Enclosure 2, Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River ...

Enclosure 2

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge Autumn 2009

E2-1

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River

Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant DischargeAutumn 2009

Jeffrey W. SimmonsDennis S. Baxter

Gregory P. Shaffer

May 2010

Tennessee Valley AuthorityAquatic Monitoring and Management

Chattanooga, Tennessee

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii

A cronym s and A bbreviations ................................................................................................... iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Plant D escription ......................................................................................................................... 2M ethods ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of WBN.. 2A quatic H abitat in the V icinity of W BN ................................................................................. 3Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream ofW BN ............................................................................................................................................ 4Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for SitesUpstream and D ownstream of W BN ........................................................................................ 8

Results and D iscussion ........................................................................................................... 9

A quatic H abitat in the V icinity of W BN ................................................................................ 9Fish Com m unity ......................................................................................................................... 10Fish Com m unity Sum m ary .................................................................................................... 15Benthic M acroinvertebrate Com m unity ................................................................................ 17Benthic M acroinvertebrate Com m unity Sum m ary ................................................................ 19Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near WBN ............................................... 20

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 21

A ppendix 1: H istorical RFAI Scores ....................................................................................... 47

A ppendix 2: H istorical Fish Species List ................................................................................. 61

i

List of Tables

Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .................... 22

Table 2. RFAI Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of UpperMainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Upper Mainstream reservoirs includeChickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar ........... 23

Table 3. Scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (field-processed) forforebay, transition, and inflow sections of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs.Inflow scoring criteria were used for the site downstream of WBN. Forebay scoringcriteria were used for the Watts Bar Reservoir site upstream of WBN ........................ 24

Table 4. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reachdownstream of WBN in Chickamauga Reservoir inflow, Autumn 2009. Eight shorelinesections were located on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were located on the rightdescending bank (RD ) ................................................................................................. 25

Table 5. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reach upstreamof WBN in Watts Bar Reservoir forebay, Autumn 2009. Eight shoreline sections werelocated on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were located on the right descending bank(R D ) .................................................................................................................................. 2 6

Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 529.0) andUpstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 ........... 27

Table 7. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream ofWatts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir ................. 31

Table 8. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch PerEffort During Electrofishing at Areas Downstream (TRM 529) of Watts Bar NuclearPlant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN),omnivore (OM), parasitic (PS), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant(TO L), intolerant (IN T) ................................................................................................ 32

Table 9. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch PerEffort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 531) of WattsBar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 ................................................................ 33

Table 10. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the residentimportant species at areas downstream (TRM 529) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009.Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), topcarnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT) ..................................... 34

Table 11. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the residentimportant species at areas upstream (TRM 531) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009.Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), topcarnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT) ..................................... 36

Table 12. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream andDownstream Sampling Sites Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2009 ............... 38

ii

Table 13. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream andUpstream Sampling Sites Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga and Watts BarReservoirs, Autumn 2001-2009. *TRM 527.4 was not sampled during 2006; data fromTRM 518 was used for the downstream site during 2006 ............................................ 39

Table 14. Comparison of Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected atUpstream and Downstream Sites Near WBN, Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs,Autumn 2008 and Autum n 2009 .................................................................................. 40

Table 15. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream ofWatts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir ................. 41

List of Figures

Figure 1. Map of WBN showing location of SCCW intake and discharge ........................... 42

Figure 2. RFAI electrofishing downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, represented by blacksq u ares ............................................................................................................................... 4 3

Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations. 44

Figure 4. Daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2008through November 2009 and historic daily flows averaged for the same period 1976throu gh 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 4 5

Figure 5. Average hourly water temperatures immediately below Watts Bar Dam, October 2008to N ovem ber 2009 ......................................................................................................... 46

