater fish survey in 2003-2004, largemouth bass PSD values averaged 84 across
three seasons and average relative weight for the same group of fish was 101, exceeding the ideal
range for both values, indicating the bass were in very good condition (NAI 2005a). Twelve percent
of 60 largemouth bass captured in Narrows in 2001 that were sent to a USFWS testing center tested
positive for Largemouth Bass Virus. Largemouth bass virus typically affects adult fish and causes
them to lose their equilibrium and float at the water surface. First detected in Florida, the disease has
been documented in several bodies of water throughout the eastern United States. Although fish kills
have occurred in some of the infected populations of largemouth bass, there have been no
documented changes in the total numbers of fish after die-offs associated with largemouth bass virus.
Additionally, this virus has also been found in populations of largemouth bass and other species while
showing no overt signs of the disease (Grizzle and Brunner 2003).
5.2.5 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Habitat in Narrows
Fluctuating water levels are having some impact on aquatic habitat in Narrows Reservoir by
periodically dewatering high quality habitat types that cannot be used by aquatic biota at certain
times. The current operating regime results in reservoir drawdowns of 2 to 3 ft, typically in the late
summer, and the impacts to habitat within this drawdown zone were discussed in detail previously in
Section 4.4.2 and are summarized here. Within the average 2 ft drawdown zone (el. 510 to 508), the
dominant habitat type is the low quality mud/sand substrate that covers 127.2 acres, or 66% of the
littoral zone (see Table 4.4-2). Wetland cover is abundant in the littoral zone, with flood plain forest
being the dominant type, covering nearly 29 acres, or 14.9% of the littoral zone. Palustrme emergent
wetlands (mainly water willow) are the second most abundant type, covering 25.3 acres (13%) of the
littoral zone. An additional 92 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands was added during the ground-
truthing process after the aerial photographs were analyzed. Because this wetland habitat data was
not available for the ArcView cover maps, the percentage of that acreage present in the littoral zone
or the amount that exists below this contour level could not be accurately calculated (see Section 4.4).
However, some of the 92 acres not included in the ArcView maps does exist within the littoral zone,
so the amount of water willow habitat type reported above is under estimated (NAI, 2005c). Nearly
all the water willow beds are within 5 to 6 ft of full pond. High quality rock habitat exposed in the
littoral zone included boulder (2.1 acres: 1.1%), cobble (1.9 acres; 1%), riprap (0.9 acres; 0.5%),
ledge (0.83 acres; 0.43 %) and gravel (0.18 acres; 0.09 %) Medium branched trees (1.7 acres; 0.85%)
and heavy branched trees (1.6 acres; 0.82 %) are the two dominant forms of woody cover. Small
amounts of brush, Christmas trees, and no branched trees were found and mapped within the littoral
zone. Docks covered an additional 2.19 acres of the littoral zone, accounting for 1.13 % of the habitat
present there.
A two foot change in water surface elevation in Narrows Reservoir will dewater a portion of the
littoral zone and reduce the water surface acreage from a full pond value of 5,887.3 acres to 5,695.2
acres, a loss of 192.4 acres or 3.3 % (Table 4.4-3).
5.2.6 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Aquatic Biota in Narrows
Although certainly not as great as High Rock Reservoir, the degree of seasonal change in water levels
is greater in Narrows Reservoir than in either Falls or Tuckertown. Management for important game
species in Narrows Reservoir is similar to that for High Rock. Largemouth bass, crappie and other
shallow water spawners require water levels to be at or near full pool by early spring and to be held
there into the early summer. As described in the current literature (see section 5.1.6 for summary)
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 124 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
crappie respond to inflow of water into the reservoir as a trigger to commence spawning. Water
levels reaching and maintaining a full pond level are beneficial to many of the centrarchids who
require flooded quality habitat to spawn and whose young rely on the same flooded habitat for cover
and food. Figure 4.4-2 displays the minimum, mean and maximum daily water surface elevations in
Narrows for the period of January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2003. On average, reservoir levels were
highest in late March through April and then declined to a September low. This early spring refill in
late March benefits the shallow water spawners such as largemouth bass, crappies and sunfish
species. The early refill probably benefits the gizzard shad and threadfin shad as well, because these
fish also rely on shallow areas being watered up early in the spring. Refill generally occurred through
the fall and winter, with reservoir maxima at full pool almost continuously from mid-January through
early May, and this provides young fish with ample cover, increasing their chances to survive the
winter. The lowest water levels observed during the period of record occurred between July and
September 2002 during the severe drought. Narrows was drawn down nearly 10 ft during the
drought, but this was an unusual event. In most years, fish and aquatic biota have access to the water
willow beds and other cover available along the lakes shoreline.
The emergent wetlands on Narrows are more extensive but lower in species diversity than those
found on Tuckertown. Water willow form the vast majority of the emergent community, with other
species being low in number and distribution. Aquatic beds are abundant in the four small ponds
west of the railroad bed on the west side of Narrows. These areas are connected to the main reservoir
and fluctuate with the reservoir, but the aquatics appear able to persist in the dry years and expand in
wet years. Current Project operations, with a minimal late summer drawdown and limited short term
fluctuations have allowed these important wetland areas to persist. Water willow is an important
wetland cover type for fish and other aquatic biota and a recent study identified 17 fish species that
use emergent wetlands in the course of the year, more than any other shallow water habitat type
(Touchette et al. 2001). This wetland habitat type provides spawning habitat for many fish species
(crappies, sunfish, etc.), nursery habitat for young, cover for small resident species and foraging
opportunities for larger predators.
Daily and weekly fluctuations in water elevations can also impact aquatic biota in Narrows Reservoir
but the impacts are minor compared to more extended, seasonal drawdowns. Daily fluctuations in
Narrows are usually less than one foot with maximum daily values of one to two feet. However,
daily fluctuations during the spawning season (April and May) are rare because the reservoir is being
refilled at this time. Also, in recent years, APGI has cooperated with NCWRC, to voluntarily attempt
to maintain Narrows reservoir water levels at a relatively constant elevation for the duration of the
prime fish spawning season (mid-April through mid-May).
Water quality can also impact fish and aquatic biota in Narrows Reservoir. However, the impacts of
low dissolved oxygen concentrations on aquatic biota are discussed in detail in a separate report (see
Section 7.0 of the NAI Tailwater Fish and Aquatic Biota Assessment; NAI 2005a).
5.2.7 Effects of Alternative Water Level Regimes on Aquatic Biota in Narrows
As part of this study, NAI evaluated the effects of alternative water elevations on aquatic biota in
Narrows Reservoir. At Narrows, the alternative water level regime considered looked at increasing
winter drawdowns up to 15 ft, and summer fluctuations that may become more routine and deeper (5
to 10 ft), compared to the present 2 to 3 ft.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 125 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Implementing a winter drawdown regime in Narrows Reservoir similar to that in High Rock would
negatively impact the available high quality wetland habitat types. A 14-foot drawdown would
expose 1,392 acres of wetland and quality habitat types (see section 4.4.3 for full details). Of that
acreage, a total of 178 acres are palustrine emergent habitat comprised mainly of water willow and it
would also expose the additional 92 acres of water willow that was found during the ground-truthing
field trip that was not included in the ArcView maps (see section 4.4). This perennial aquatic plant
would be exposed to freezing and desiccation during the winter which would reduce the acreage of
this habitat type in Narrows Reservoir. (For a full report on the status of water willow in Narrows
Reservoir see the Draft Wetland and Riparian Habitat Assessment; NAI 2005c).
