Appendix A

Final Woody Debris Study

and Recommendations

Fish Utilization of Coarse Woody Debris, Developed, and Undeveloped

Habitats in Three Catawba-Wateree River Lakes

D. Hugh Barwick

Duke Power

13339 Hagers Ferry Road

Huntersville, NC 28078

April 2001

Fish Utilization of Coarse Woody Debris, Developed, and Undeveloped

Habitats in Three Catawba-Wateree River Lakes

Introduction

The loss of littoral fish habitat resulting from residential development in riparian zones of lakes is an ongoing and controversial issue among fishery managers (e.g., Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992; Beauchamp et al. 1994; Jennings et al. 1999). A major concern associated with this development is the loss or removal of coarse woody debris (CWD) from lakes (Christensen et al. 1996). Fishery managers worry that the loss of CWD may have significant long-term negative consequences on littoral fish communities and community structure of fish populations in lakes (Christensen et al. 1996; Bolgrien and Kratz 2000). However, there is little scientific evidence regarding the importance of CWD as habitat for fish or that its loss would be detrimental to resident fish populations (Guyette and Cole 1999; Bolgrien and Kratz 2000). Thus, it is critical that the importance of CWD as littoral fish habitat be investigated to provide fishery managers with insight into both the short- and long-term impacts of its removal on fish communities. In 1999, Duke Power implemented a study to evaluate the importance of CWD as shallow water fish habitat. The objectives of this study were to evaluate seasonal taxa composition, relative abundance of fish, relative weights of largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides, and size distributions of major fish taxa in CWD, developed (DEV), and undeveloped (UND) littoral habitats in lakes James, Hickory, and Fishing Creek.

Methods

This study was developed cooperatively with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR), and conducted in three Duke Power lakes (Table 1) located on the Catawba-Wateree River in North Carolina and South Carolina. Eight 100-m shoreline transects (Table 2) were selected in CWD, DEV, and UND habitats and associated fish populations were sampled using daytime boat electrofishing in spring (March or April), summer (July), and fall (October or November) of 1999-2000. Coarse woody debris, DEV, and UND habitats are defined as: littoral zones composed of >50% felled trees that were >25.4 cm in diameter at chest height, littoral zones composed of >50% piers and riprap, and undeveloped littoral zones with no piers, riprap, and <50% CWD, respectively. All fish (except largemouth bass) collected from each transect were identified, counted and weighed (g) in aggregate by taxa, and up to 30 (selected at random) redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus and bluegills Lepomis macrochirus from each transect were measured for total length (TL in mm). All largemouth bass were measured for TL and weighed individually. Largemouth bass relative weights (Wr) were calculated as recommended by Anderson and Neumann (1996).

Relative abundance (numbers and biomass) of fish commonly collected (those that occurred in at least 50% of the sampled transects in one habitat type during any season) and length distributions of redbreast sunfish, bluegills, and largemouth bass were pooled for both years and analyzed independently by lake, season, and habitat using the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test (Conover 1971). Largemouth bass Wr data were pooled for both years and analyzed independently by lake, season, and habitat using a one-way analysis of variance test (Steel and Torrie 1960). All statistical comparisons were considered significant at P < 0.10.

Back to Top

Results

Taxa composition

Forty fish taxa (including one hybrid complex) were collected during this study and composition varied somewhat among lakes (Table 3). However, taxa composition was generally similar among habitats sampled within each lake. Twenty-seven taxa were collected in Lake James. Of this, 21 were collected in CWD and DEV habitat, while 18 were collected in UND habitat. Of the 27 taxa collected, 14 were collected in all habitats. The whitefin shiner Cyprinella nivea was the only frequently caught taxon that was not collected in all habitats.

A total of 26 taxa were collected in Lake Hickory (Table 3). Twenty-four taxa were collected in CWD habitat, while 23 were collected in DEV habitat, and 21 were collected in UND habitat. Eighteen of the 26 taxa collected in Lake Hickory were found in all habitats. The common carp Cyprinus carpio, spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius, and white crappie Pomoxis annularis were the only frequently caught taxa that were not collected in all habitats.