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ATL Alternative Thermal limitBIP Balanced Indigenous PopulationCWA Clean Water ActNPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination SystemQA Quality AssuranceRBI Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate IndexRFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage IndexSAHI Shoreline Assessment Habitat IndexSCCW Supplemental Condenser Cooling WaterTRM Tennessee River MileTVA Tennessee Valley AuthorityVS Vital SignsWBF Watts Bar Fossil PlantWBN Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

iv

Introduction

Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternative thermal limits (ATL) forthe control of the thermal component of a discharge from a point source so long as the limits willassure the protection of Balanced Indigenous Populations (BIP) of aquatic life. The term"balanced indigenous population," as defined in EPA's regulations implementing Section 316(a),means a biotic community that is typically characterized by:

(1) diversity appropriate to ecoregion;(2) the capacity to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changes;(3) the presence of necessary food chain species;(4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species; and(5) indigenous.

Prior to 1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) wasoperating under a 316(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based onstudies conducted in the mid- 1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional datain conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintainedat TVA's thermal plants with ATLs. In July 1999, a Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water(SCCW) system went on line at WBN. As required by WBN's National Pollutant DischargeElimination System (NPDES) permit TNO020168, impacts to aquatic communities in the vicinityof WBN were evaluated. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program,supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoringupstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. TheVS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program wasimplemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TVA'sstewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health isthe Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) methodology. RFAI has been thoroughly tested onTVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings et al. 1995;Hickman and McDonough 1996; McDonough and Hickman 1999). Fish communities are usedto evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web andbecause fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthicmacroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI)methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts toaquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fishcommunities. These data are used to supplement RFAI results to provide a more thoroughexamination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermaldischarges.

TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areasimmediately upstream and downstream of WBN during 1999-2009 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results of autumn 2009 RFAI and RBIdata collected upstream and downstream of WBN with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data

1

collected at these sites during autumn 1999-2008. Since the WBN discharge is located withinChickamauga Reservoir inflow zone, no upstream control site data are available for comparison.Watts Bar Reservoir RFAI forebay site (Tennessee River Mile [TRM] 531) is used to documentany notable changes in Tennessee River ecological conditions above the WBN discharge but willnot be used for upstream/downstream comparisons of RFAI and RBI scores.

Plant Description

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is located on the right descending (west) bank of upper ChickamaugaReservoir near TRM 528. This one-unit nuclear generating plant went into commercialoperation on May 27, 1996 and is designed for an electrical output of about 1270 megawatts.WBN is situated approximately two miles downstream of Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) and onemile downstream of the decommissioned Watts Bar Fossil Plant (WBF) (Figure 1).

In the original design, nearly all the waste heat created by the plant was dissipated in theatmosphere by the cooling towers. A small fraction of the waste heat was dissipated in theTennessee River by the cooling tower blowdown. Blowdown from the cooling tower isdischarged through multi-port diffusers located in the main river channel at TRM 527.9 (Figure1). Makeup water and other water supply requirements are obtained from an intake channel andpumping station at TRM 528. Intake pumping flow rate is 80 cfs, and maximum diffuserdischarge is about 135 cfs.

The WBN Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water System (SCCW) system became operationalin July 1999. The SCCW system withdraws water from the intake structure located immediatelyupstream of Watts Bar Dam at TRM 529.9, which formerly served WBF. The temperature of thewater in the SCCW system is usually less than that of Unit 1 cooling tower. The SCCW flowreduces the temperature of the Unit 1 condenser flow and enhances the performance of the steamcycle. The SCCW is designed to provide a maximum of 365 cfs. Water from the SCCW systemis discharged through the old WBF discharge structure located on the Tennessee Riverapproximately 1.1 miles upstream of the nuclear plant intake.

The SCCW system was designed and constructed as a discretionary system and has nosignificant impact on the original blowdown system, allowing the plant to operate with orwithout the SCCW system in service.