Summer fluctuations or drawdowns of 5 to 10 ft would also negatively impact aquatic biota by
limiting the ability of fish to use the existing emergent wetlands. Currently, water levels at Narrows
typically remain within 2-3 ft of full pool throughout the summer, and thus continue to inundate the
lower portion of the water willow beds. If water levels drop below approximately 5 ft in Narrows,
most of the water willow observed in 2004 would be unavailable to fish and other aquatic biota such
as macroinvertebrates. Although water willow is clearly tolerant of the current summer water level
fluctuations, the combination of a winter drawdown and greater summer fluctuations could exceed
this species tolerance and result in a decline. Because fish and other aquatic biota depend on the
habitat provided by water willow, they would likely decline in abundance along with the loss of water
willow.
5.3 TUCKERTOWN RESERVOIR
5.3.1 Impacts of Project Operations on Aquatic Biota and Habitat in Tuckertown
Fluctuations in water elevations at Tuckertown are typically minor under the current Project operating
regime, and have a limited impact on aquatic biota and habitat in Tuckertown Reservoir. The largest
impact of Project operations on aquatic biota in Tuckertown is the quality of the water discharged
from High Rock Reservoir. The low dissolved oxygen levels that are drawn from High Rock
Reservoir via the turbines during the warm months of the year adversely impact aquatic life in
Tuckertown Reservoir (see NAI 2005a; NAI 2005b). Before analyzing the impacts of operations on
aquatic biota and habitat, this section first presents data on Tuckertown Reservoir's current
hydrologic regime, water quality and fish populations.
5.3.2 Hydrologic Regime in Tuckertown
Tuckertown Reservoir covers 2,560 acres at full pool with a maximum and mean depth of 55 ft and
16 ft, respectively. The Tuckertown Reservoir is narrow relative to either High Rock or Narrows
Reservoirs, and is mainly an enlargement of the old river channel with only two small tributary arms.
The Tuckertown Development is operated as a run-of-river facility and average residence time in the
reservoir is estimated at about 21 hours. Normal daily fluctuation in water surface elevation due to
operations is typically less than 1 ft, with a daily maximum fluctuation of 1 to 3 ft (Yadkin ICD
2002).
Daily elevations in the Tuckertown reservoir exhibit little seasonality (Figure 4.3-2), although
minimum elevations on the monthly, weekly, and daily time scales typically occur during July.
Overall, under the current Project operating regime, elevations within the Tuckertown reservoir are
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 126 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
the most stable and exhibited the smallest range of variation of each of the four Yadkin Project
reservoirs.
5.3.3 Water Quality in Tuckertown
Water quality in Tuckertown Reservoir is generally similar to the water quality found in the lower
portion of High Rock Reservoir, which provides almost all of its flow (NAI 2005b). The short
residence time (-22 hours) does not allow sufficient time for biological and physical processes to
change water quality appreciably. In general, it is a relatively turbid reservoir with a shallow photic
zone. As in High Rock, nutrient concentrations in Tuckertown are at levels that can promote
nuisance algae blooms and algal biomass remains at high levels. Although the suspended solids
concentrations are much lower than High Rock Reservoir, they are still relatively high, and greater
than levels typically seen in reservoirs (Wetzel 2001). Water transparency is low, and the reservoir
exhibits only weak stratification near the dam in the summer. Dissolved oxygen depletion in deeper
water typically extends from May through October or November, but anoxic conditions are usually
limited to the summer months and depths below 5 meters. Dissolved oxygen in the upper five meters
of the water column varied considerably among the sampling years. Low dissolved oxygen
concentrations are occasionally observed during the summer and early fall. Low dissolved oxygen
levels in the upper section of Tuckertown Reservoir (High Rock tailwater) are common during the
warm months. In 2004, an average water year, average daily dissolved oxygen concentrations were
below 5 mg/1 on 107 days in the High Rock tailwater, the upper end of the Tuckertown impoundment
(see NAI 2005b, Table 2.4-3). NCDWQ classified Tuckertown Reservoir as eutrophic and
determined that it supports designated uses (NCDWQ 1998).
5.3.4 Existing Management and Fisheries Data for Tuckertown
The NCWRC currently manages Tuckertown reservoir as a warm water fishery. Largemouth bass
and black crappie are managed by size and creel limits on anglers. Table 5-3 shows the historic
stocking records for Tuckertown Reservoir. Currently, striped bass fingerlings are stocked into
Tuckertown at a rate of 5 per acre or about 13,000 fish per year. For reasons unknown, the striped
bass fishery within Tuckertown Reservoir has not done as well as it has in High Rock and Narrows
Reservoirs.
A summary of past reservoir fish studies (Table 5-2) indicates that the reservoir is supporting at least
42 species of game and non-game fish species, representing all trophic levels. Table 5-4 shows the
historic sampling efforts of the NCWRC within three of the four project reservoirs. A comprehensive
fish study was conducted on Tuckertown Reservoir by CP&L in 2000 and 36 species and one hybrid
were captured within the reservoir by electrofishing and gillnetting. Appendix 2 (Table 2-4) shows
the percent composition and CPUE for each fish species captured, by gear type. Bluegill, threadfin
shad, gizzard shad, largemouth bass and common carp comprised the five most abundant species
captured by electrofishing. Threadfin shad, white perch, channel catfish, black crappie and gizzard
shad were the five species most commonly captured in gill nets. Bluegill and threadfin shad had the
highest CPUE's for electrofishing whereas threadfin shad and white perch had the highest gillnet
CPUE. NAI sampled for fish in the High Rock tailwater (Tuckertown Reservoir) seasonally during
2003-2004 and the composition of the catches were similar to the CP&L study (NAI 2005a).
Bluegill, gizzard shad, largemouth bass, and common carp dominated the electrofishing catches
during the 2003-2004 tailwater fish study and in gill nets, white perch, channel catfish, and gizzard
shad were the dominant fish.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 127 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Under contract to APGI, CP&L biologists conducted age and growth analysis on 85 striped bass and
19 white bass captured within Tuckertown Reservoir in 2000. The results of this analysis can be
found in Appendix 2 (Tables 2-5 & 2-6). The striped bass and white bass captured in Tuckertown
ranged in age from 1 to 5 years.
The NCWRC examined the health and status of crappie populations in Tuckertown Reservoir during
the fall of 2001(Dorsey 200 lb). A total of 222 black crappies and 124 white crappies were captured
by trapnet and examined. Sixty-eight percent of black crappie and 71% of white crappie were less
than the 203 mm minimum limit. Mean length at age values indicated that both species reached
harvestable size by age two. The average relative weight for black crappie was 87 and for white
crappie it was 82 and both values were lower than the ideal range of 95 to 105, indicating a problem
securing enough food. Length frequencies show a high percentage of fish below the minimum
harvestable length for both species, which may indicate a stunted population. The report suggested
that the minimum size limit stay in place for now but if future studies show similar population
characteristics that the size limit be lifted to reduce the number of small crappies and increase
harvestable sized fish.
Black crappie captured in the High Rock tailwater (upper Tuckertown Reservoir) during the recent
tailwater fish study conducted by NAI in 2003-2004 exhibited similar relative weights and length
frequency distributions as the CP&L study (NAI 2005a). Average relative weight of black crappie
across three seasons of sampling was 80, which is lower than the recommended range of 95 to 105
reported for this fish and lower than the relative weight of 87 calculated by NCWRC (Dorsey 200 lb)
These results suggest that black crappies are having a problem securing enough food. Length
frequency distribution of black crappies captured during the NAI tailwater fish study demonstrated
that many of the fish collected were below the harvestable size, similar to the NCWRC results in
2001.