Thirty-two fish taxa were collected in Fishing Creek Lake. Of the 32 taxa, 25 were collected in CWD habitat, while 31 and 28 were collected in DEV and UND habitats, respectivley. Twenty-five of the 32 taxa collected in this reservoir were found in all three habitats. The eastern mosquitofish Gambusia holbrooki was the only frequently caught taxon that was not found in all habitats.

Back to Top

Relative abundance

Mean numbers and biomass of fish collected from the three lakes varied somewhat seasonally among habitats (Tables 4-6). In Lake James, higher numbers of fish (mostly redbreast sunfish) were caught in DEV habitat when compared to that in CWD and UND habitats during spring and summer (Table 4). The numbers of fish caught in the fall were similar in CWD and DEV habitats (except for yellow perch Perca flavescens) and the numbers of fish caught here were generally higher than catches noted in UND habitat.

Mean fish biomass in spring samples from Lake James differed among all habitats. Biomass was highest in CWD, intermediate in DEV, and lowest in UND habitats. These differences were related primarily to differences in the largemouth bass biomass collected in each habitat. In summer and fall, mean biomass was generally similar in CWD and DEV habitats (except for redbreast sunfish and warmouth Lepomis gulosus in summer and smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu and yellow perch in fall) and biomass in these habitats was higher than that in UND habitat.

Mean numbers of fish collected in CWD and DEV habitats in Lake Hickory were similar in spring and the number of fish collected in both of these habitats were higher than that noted in spring for UND habitat (Table 5). Even though overall numbers of fish in CWD and DEV habitats were similar, some differences were noted for individual taxa. Redbreast sunfish were more abundant in DEV habitat than in CWD and UND habitats, and black crappies Pomoxis nigromaculatus were more abundant in CWD than in DEV or UND habitat in spring. In summer and fall, the overall numbers of fish collected from the three habitats were similar. However, white catfish Ameiurus catus (in summer) and yellow perch (in fall) were more numerous in CWD than in DEV habitat, while redbreast sunfish (in summer and fall) continued to be more abundant in DEV habitat when compared to CWD habitat.

Mean biomass of fish collected in the spring from Lake Hickory was higher in CWD habitat than noted in either DEV or UND habitats (Table 5). This resulted primarily from differences in largemouth bass and black crappie biomass collected in each of the habitats. In summer, fish biomass in CWD and DEV habitats was similar, but biomass noted in the CWD and UND habitats differed. Only redbreast sunfish exhibited higher biomass in DEV habitat compared to that in CWD and UND habitats. Similar overall fish biomass was noted among habitats in fall with only largemouth bass biomass being higher in CWD habitat than in UND habitat and yellow perch biomass being higher in CWD habitat than in DEV habitat.

In Fishing Creek Lake, mean numbers of fish collected from CWD and DEV habitats were similar in spring and summer and both were generally higher than that noted in UND habitat (Table 6). Redbreast sunfish (in spring and summer) and warmouth (in spring) were more abundant in DEV habitat than in CWD and UND habitats at this time while bluegill were more abundant in CWD habitat when compared to either DEV or UND habitat in the spring. In fall, numbers of fish were highest in DEV habitat (primarily for redbreast sunfish, warmouth, and redear sunfish Lepomis macrolophus), intermediate in CWD, and lowest in UND habitat.

Mean biomass estimates for fish collected in Fishing Creek Lake were similar in all habitats in spring and fall, and similar in CWD and DEV habitats in summer (Table 6). Summer biomass in CWD and DEV habitats were both higher than noted in UND habitat. Bluegill biomass was higher in CWD than in DEV and UND habitats in spring, yellow perch biomass was higher in CWD than in DEV habitat in fall, while redbreast sunfish biomass was higher in DEV than UND habitat in summer and fall.