Methods

Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream ofWBN

Reservoirs are typically divided into three zones for VS monitoring - inflow, transition, andforebay. The inflow zone is generally in the upper reaches of the reservoir and is riverine innature; the transition zone or mid-reservoir is the area where water velocity decreases due toincreased cross-sectional area; and the forebay is the lacustrine area near the dam. TheChickamauga Reservoir inflow RFAI sample site is located at TRM 529.0 below Watts Bar Dam

2

and extends downstream to TRM 527 (Figure 2). This station is used to provide downstreamdata for the WBN thermal discharge. Since the WBN discharge is located within ChickamaugaReservoir inflow zone, no upstream site (control) data are available for comparison. Watts BarReservoir RFAI forebay site (TRM's 530 to 531) is used to document any notable changes inTennessee River ecological conditions above the WBN discharge but will not be used forupstream/downstream comparisons of RFAI scores (Figure 3).

For the benthic macroinvertebrate community, transects across the full width of the reservoirwere established at TRM 527.4 (Chickamauga inflow downstream of WBN) and TRM 533.3(Watts Bar forebay upstream of WBN). The Watts Bar Reservoir RBI forebay site (TRM 533.3)is used to document any notable changes in Tennessee River ecological conditions above theWBN discharge but will not be used for upstream/downstream comparisons of RBI scores.

Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of WBN

An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHI) was used tomeasure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of WBN during autumn 2009. Using thegeneral format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterizeselected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which relyheavily on the littoral or shoreline zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and/oradult feeding (Table 1). Habitat Suitability Indices (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), along withother sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (e.g. Etnier and Starnes 1993),were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high qualityenvironment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoringcriteria to cover the various requirements of all species into one index.

Individual metrics are scored through comparison of observed conditions with these "reference"conditions and assigned a corresponding value: good-5; fair-3; or poor-1 (Table 1). The scoresfor each metric are summed to obtain the Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) value. Therange of potential SAHI values (7-35) is trisected to provide some descriptor of habitat quality(poor 7-16, fair 17-26, and good 27-35).

The quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in aboat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. This was much easier toaccomplish when the reservoir was at least 10 feet below full pool during the assessment, whichallowed for accurate determination of near-shore aquatic habitat quality. Eight line-of-sighttransects were established across the width of Chickamauga Reservoir inflow within the WBNdownstream fish community sampling areas (TRM's 527 to 529.7) and across the width of WattsBar Reservoir forebay fish community sampling areas upstream of WBN (TRM's 530 to 531).Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the leftdescending (LD) and right descending (RD) bank locations for each of the eight line-of-sighttransects. These individual sections (8 on the LD bank and 8 on the RD bank for a total of 16shoreline assessments) were then scored using SAHI criteria. Percentages of aquaticmacrophytes in the littoral areas of the 8 LD and 8 RD shoreline sections were also estimated.

3

Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream andDownstream of WBN

Fish sampling downstream of WBN was conducted by boat electrofishing (Reynolds 1996). Fishsampling upstream of WBN was conducted by boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996;Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing runs nearthe shoreline, each 300 meters long, with a duration of approximately 10 minutes each. The totalnear-shore area sampled is approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet).

Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercialfishing) are used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectivelysampled by electrofishing. Each experimental gill net consists of five 6.1-meter panels for a totallength of 30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing characteristic of experimental gill nets ismesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels with mesh sizesof 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to riverflow extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnightexperimental gill net sets were used upstream of WBN. Gill nets were not used downstream ofWBN; inflow areas are not suitable to set gill nets due to higher water velocities.

Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease,deformities, or hybridization). The resulting data were analyzed using RFAI methodology.

The RFAI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness andComposition; Trophic Composition; Abundance; and Fish Health. Individual species can beutilized for more than one metric. Together, these 12 metrics provide a balanced evaluation offish community integrity. The individual metrics are shown below, grouped by category:

Species Richness and Composition

(1) Total number of indigenous species -- Greater numbers of indigenous speciesare considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditionsdegrade, numbers of species at an area decline.

(2) Number of centrarchid species -- Sunfish species (excluding black basses) areinvertivores and a high diversity of this group is indicative of reduced siltationand suitable sediment quality in littoral areas.