Largemouth bass were examined during spring of 2002 by the NCWRC (Dorsey 2002). Proportional
stock density (PSD) and relative stock density (RSD) values for bass captured by electrofishing were
68 and 36, respectively; the PSD value exceeded the ideal range of 40 to 70 and the RSD value was
on the high end of the ideal range of 10 to 40 reported in the literature. These values indicate that
there are numerous large bass available and that they are experiencing low mortalities, suggestive of
catch and release fishing practices. The mean relative weight score of these bass was 93, which is
slightly lower than the ideal range of 95 to 100. Based on these three values, the largemouth bass
population in Tuckertown Reservoir was in very good condition in 2002. Twenty-two percent of the
50 largemouth bass sent to a USFWS testing center, tested positive for Largemouth Bass Virus.
During the recent 2003-2004 High Rock tailwater fish study (upper Tuckertown Reservoir),
largemouth bass average PSD and RSD values were 89 and 58, respectively, and both these values
exceeded the ideal range reported for this fish (NAI 2005a). This means the larger sized, quality bass
are experiencing low mortalities. Average relative weight for these same fish was 102 and this value
exceeds the ideal range of 95 to 100. Based on these values, the condition of largemouth bass in
Tuckertown during the 2003-2004 study was excellent.
5.3.5 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Habitat in Tuckertown
Although water level fluctuations at Tuckertown are minimal, they can still have some impacts to
aquatic habitat in the reservoir. The Tuckertown Development is operated as a run-of-river facility
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 128 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
and normal daily fluctuation in water surface elevation due to operations is less than 1 ft, with a daily
maximum fluctuation of 1 to 3 ft (Yadkin ICD 2002). Figure 4.3-2 shows the minimum mean and
maximum daily water elevations at Tuckertown between 1986 and 2003. As this plot reveals, water
elevations were relatively stable during most of the period of record, especially during the spring
spawning period (April-May). There were instances when minimum daily water levels fell a couple
of feet during the April and May period, and these instances could have reduced the amount of
important shallow water habitats available to spawning fish. Continued efforts by APGI to keep the
reservoir water levels as stable as possible during April and May will help to maximize available
shallow water spawning habitat.
As discussed previously in Section 4.3, available high quality habitat mapped within Tuckertown's
two foot drawdown zone and periodically exposed due to the fluctuating water levels consists of
151.7 acres (83% wetland cover types, 17% quality substrates). Wetland habitats comprised the
majority of the quality habitat, accounting for over 85% of the 151.73 acres mapped (Table 4.3-2).
Aquatic vegetation mapped by the NAI field biologists covered 71.46 acres and comprised 47.1% of
the total habitat mapped. In addition, five major wetland habitat types were identified from aerial
photographs and added into the GIS map after sufficient ground-truthing. Palustrme emergent
vegetation, mainly water willow, covered 15.61 acres and comprised 13.05 % of the total habitat
mapped. Flood plain forest, dominated by black willow trees, covered 19.8 acres and comprised
13.05 % of the total habitat. Lacustrme aquatic plant beds, comprised of floating and submerged
aquatic plants covered 7.62 acres (5.02 % of total). Shrub-swamp (8.52 acres; 5.62 %) and sparse
shrub-swamp (3.15 acres; 2.07 %) habitat types were also present in Tuckertown Reservoir. The total
acreage covered by some wetland types may be underestimated. Due to a limited drawdown (2 ft)
and low water clarity, areas of some wetland types (particularly palustrine emergent and lacustrine
aquatic beds) may be more extensive than is visible from the surface.
High quality rock habitat found in the Tuckertown littoral zone included boulders, cobble, riprap and
ledge and combined made-up 5.8 acres or 3.9% of the available high quality habitat. Woody cover
was dominated by medium branched trees, which covered 16.4 acres, or 10.8 % of the total habitat
mapped in the littoral zone. Stumps, no branched trees, brush and heavy branched trees combined for
an additional 3.1 acres. In addition to natural cover types, a small number of docks covered 0.16
acres and accounted for 0.1 % of the total quality habitat that was mapped in Tuckertown Reservoir
below elevation 564.2.
5.3.6 Impacts of Current Project Operations on Aquatic Biota in Tuckertown
Fluctuating water levels at Tuckertown Reservoir have minimal impacts on aquatic biota that occupy
the littoral zone in the lake. As noted previously, water elevations in Tuckertown were relatively
stable during most of the period of record, especially during the spring spawning period (April-May).
However, there were instances when minimum daily water levels dropped a couple of feet during the
April and May period, and these instances could have impacted fish nesting in shallow water.
Keeping the reservoir water levels stable during April and May will help improve spawning
conditions and it is more important to not have quick drops in water elevation after fish have laid their
eggs. An increase in water elevation will not negatively impact fish as long as it's not more than
several feet.
The greatest impact to aquatic biota in Tuckertown is the quality of the water coming out of High
Rock Reservoir. The low dissolved oxygen levels that are drawn from High Rock Reservoir via the
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 129 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
turbines during the warm months of the year negatively impact aquatic life in Tuckertown Reservoir
(see NAI 2005a; NAI 2005b). In the High Rock tailwater (upper Tuckertown Reservoir) average
daily dissolved oxygen concentrations of below 5 mg/1 are common in most years, and the short
residence time (-22 hours) does not allow sufficient time for biological and physical processes to
change water quality. Water coming in from High Rock is also generally turbid and nutrient
concentrations are at levels that can promote nuisance algae blooms and algal biomass remains at
high levels.
5.3.7 Effects of Alternative Water Level Regimes on Aquatic Biota in Tuckertown
As part of this study, NAI evaluated the effects on aquatic habitat and biota in Tuckertown Reservoir
associated with one possible alternative water level regime. The single alternative regime evaluated
involves increasing the short-term water level fluctuations in Tuckertown to 3-5 ft compared to the
current 1-2 ft.
This alternative could negatively impact fish that spawn in shallow water (2-4 ft deep) during the
spring, such as largemouth bass, crappies and sunfish species. Refer to Section 5.1.6 for a complete
review of impacts to fish species caused by fluctuating water levels. This alternative could also have
the effect of reducing the diversity and possibly the extent of emergent wetlands and aquatic beds
found in Tuckertown, which are very important to the fish and other aquatic biota in the reservoir.
Species diversity of the aquatic plants would be reduced because the zonation which currently exists
within the emergent marsh would be disrupted (NAI, 2005c). Although water willow would probably
expand because it is tolerant of fluctuations, it would do so at the detriment of other species such as
pickerelweed that cannot tolerate water fluctuations. Aquatic beds could also decline if the
fluctuations were prolonged enough for them dehydrate. However, some reduction in the aquatic bed
productivity and extent is to be expected, especially toward the upper limit of aquatic bed growth
(NAI, 2005c). Reductions in wetlands associated with increased reservoir fluctuations would, in turn,
likely impact the fishery. Though it is difficult to speculate on which fish species might be most
impacted from the loss of wetland habitats, there is no doubt that some changes in the existing
population, composition and health of the fishery would be modified.