Back to Top

Relative Weight

Largemouth bass Wr values varied among lakes, but were generally similar among seasons and habitats within each lake (Table 7). The lowest Wr values were noted in Lake James while values in lakes Hickory and Fishing Creek were similar. The only Wr differences noted among the habitats were for fish collected in CWD in Fishing Creek Lake in the spring.

Size distributions

Mean numbers of redbreast sunfish, bluegills, and largemouth bass collected per size group from CWD, DEV, and UND habitats varied among lakes and seasons (Tables 8-10). In lakes James and Fishing Creek, mean numbers of all sizes of redbreast sunfish were generally higher during all season in DEV habitat than noted in CWD and UND habitats. In Lake Hickory, mean numbers of all sizes of redbreast sunfish were generally similar in all habitats during all seasons. Mean numbers of all sizes of bluegills were generally similar in all habitats during all season in all lakes. Mean numbers for most sizes of largemouth bass were similar in all habitats during all season in all lakes. However, mean numbers of largemouth bass >300 mm long collected in the spring were higher in CWD habitat than in DEV habitat in lakes James and Hickory.

Back to Top

Discussion

Fish responses to CWD, DEV, and UND littoral habitats in lakes James, Hickory, and Fishing Creek were similar for many of the parameters evaluated. Taxa composition, largemouth bass Wr values, and the size distributions of bluegills were generally similar in all habitats. However, some differences in relative abundance and size distributions for redbreast sunfish and largemouth bass were noted among the habitats, seasons, and lakes.

Redbreast sunfish abundance (numbers and biomass) was generally higher in DEV habitat than noted in CWD or UND habitats during all seasons in most lakes. This elevated abundance of redbreast sunfish in DEV habitat was also noted for all sizes of fish and may be related to their preference for the rocky substrata (Scott and Crossman 1998) associated with the riprap shoreline.

The largemouth bass was the only other taxon that regularly exhibited differences among the habitats sampled. While the numbers and biomass of largemouth bass were often similar among habitats within seasons for most lakes, spring biomass estimates were usually higher in CWD habitat than in DEV or UND habitats. This resulted because more largemouth bass >300 mm long were present in the CWD habitat than in the other habitats. The presence of fish this size during this season was probably related to their preference to spawn near brush or logs (Miller and Kramer 1971; Annette et al. 1996). This elevated biomass of large largemouth bass in CWD was thought to be more of a preference by this fish than an essential or critical need for its successful reproduction. The largemouth bass has been reported to spawn successfully in a variety of other habitats (e.g., Kramer and Smith 1962; Miller and Kramer 1971; Annette et al. 1996).

Even though Annette et al. (1996) indicated that CWD may afford young largemouth bass some protection from predation, spawning success (based on the number of small fish <100 mm long collected in summer) did not appear to be enhanced in CWD habitats over that noted in the DEV habitats. The numbers of small largemouth bass collected in summer were similar in both CWD and DEV habitats in lakes James and Hickory. However, this was not true in Fishing Creek Lake. The numbers of small largemouth bass collected here during the summer were higher in CWD habitat than noted in DEV habitat, even though the abundance of large largemouth bass were similar in both CWD and DEV habitats during spring.

While these data suggest that a few fish taxa in these lakes have preferences or a seasonal preference for certain types of habitat, many apparently do not. Even though CWD, DEV, and UND shorelines differ significantly in the amount and type of structure available to fish, fish nevertheless responded similarly in their use of CWD and DEV habitats. This was not true for the UND habitat which was generally used by fish to a lesser extent than CWD and DEV habitats.

Jennings et al. (1999) indicated that fish do not necessarily respond to a particular type of shoreline structure, but respond more to the habitat characteristics or habitat complexity created by it. Habitat complexity is well documented as an important determinant in fish diversity (Benson and Magnuson 1992), distribution (Irwin et al. 1997), predator-prey interactions (Savino and Stein 1982; Johnson et al. 1988), and survival of young (Aggus and Elliott 1975; Hall and Werner 1977; Miranda et al. 1984; Bryan and Scarnecchia 1992). Therefore, it is probable that most fish taxa in these Catawba-Wateree River lakes were responding to their basic biological needs that are best provided by the habitat complexity associated CWD or DEV shorelines. Thus, the loss of CWD due to residential development appears to be compensated for by the habitat complexity afforded by the riparian zone modifications (e.g., shoreline stabilization using riprap and pier construction) associated with development. Inasmuch as both CWD and DEV habitats are used similarly and more extensively by fish than UND habitats, it appears that removal of CWD due to residential development will have little short- or long-term impact on fish habitat in the Catawba-Wateree River lakes.