5.4 FALLS RESERVOIR
5.4.1 Impacts of Project Operations on Aquatic Biota and Habitat in Falls
Fluctuations in water elevations, although relatively minor, have a limited impact on the aquatic biota
of Falls Reservoir. However, the largest Project impact from operations on the Falls Reservoir
aquatic biota is the quality of water discharged from Narrows Reservoir. The mid-water discharge
from Narrows Reservoir includes cooler anoxic water that lowers temperature, pH and dissolved
oxygen levels throughout Falls Reservoir (NAI 2005b). Before analyzing the impacts of operations
on aquatic biota and habitat, this section first presents data on Falls Reservoirs current hydrologic
regime, water quality, and fish populations.
5.4.2 Hydrologic Regime in Falls
Falls Reservoir is a small, narrow impoundment that covers 204 acres at full pool. The reservoir is
located on the Yadkin River approximately one mile above its confluence with the Uhwarrie River,
forming the Pee Dee River. Maximum depth is 52 ft and mean depth is 27 ft. Falls Reservoir has a
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 130 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
comparatively straight, steep shoreline with only one moderately sized, flooded tributary arm. Daily
water level fluctuations due to the run-of-river operation mode normally range 0-2 ft, with a
maximum fluctuation up to 4 ft. No seasonal drawdowns occur due to limited storage capacity.
Although water levels in the Falls reservoir showed the highest degree of daily, weekly, and monthly
variability (Table 5-1), overall there was no discernable seasonal pattern apparent in the long term
daily records (Figure 4.5-2). Extreme low water events in March 1998, September 1993, and mid-
October 1988 were the source of the most of the minimum values observed on each time scale
examined.
5.4.3 Water Quality in Falls
Water quality in Falls Reservoir is characterized by the absence of stratification and the clearest water
of the four Project reservoirs. It receives almost all of its inflow from Narrows Reservoir. The mid-
water column discharge from Narrows includes cooler anoxic water that lowers the temperature, pH,
and dissolved oxygen levels throughout Falls Reservoir. Falls Reservoir has the lowest
concentrations of solids, nutrients, and algal biomass of the four project reservoirs. Short residence
time (estimated at about 2 hours) along with the deep epilimnetic water (thought to have low algal
biomass) discharged into the system from Narrows, combine to inhibit the development of significant
algal production in Falls Reservoir (NAI 2005b). Surface dissolved oxygen concentrations range
from 3 to 11 mg/l with low dissolved oxygen conditions typically extending from the bottom to
within a meter or two of the surface between June and October. Low dissolved oxygen conditions
(<5 mg/1) have been occasionally observed at the surface, however, anoxic conditions have not been
observed (NAI 2005b).
5.4.4 Existing Management and Fisheries Data for Falls
Falls Reservoir is actively managed by the NCWRC as a warm water fishery. Sport fish present
include largemouth bass, crappie, catfishes, and striped bass. The NCWRC currently regulates
several game species in Falls Reservoir through a combination of size and creel restrictions. Table 5-
3 shows the historic stocking records from the NCWRC for the project reservoirs. Striped bass are
not currently stocked in Falls Reservoir and individuals caught in the reservoir are most likely
recruited from upstream.
A summary of past studies (Table 5-2) indicates that the reservoir is supporting at least 32 species of
game and non-game fish species, representing all trophic levels. Prior to the 2003-2004 NAI study,
the most recent comprehensive study conducted on Falls Reservoir, evaluating species composition,
was performed by CP&L in 2000. Twenty-five species and one hybrid were captured within the
reservoir by electrofishing and gillnetting. Appendix 2 (Table 2-10) shows the percent compositions
and CPUE's for each of those species, by gear type. Bluegill, largemouth bass, redbreast sunfish,
warmouth and white catfish comprised the five most abundant species captured by electrofishing.
White perch, gizzard shad, blue catfish, channel catfish, and white catfish were the five species most
commonly captured in gill nets.
Several of the dominant species captured by NAI in the Narrows tailwater (Falls Reservoir) by
electrofishing (bluegill, largemouth bass, and redbreast sunfish) and gillnets (white perch, gizzard
shad, blue catfish, and channel catfish) were the same as those recorded during the 2000 CP&L
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 131 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
survey (NAI 2005a). Bluegill, largemouth bass and redbreast sunfish had the highest CPUE's for
electrofishing whereas white perch and gizzard shad had the highest gillnet CPUE.
During the 2003-2004 Narrows tailwater fish study (upper Falls Reservoir) largemouth bass average
PSD and RSD values were 88 and 60, respectively. Both of these values exceeded the ideal range
reported for the species (NAI 2005a). Average relative weight for this species was 97, within the
ideal range of 95 to 100 for this species. Based on the above values, the condition of largemouth bass
in Falls reservoir during the 2003-2004 NAI study was excellent.
5.4.5 Impacts of Project Operation on Habitat in Falls
Falls Development is operated as an essentially run-of-the river facility with a normal daily
fluctuation in reservoir elevation of 0 to 2 feet and a maximum daily fluctuation of 3 to 4 feet (Yadkin
ICD 2002). Figure 4.5-2 shows the minimum, mean and maximum daily water elevations at Falls
between 1986 and 2003. As shown, reservoir elevations were relatively stable during the period of
record, particularly during the spring spawning period (April and May). There were instances where
the mean daily water elevation dropped and this could impact availability of shallow water habitats to
spawning fish within Falls Reservoir.
Available high quality habitat mapped within the two foot drawdown zone at Falls Reservoir totaled
5.75 acres (65 % wetland cover types, 35 % quality substrates). This high quality habitat is
periodically exposed due to fluctuating water levels. For a detailed review of the habitat mapped in
Falls Reservoir, see Section 4.5 above. Aquatic vegetation mapped by NAI field biologists during the
field study covered 1.49 acres and accounted for nearly 26 % of the habitat mapped. In addition,
three major wetland habitat types were identified from aerial photographs and added into the GIS map
after sufficient ground-truthing. Palustrine emergent vegetation, mainly water willow, covered 1.99
acres and comprised 34.66 % of the total habitat mapped. Shrub-swamp (0.17 acres; 2.87 %) and
flood plain forest (0.05 acres; 0.83 %) habitat types were also present in Falls Reservoir. The total
acreage covered by some wetland types may be underestimated. Due to a limited drawdown (2 ft)
and low water clarity, areas of some wetland types (particularly palustrine emergent) may be more
extensive than is visible from the surface.
High quality rock habitat found in the littoral zone included boulders and cobble and combined,
made-up 1.26 acres or 21.81 % of the available high quality habitat. Woody cover was dominated by
medium branched trees, which covered 0.79 acres, or 13.76 % of the total habitat mapped in the
littoral zone. Stumps and no branched trees combined for an additional 0.14 % of the habitat mapped.
5.4.6 Impacts of Project Operations on Aquatic Biota in Falls
Though the total range of water level changes is typically within 0 to 4 feet, fluctuating water levels
in Falls Reservoir showed the highest degree of daily, weekly and monthly variability of the four
Project reservoirs (Figure 4.5-2). Daily water level fluctuations due to the run-of-river operation
normally range 0-2 ft, with a maximum fluctuation up to 4 ft. Impacts to aquatic biota caused by
fluctuating water levels would occur in the 1-4 ft daily drawdown zone along the shoreline. In
particular, macroinvertebrates would be impacted in this zone, but since fluctuations are only a few
feet, aquatic insects and mussels can still colonize the available habitat just below the impacted zone.