Back to Top

References

Aggus, L. R., and G. V. Elliott. 1975. Effects of cover and food on year-class
strength of largemouth bass. Pages 317-322 in H. Clepper, editor, Black bass biology
and management. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, DC.

Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural
indices. Pages 447-482 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries
Techniques, 2^nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Annett, C., J. Hunt, and E. D. Dibble. 1996. The compleat bass: habitat use patterns of
all stages of the life cycle of largemouth bass. Pages 306-314 in L. E. Miranda and D.
R. Devries. Editors. Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management.
American Fisheries Society, Symposium 16, Bethesda, Maryland.

Beauchamp. D. A., E. R. Bryron, and W. A. Wurtsbaugh. 1994. Summer habitat use by
littoral-zone fishes in Lake Tahoe and the effects of shoreline structures. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:385-394.

Benson, B. J., and J. J. Magnuson. 1992. Spatial heterogeneity of littoral fish
assemblages in lakes: relation to species diversity and habitat structure. Canadian
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1493-1500.

Bolgrien, D. W., and T. K. Kratz. 2000. Lake riparian areas. Pages 207-218 in E. S.
Verry, J. W. Hornbeck, and C. A. Dolloff, editors. Riparian Management in Forests.
CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida.

Bryan, M. D., and D. L. Scarnecchia. 1992. Species richness, composition, and
abundance of fish larvae and juveniles inhabiting natural and developed shorelines
of a glacial Iowa lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 35:329-341.

Christensen, D. L., B. R. Herwig, D. E. Schindler, and S. R. Carpenter. 1996. Impacts
of lakeshore residential development on coarse woody debris in north temperate lakes.
Ecological Applications 6:1143-1149.

Conover, W. J. 1971. Practical nonparametric statistics. John Wiley, New York, New
York.

Guyette, R. P., and W. G. Cole. 1999. Age characteristics of coarse woody debris (Pinus
strobus) in a lake littoral zone. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
56:496-505.

Hall, D. J., and E. E. Werner. 1977. Seasonal distribution and abundance of fishes in the
littoral zone of a Michigan lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106:
545-555.

Irwin, E. R., R. L. Noble, and J. R. Jackson. 1997. Distribution of age-0 largemouth
bass in relation to shoreline landscape features. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 17:882-893.

Kramer, R. D., and Lloyd L. Smith, Jr. 1962. Formation of year classes in largemouth
Bass. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 91:29-41.

Jennings, M. J., M. A. Bozek, G. R. Hatzenbeler, E. E. Emmons, and M. D. Staggs.
Cumulative effects of incremental shoreline habitat modification on fish assemblages in north
temperate lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 19:18-27.

Johnson, D. L., R. A Beaumier, and W. E. Lynch, Jr. 1988. Selection of habitat
structure interstice size by bluegills and largemouth bass in ponds. Transactions of he
American Fisheries Society 117:171-179.

Miller, K. D., and R. H. Kramer. 1971. Spawning and early life history of
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) in Lake Powell. Pages 73-83 in G. E.
Hall, editor. Reservoir fisheries and limnology. American Fisheries Society, Special
Publication 8, Bethesda, Maryland.

Miranda, L. E., 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.

Savino, J. F., and R. A. Stein. 1982. Predator-prey interaction between largemouth bass and
bluegills as influenced by simulated, submersed vegetation. Transactions of the
American Fisheries Society 111:255-266.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1998. Freshwater fishes of Canada. Galt House
Publications LTD. Oakville, Ontario.

Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics.
McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top

Back to Top