Impacts of fluctuating water levels on the fish population in Falls Reservoir include the short term
loss of cover within the 1 to 4 ft daily impact zone and possible interference with some fishes
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 132 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
spawning requirements. Fish species that may be impacted by fluctuating water levels include
sunfish species (bluegill, redbreast sunfish), largemouth bass and gizzard shad - all species that
spawn in water depths of 4 ft or less. However, successful spawning of all these fish in Falls
Reservoir have been documented in recent fish studies. Bluegill, redbreast sunfish and largemouth
bass were among the top five species captured electrofishing in the reservoir and gizzard shad was
second in abundance in the gill net catches. These four species had young of the year, juvenile and
adult fish amongst the catches, indicating successful spawning. Thus, under current operations, the
impacts to recruitment due to fluctuating water levels at Falls appear minimal.
Another area of potential impact to aquatic biota in Falls Reservoir is the quality of the water coming
out of Narrows Reservoir. The low dissolved oxygen levels that are drawn from Narrows Reservoir
via the turbines during the warm months of the year can adversely impact aquatic life in Falls
Reservoir (see NAI 2005a; NAI 2005b). These impacts are discussed in more detail in Section 7.0 of
Normandeau's Tailwater Fish and Aquatic Biota Assessment (NAI 2005a).
5.4.7 Effects of Alternative Water Level Regimes on Aquatic Biota in Falls
There are no alternative hydrologic regimes being proposed for Falls Reservoir.
6.0 REFERENCES
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. (APGI) Yadkin Division. 2002. Yadkin Hydroelectric Project FERC
No. 2197-NC. Initial Consultation Document.
Beam, J.H. 1983. The effect of annual water level management on population trends of white
crappie in Elk City Reservoir, Kansas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 3:
34-40.
Benson, N.G. 1973. Evaluating the effects of discharge rates, water levels, and peaking on fish
populations in the Mississippi River main stem impoundments. Man-Made Lakes: Their
Problems and Environmental Effects. Geographical Monograph Series, V. 17, p. 663-689.
Culver, D.A., J.K. Triplett, and G.B. Waterfield. 1980. The evaluation of reservoir water-level
manipulation as a fisheries management tool in Ohio. Ohio Dept. Natural Res. Div. of
Wildlife. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-57R, Study-8.
Dorsey, L.G. 2000a. Population characteristics of black crappie and white crappie in High Rock
Lake. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Dorsey, L.G. 2000b. Black crappie population characteristics in Badin Lake. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Dorsey, L.G. 2001a. Largemouth bass population characteristics in Badin Lake, 2001. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-23-S,
Raleigh.
Dorsey, L.G. 200 lb. 2001 Crappie survey in Tuckertown Lake. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Dorsey, L.G. 2002. Largemouth bass survey for Tuckertown Lake. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 133 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Dorsey, L.G., K.B. Hodges Jr., K.J. Hining, and J.C. Borawa. 2004. Fisheries and Wildlife
Management Plan for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission.
Etmer, D. A. and W.C. Starnes. 1993. The fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville, TN.
Fisher, W.L. and A.V. Zale. 1991. Effect of water level fluctuations on abundance of young-of year
largemouth bass in a hydropower reservoir. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
Southeastern Associated Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 45: 422-431.
Irwin, E.R., R.L. Noble, and J.R. Jackson. 1997. Distribution of age-O largemouth bass in relation to
shoreline landscape features. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 17: 882-
893.
Jackson, J.R., and R.L. Noble. 2000. Relationships between annual variation in reservoir conditions
and age-O largemouth bass year class strength. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society. 129:699-715.
Kohler,C.C., R.J. Sheenan, and J.J. Sweatman. 1993. Largemouth bass hatching success and first-
winter survival in two Illinois reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Man agement.
13:125-133.
Maceina, M.J. and M.R. Stimpert. 1998. Relations between reservoir hydrology and crappie
recruitment in Alabama. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 18:104-113.
Maceina, M.J. 2003. Verification of the influence of hydrologic factors on crappie recruitment in
Alabama reservoirs. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23:470-480.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, NC.
Miranda, LE., W.L. Shelton, and T.D. Bryce. 1984. Effects of water level manipulation on
abundance, mortality, and growth of young-of-year largemouth bass in West Point Reservoir,
Alabama-Georgia. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 4:314-320.
Nelson, C. and L.G. Dorsey. 2005. Population characteristics of black crappie and white crappie in
Badin Lake 2003. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport Fish
Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Nelson, C. and L.G. Dorsey. 2005. Population characteristics of black crappie and white crappie in
High Rock Lake 2003. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Federal Aid in Sport
Fish Restoration, F-23-S, Raleigh.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2005a. Draft Yadkin Tailwater Fish and Aquatic Assessment Report.
Prepared for Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Yadkin Division.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2005b. Draft Yadkin Water Quality Report. Prepared for Alcoa Power
Generating Inc. Yadkin Division.
Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2005c. Draft Wetland and Riparian Habitat Assessment Report.
Prepared for Alcoa Power Generating Inc. Yadkin Division.
O'Brien, W.J., B. Loveless, and D. Wright. 1984. Feeding ecology of young white crappie in a
Kansas reservoir. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 4: 341-349.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 134 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Phillips, J.M., J.R. Jackson, and R.L. Noble. 1995. Hatching date influence on age-specific diet and
growth of age-O largemouth bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 124: 370-
379.
Pope, K.L., D.W. Willis, and D.O. Lucchesi. 1996. Differential relations of age-0 black crappie and
yellow perch to climatological variables in a natural lake. Journal of Freshwater Ecology.
11: 345-350.
Reinert, T.R., G.R. Ploskey, and M.J. Van Den Avyle. 1997. Effects of hydrology on black bass
reproductive success in four southeastern reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of Southeastern Associated Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 49(1995): 47-57.
Sammons, S.M., L.G. Dorsey, and P.W.Bettoli. 1999. Effects of reservoir hydrology on
reproduction by largemouth bass and spotted bass in Normandy reservoir, Tennessee. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 19:78-88.
Sammons, S.M. and P.W. Bettoli. 2000. Population dynamics of a reservoir sport fish community in
response to hydrology. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 20:791-800.
Sammons, S.M., P.W. Bettoli, DA Isermann, and T.N. Churchill. 2002. Recruitment variation of
crappies in response to hydrology of Tennessee reservoirs. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management. 22:1393-1398.
Touchette, B.W., J.M. Burkholder, and H.B. Glascow. 2001. Distribution of water willow (Justicia
Americana L.) in the Narrows Reservoir. Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, North
Carolina State University. Raleigh.
Wetzel, R.G. 2001. Limnology, Lake and River Ecosystems. Third Edition. Academic Press. San
Diego. 980 pp.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 135 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
APPENDIX 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Yadkin Project (FERC No. 2197)
Reservoir Fish and Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Final Study Plan
June, 2003
Background
Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) is the licensee for the Yadkin Hydroelectric Project. The
Yadkin Project is currently licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as
Project No. 2197. This license expires in 2008 and APGI must file a new license application with
FERC on or before April 30, 2006 to continue operation of the Project.
The Yadkin Project consists of four reservoirs, dams, and powerhouses (High Rock, Tuckertown,
Narrows, and Falls) located on a 38-mile stretch of the Yadkin River in central North Carolina. The
Project generates electricity to support the power needs of Alcoa's Badin Works, to support its other
aluminum operations, or is sold on the open market.
As part of the relicensing process, APGI prepared and distributed, in September 2002, an Initial
Consultation Document (ICD), which provides a general overview of the Project. Agencies,
municipalities, non-governmental organizations and members of the public were given an opportunity
to review the ICD and identify information and studies that are needed to address relicensing issues.
To further assist in the identification of issues and data/study needs, APGI has formed several Issue
Advisory Groups (IAGs) to advise APGI on resource issues throughout the relicensing process. IAGs
will also have the opportunity to review and comment on Draft Study Plans. This Draft Study Plan
has been developed in response to comments on the ICD and through discussions with the Fish and
Aquatics JAG, to provide additional necessary information for consideration in the relicensing
process.
Issues
The following issue was raised during initial consultation regarding reservoir fisheries and aquatic
habitat at the Yadkin Project:
¦ Evaluate the effects of Yadkin Project reservoir operations on fish and aquatic habitat
Study Objectives
On March 12, 2003 the Fish and Aquatics JAG met and discussed objectives for the reservoir fishery
and aquatic habitat study. Over the course of those discussions the following objectives were
identified for the study.
¦ Map the existing aquatic habitat in the existing and potential drawdown zones of High
Rock and Narrows reservoirs and the littoral zones of Tuckertown and Falls reservoirs for
inclusion in a GIS based (ARC View) database.
¦ Evaluate the impacts of fluctuating water levels under existing Project operations on the
existing fishery and aquatic habitats in the four impoundments.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
A draft study plan for the Yadkin Reservoir Fish and Aquatic Habitat Assessment was prepared by
Normandeau Associates and distributed electronically to the Fish and Aquatics JAG on April 4, 2003
for review prior to the April 9, 2003 JAG meeting held in Badin, NC. Comments from the April 9
meeting have been incorporated into this final study plan. Comments at the meeting included
discussions on the difficulties of doing the proposed habitat assessment by boat on High Rock during
low water because of the shallow water encountered, especially in the tributary arms. Another
comment was that the draft habitat study plan lacked sufficient detail on the habitat types that would
be mapped and what the final report and Arc View file would contain. Comments on the proposed
mapping of significant erosion along the reservoir were also discussed at the April 9th JAG meeting,
including what constituted significant erosion and the impacts of potential erosion on affected
resources. It was agreed that those Participants that were not familiar with Normandeau Associates
Santeetlah Reservoir Aquatic Habitat Study would be given a copy as an example of the type of
habitat survey and the work product (Arc View) that Normandeau Associates will provide for the
proposed Yadkin Reservoirs Habitat surveys.
A revised draft study plan was distributed to the JAG in May, 2003 and JAG members and no
additional comments were received.
Methods-Habitat Surveys
The habitat mapping portion of the study will be conducted by Normandeau Associates Inc. (NAI)
and will entail the following:
Significant aquatic habitat will be mapped in the drawdown zones of High Rock and
Narrows in one foot contour intervals during the fall/early winter of 2003 after the
reservoirs have been drawn down. In order to document habitat conditions in the typical
10-15 foot drawdown zone within High Rock Reservoir, Normandeau will attempt to
map habitat in High Rock with at least a 10 ft drawdown. A drawdown greater than these
may be possible to achieve for study purposes, but it is important to recognize that factors
such as weather and incoming flows that are beyond the control of Yadkin can create
conditions under which significant drawdowns of the two reservoirs are not possible. At
Narrows, Normandeau will attempt to map habitat to a depth of 15 ft in order to evaluate
the potential resource impacts associated with increasing the annual drawdown of
Narrows Reservoir, similar to that currently done at High Rock.
¦ At High Rock, Normandeau Associates plans to conduct the habitat survey in two parts -
the first effort will focus on the shallow tributary arms when the drawdown is
approximately 5 ft below full pond in late summer or early fall (depending on the
bathymetry in the various coves/tributary arms). This will enable the field crew to work
mostly from a boat in the shallower areas, which would not be possible during a full 10 to
15 ft drawdown. The second effort will occur after High Rock is drawn down at least 10
ft, and at this time the remaining habitat in the main body of the reservoir and in the
deeper areas of the tributary arms will be mapped. Field crews may also conduct the
Narrows habitat survey in two trips, but this may not be necessary because the reservoir
is generally deeper than High Rock and the area exposed at a 15 ft drawdown is expected
to be significantly less than at High Rock.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Habitat will be mapped in the littoral zones of Tuckertown and Falls Reservoirs (using
the same methods cited above) during the fall/early winter of 2004. Because these two
reservoirs have limited storage capability and do not have significant seasonal
drawdowns, attempts will be made to coordinate and conduct these surveys when the
reservoirs are down approximately 2 to 3 ft below high water (if feasible).
Habitat surveys at all four reservoirs will be conducted using a Trimble GPS unit coupled
with a laser scope, digital movie camera, laptop computer and Hydro Pro software. The
laser scope will enable a crew to pinpoint and outline important habitat features to sub-
meter accuracy so that habitat area can be calculated. Habitat types will include, but not
be limited to stream confluences, aquatic vegetation, woody debris (natural and cut),
structures (piers, docks, marinas, etc.), rock habitat - gravel, cobble, boulder and ledge,
and sand/clay habitat. Stream confluences will be filmed at drawdown to document
access between the tributaries and the reservoir and any blockage will be pinpointed with
the Trimble GPS.
¦ Aquatic vegetation will be mostly lacking during the fall/winter period when this habitat
work is planned, therefore most of the mapping of aquatic vegetation habitat types will be
done during the proposed wetland and terrestrial studies during spring and summer, using
a combination of stereo overflights and ground truthing. This effort will quantify the
major water willow beds and other aquatic plants present. Once this data is collected and
mapped, it will be imported into the Arc View habitat data file for each reservoir.
¦ Woody habitat types that will be mapped include downed trees (natural fall or cut), brush
piles, stumps, standing timber and man-made fish habitat such as Christmas trees.
Downed trees will be further broken down by their size and the amount of branches
remaining on them, such as bare tree trunk, medium branched and heavily branched trees.
Also, trees that were cut by agencies and cabled together to provide fish habitat will be
differentiated from those that fell naturally or were cut illegally.
¦ Docks and piers will also be layered into the Arc View data file for each reservoir and
this work (including the area of the docks in square feet) has already be completed by PB
Power on High Rock using overflight pictures from a 2002 survey.
All substrate types within the drawdown zone will be delineated and mapped, including
sand/clay (or mud), gravel, cobble, boulder, ledge and rip-rap. Substrate that does not
provide good habitat, such as heavily imbedded gravel (imbedded >75%) will not be
measured. The predominant substrate type (mud or sand/clay) will not be mapped by the
field crew, but will instead become the "default substrate". All habitat types except this
category will be mapped, and all other habitat of lower value that is not mapped will fall
into this category.
¦ All habitat data from the four reservoirs will be imported into an ARC View data file
after it's collected, so the amount of aquatic habitat (acres and ft2) can be calculated.
Bathymetry in all four reservoirs will be presented in 1 ft contour intervals.
¦ During the habitat surveys, the entire shoreline of all four reservoirs will be filmed with a
digital movie camera connected to the Trimble GPS unit. Areas of significant erosion
and their extent will be located with the GPS system (latitude/longitude), filmed during
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
this survey and their locations included in the Arc View data file for each reservoir.
Significant erosion will include areas that are observed to have active and ongoing
erosion and observable impacts to important aquatic and terrestrial resources. Such areas
will include but are not necessarily limited to:
o areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in localized sediment deposits that are
noticeably affecting water quality or aquatic habitats
o areas where eroding shoreline has resulted in the loss of vegetation from a significant
plant community or habitat type.
o areas where eroding shoreline are impacting public recreation facilities
Methods -Reservoir level fluctuation evaluation
The reservoir fluctuation evaluation portion of the study will also be conducted by Normandeau and
will entail the following:
¦ Evaluate effects of current Project operations and water level fluctuations on existing
fishery and aquatic habitats, including impacts to fish species of management concern
during the spawning season and impacts due to daily and seasonal drawdowns. Fish
species evaluated will primarily include all those that spawn in the littoral zone, such as
largemouth bass, sunfish species (bluegill, pumpkinseed etc). Other fish, such as the
forage species that are pelagic spawners (threadfin and gizzard shad, blueback herring)
will also be evaluated. The habitat surveys discussed above will be used to quantify
impacts of fluctuations on fish and aquatic habitats. Other Project operations that could
affect aquatic biota such as stranding (after generation ceases) and water quality
(especially dissolved oxygen and temperature) will also be evaluated as part of this study.
¦ Evaluate effects of alternative reservoir fluctuations, such as reduced drawdown zone,
seasonal changes to rule curve (fill reservoir sooner or hold full longer, etc.)
o Assess existing water level fluctuation and drawdown data for the reservoirs,
calculate median, mean low and mean high water levels from long term data sets and
prepare a graph for a 12-month cycle to assess impacts (this data will also be used for
wetlands evaluation).
o Use existing fishery data (species lists) collected by NCWRC, Yadkin consultants
(recent Progress Energy fish sampling in four reservoirs) and fisheries data that will
be collected during the proposed tailwater fisheries sampling beginning in August
2003 to conduct this evaluation.
Data Collection and Reporting Schedule
Data collection for the habitat surveys on High Rock and Narrows Reservoirs are planned for the fall
and early winter in 2003 and the habitat data collection for the Tuckertown and Falls Reservoirs is
planned for the fall/early winter in 2004. Results of the habitat surveys and reservoir fluctuation
evaluations for the four impoundments will be reported in draft and final study reports. A draft study
report of the habitat surveys on High Rock and Narrows Reservoirs will be prepared and distributed
to the Fish and Aquatics JAG for review and comment by the 1st quarter of 2004, approximately two
to three months after the completion of data collection. A draft study report for the Tuckertown and
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, Inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Falls Habitat survey will be prepared and distributed to the Fish and Aquatics JAG by the 1St quarter
of 2005, approximately 2 months after data collection. JAG comments will be addressed in a final
habitat study report for all four reservoirs that will be distributed to the JAG in March 2005. Interim
results, such as draft habitat maps of the reservoirs, may be shared with the JAG as such information
becomes available, prior to completion of the draft study report. The draft Reservoir Level
Fluctuation report for High Rock and Narrows will be prepared and distributed to the JAG for review
and comment by the 2nd quarter of 2004, about three months after the draft Habitat survey report for
these two reservoirs is turned in. The draft Reservoir Level Fluctuation report for Tuckertown and
Falls Reservoirs will be distributed to the JAG for review and comment by the 2nd quarter of 2005,
about two months after the draft habitat survey for these reservoirs is turned in (draft habitat survey
reports are needed in order to complete the draft reservoir fluctuation reports). Final Reservoir Level
Fluctuation reports for the four reservoirs will be distributed to the JAG for review and comment by
the 2nd quarter of 2005.
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
APPENDIX 2
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-1. Percent Composition and CPUE of Fish Species collected in High Rock
Reservoir by electrofishing and gill nets in 2000 (CP&L)

Species Electrofishing
(fish per hour)
% Comp CPUE Gill Nets
(fish per 24 hour set)
% Comp CPUE
Black crappie 7.53% 15.17 10.77% 10.94
Bluegill 21.92% 44.17 0.86% 0.87
Bowfin 0.00% 0.00 0.02% 0.02
Brown bullhead 0.00% 0.00 0.09% 0.09
Channel catfish 0.91% 1.83 11.29% 11.46
Common carp 3.80% 7.67 1.33% 1.35
Common carp x goldfish hybrid 0.00% 0.00 0.38% 0.39
Creek chubsucker 0.00% 0.00 0.02% 0.02
Flathead catfish 0.50% 1.00 0.65% 0.66
Gizzard shad 28.04% 56.50 5.61% 5.70
Golden shiner 0.74% 1.50 0.23% 0.23
Goldfish 0.74% 1.50 0.29% 0.30
Green sunfish 0.50% 1.00 0.00% 0.00
Largemouth bass 7.69% 15.50 0.54% 0.55
Longnose gar 0.00% 0.00 0.27% 0.27
Pumpkinseed 0.66% 1.33 0.05% 0.05
Quillback 0.33% 0.67 1.10% 1.12
Redbreast sunfish 0.17% 0.33 0.00% 0.00
Redear sunfish 0.17% 0.33 0.05% 0.05
Shiner unid. (notropis) 0.00% 0.00 0.02% 0.02
Shorthead redhorse 0.91% 1.83 1.13% 1.14
Spotted sucker 0.17% 0.33 0.00% 0.00
Striped bass 1.08% 2.17 0.83% 0.85
Striped x white bass hybrid 0.00% 0.00 0.09% 0.09
Threadfin shad 19.02% 38.33 37.19% 37.77
Warmouth 0.00% 0.00 0.07% 0.07
White bass 0.00% 0.00 0.54% 0.55
White catfish 0.25% 0.50 1.04% 1.05
White crappie 2.89% 5.83 0.77% 0.78
White perch 1.16% 2.33 24.69% 25.07
Yellow perch 0.83% 1.67 0.09% 0.09
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-2. Aged subsamples of striped bass captured in High Rock Reservoir in
2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - Age Unknown- Age
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
200-209 2
210-219 5
230-239 1
240-249 1
250-259 1 2
260-269 1 1
270-279 1
330-339 1
370-379 1 1
410-419 3
420-429 1
440-449 2 1
450-459 1
460-469 1
470-479 1
510-519 2
550-559 1
560-569 1
580-589 1
640-649 1
670-679 1
680-689 1
850-859 1
870-879 2
890-899 1
900-909 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-3. Aged subsamples of white bass captured in High Rock Reservoir in
2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - Age Unknown- Age
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
180-189 1
210-219 1
230-239 1
240-249 1 1
250-259 1 1
270-279 2
280-289 1
290-299 1 1
320-320 1
330-329 1 1 1
350-359 1 1
360-369 1 1 1
380-389 1
390-399 1 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-4. Percent Composition and CPUE of Fish Species collected in Tuckertown
Reservoir by electrofishing and gill nets in 2000 (CP&L)

Species Electrofishing
(fish per hour)
% Comp CPUE Gill Nets
(fish per 24 hour set)
% Comp CPUE
Black crappie 0.91% 4.25 6.83% 5.43
Blue catfish 0.00% 0.00 0.02% 0.02
Bluegill 51.19% 240.13 0.76% 0.60
Channel catfish 0.37% 1.75 8.95% 7.11
Common carp 2.56% 12.00 0.94% 0.75
Creek chubsucker 0.00% 0.00 0.06% 0.05
Flathead catfish 0.00% 0.00 1.14% 0.91
Gizzard shad 6.16% 28.88 7.45% 5.92
Golden shiner 0.43% 2.00 0.06% 0.05
Green sunfish 0.40% 1.88 0.00% 0.00
Largemouth bass 4.74% 22.25 0.78% 0.62
Longnose gar 0.00% 0.00 0.18% 0.14
Pumpkinseed 0.45% 2.13 0.14% 0.11
Quillback 0.00% 0.00 0.06% 0.05
Redbreast sunfish 0.13% 0.63 0.00% 0.00
Redear sunfish 0.85% 4.00 0.00% 0.00
Redhorse unid.(moxostoma) 0.00% 0.00 0.02% 0.02
Satinfin shiner 0.03% 0.13 0.00% 0.00
Shorthead redhorse 0.08% 0.38 0.46% 0.37
Silver redhorse 0.03% 0.13 0.06% 0.05
Striped bass 0.00% 0.00 1.66% 1.32
Striped x white bass hybrid 0.00% 0.00 0.06% 0.05
Threadfin shad 28.83% 135.25 44.78% 35.60
Warmouth 0.75% 3.50 0.26% 0.21
White bass 0.03% 0.13 0.32% 0.25
White catfish 0.00% 0.00 0.16% 0.13
White crappie 0.40% 1.88 0.60% 0.48
White perch 0.88% 4.13 24.20% 19.24
Yellow perch 0.80% 3.75 0.04% 0.03
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-5. Aged subsamples of striped bass captured in Tuckertown Reservoir in
2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - Age Unknown- Age
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
190-199 5
200-209 1 3
210-219 3
220-229 2
230-239 3
240-249 1 2
250-259 1
370-379 1
380-389 1 1
390-399 1
400-409 1 4
410-419 2 1 3
420-429 1 3 1
430-439 2 1 2 1
440-449 1 2 1 1
450-459 1 1 1 1
460-469 1 1 2
470-479 1 1
480-489 1 2 2
490-499 1 2 1
500-509 1
510-519 1 1
520-529 1
530-539 1
540-549 1
560-569 1 1
580-589 1 1
590-599 1
610-619 1
630-639 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-6. Aged subsamples of white bass captured in Tuckertown Reservoir in
2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - Age Unknown- Age
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
210-219 1
220-229 1 1
250-259 1
260-269 1 1
280-289 1
300-309 1
310-319 1
320-329 1
330-339 1 1
340-349 1 1
350-359 2
360-369 1
390-399 1
400-409 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-7. Percent Composition and CPUE of Fish Species collected in Narrows
Reservoir by electrofishing and gill nets in 2000 (CP&L)
Electrofishing
(fish per hour) Gill Nets
(fish per 24 hour set)
Species % Comp CPUE % Comp CPUE
Black crappie 0.10% 0.25 0.94% 0.51
Blue catfish 0.00% 0.00 1.06% 0.57
Blueback herring 0.00% 0.00 0.14% 0.08
Bluegill 33.23% 83.38 0.23% 0.12
Brown bullhead 0.55% 1.38 0.06% 0.03
Channel catfish 0.60% 1.50 5.89% 3.16
Common cafl? 1.30% 3.25 0.26% 0.14
Creek chubsucker 0.00% 0.00 0.03% 0.02
Flat bullhead 0.50% 1.25 1.20% 0.64
Flathead catfish 0.05% 0.13 0.31% 0.17
Gizzard shad 19.63% 49.25 7.00% 3.76
Golden shiner 0.15% 0.38 0.00% 0.00
Green sunfish 0.30% 0.75 0.00% 0.00
Largemouth bass 6.58% 16.50 1.11% 0.60
Pumpkinseed 0.85% 2.13 0.14% 0.08
Redbreast sunfish 4.24% 10.63 0.06% 0.03
Redear sunfish 1.59% 4.00 0.11% 0.06
Shorthead redhorse 0.10% 0.25 0.66% 0.35
Snail bullhead 0.80% 2.00 0.83% 0.44
Striped bass 0.10% 0.25 8.15% 4.37
Striped x white bass hybrid 0.00% 0.00 0.40% 0.21
Sunfish (hybrid) 0.05% 0.13 0.00% 0.00
Threadfin shad 13.35% 33.50 3.17% 1.70
Warmouth 0.60% 1.50 0.26% 0.14
White bass 0.00% 0.00 1.23% 0.66
White catfish 2.54% 6.38 3.60% 1.93
White crappie 0.45% 1.13 0.29% 0.15
White perch 1.49% 3.75 62.75% 33.67
Yellow perch 10.86% 27.25 0.11% 0.06
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-8. Aged subsamples of striped bass captured in Narrows Reservoir in 2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - A e Unknown- A e
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
100-109 1
200-209 3
210-219 1
220-229 1
240-249 2
260-269 1 2 1
270-279 1 3
280-289 3 1 3
290-299 1 2
300-309 1
310-319 3
330-339 1
340-349 1 1
350-359 3 2 1
360-369 3 3 1
370-379 1 2 2 2
380-389 6 1 1 2
390-399 3 4 1
400-409 3 2 4
410-419 2 2 6
420-429 1 2 1 1 1
430-439 3 1 3 3
440-449 2 1 2 3 2
450-459 2 2 5 1
460-469 5 1 2 2
470-479 2 1 3 1 1 2
480-489 4 1 4 1
490-499 2 3 3
500-509 1 1 3
510-519 1 2 1 4 1
520-529 1 1 3
530-539 1 1 2 2
540-549 1 2 1
550-559 1 1 1
560-569 2 1
570-579 1
580-589 1 2 2 1 1
590-599 1 2 1
600-609 1 1 1
610-619 1 1
620-629 1
640-649 1
660-669 1 1
720-729 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-9. Aged subsamples of white bass captured in Narrows Reservoir in 2000.
Length Group Female - Age Male - A e Unknown- A e
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
200-209 1
210-219 1
230-239 2
240-249 4
250-259 2 2
260-269 2 2
270-279 1 2
280-289 1 1
310-319 1 2 1 2
320-329 2 1 2
330-339 1 3
340-349 1
350-359 1
360-369 1
370-379 1
400-409 1
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.
Yadkin Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Assessment
Appendix Table 2-10. Percent Composition and CPUE of Fish Species collected in Falls
Reservoir by electrofishing and gill nets in 2000 (CP&L)
Electrofishing
(fish per hour) Gill Nets
(fish per 24 hour set)
Species % Comp CPUE % Comp CPUE
Black crappie 0.00% 0.00 0.72% 0.10
Blue catfish 0.21% 0.25 12.80% 1.84
Blueback herring 0.00% 0.00 1.45% 0.21
Bluegill 36.19% 43.25 1.21% 0.17
Channel catfish 3.35% 4.00 10.14% 1.46
Common cafl? 1.46% 1.75 0.48% 0.07
Eastern mosquitofish 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Flathead catfish 0.21% 0.25 3.14% 0.45
Gizzard shad 9.21% 11.00 13.04% 1.88
Golden shiner 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Green sunfish 1.88% 2.25 0.00% 0.00
Largemouth bass 12.34% 14.75 1.69% 0.24
Pumpkinseed 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Redbreast sunfish 12.34% 14.75 0.24% 0.03
Redear sunfish 1.46% 1.75 0.24% 0.03
Shorthead redhorse 0.00% 0.00 3.38% 0.49
Smallmouth buffalo 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Striped bass 0.00% 0.00 0.72% 0.10
Sunfish (hybrid) 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Threadfin shad 0.21% 0.25 0.00% 0.00
Warmouth 10.67% 12.75 0.97% 0.14
White catfish 7.53% 9.00 8.70% 1.25
White crappie 0.00% 0.00 0.48% 0.07
White perch 1.05% 1.25 40.34% 5.81
Yellow perch 0.84% 1.00 0.24% 0.03
Reservoir Fish & Aquatic Habitat Draft Report 031805 Normandeau Associates, inc.