(3) Number of benthic invertivore species -- Due to the special dietaryrequirements of this species group and the limitations of their food source indegraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase withbetter environmental quality.

(4) Number of intolerant species -- This group is made up of species that areparticularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation.Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmentalstressors.

4

(5) Percentage of tolerant individuals (excluding Young-of-Year) -- This metricsignifies poorer water quality with increasing proportions of individuals tolerantof degraded conditions.

(6) Percent dominance by one species -- Ecological quality is considered reduced ifone species inordinately dominates the resident fish community.

(7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -- Based on the assumption that non-indigenous species reduce the quality of resident fish communities.

(8) Number of top carnivore species -- Higher diversity of piscivores is indicativeof the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence ofsuitable habitat.

Trophic Composition

(9) Percent of individuals as top carnivores -- A measure of the functional aspectof top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations.

(10) Percentage of individuals as omnivores -- Omnivores are less sensitive toenvironmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic linksare disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivoresdecline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance.

Abundance

(11) Average number per run -- (number of individuals) -- This metric is basedupon the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbersof individuals.

Fish Health(12) Percentage of individuals with anomalies -- Incidence of diseases, lesions,

tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization arenoted for all fish measured, with higher incidence indicating less favorableenvironmental conditions.

RFAI methodology addresses all five attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenouspopulation" defined by the CWA, as described below:

(1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion:Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category,especially metric 1 - "Number of indigenous species." Determination of referenceconditions based on the inflow zones of upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (asdescribed below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion.

5

(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change:TVA uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS andupstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document condition orhealth after being subjected to the wide variety of stressors throughout the year.One of the main benefits of using biological indicators is their ability to integratestressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end ofthe "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community hasdealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of thecondition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected inMetric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstandstressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewalcycle adds to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach hascorrectly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeatedseasonal changes.

(3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measuredby the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric andSpecies Richness and Composition metrics. Existence of a healthy fish communityindicates presence of necessary food chain species because the fish community iscomprised of species that utilize multiple feeding mechanisms that transcend variouslevels in the aquatic food web. Basing evaluations on a sound multi-metric system suchas the RFAI enhances the ability to discern alterations in the aquatic food chain.

(4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species: Domination by pollution-tolerantspecies is measured by metrics 3 ("Number of benthic invertivore species"), 4 ("Numberof intolerant species"), 5 ("Percentage of tolerant individuals"), 6 ("Percent dominanceby one species"), and 10 ("Percentage of individuals as omnivores").

(5) Indigenous: Non-indigenous species reduce the quality of indigenous fish communitiesthrough increased competition for resources, predation on indigenous species, anddegradation of the water quality. Metrics measuring the indigenousness of the fishcommunities are 1 ("Number of indigenous species") and 7 ("Percentage of non-indigenous species").

Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence ofhuman-induced impacts other than impoundment of the reservoir. These categories weredeveloped from historical fish assemblage data representative of transition zones from uppermainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Hickman and McDonough 1996). Attained values foreach of the 12 metrics were compared to the scoring criteria and assigned scores to representrelative degrees of degradation: least degraded (5); intermediate degraded (3); and most degraded(1). Scoring criteria for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs is shown in Table 2.

If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percentage of tolerant individuals"), the datafrom electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for

6

that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream ordownstream) are summed to obtain the RFAI score for the area.

TVA uses RFAI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is"absolute" in that it compares the RFAI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values.The other is "relative" in that it compares RFAI scores attained downstream to the upstreamcontrol site. The "relative" approach does not apply to WBN since the upstream site is locatedupstream of Watts Bar Dam. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) whosuggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RFAI score from the potential impact zoneto a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structureand function and hence existence of BIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria toensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70% of the highestattainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), andsecond, if fewer than half of RFAI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normalcommunity structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained,thus no further evaluation would be needed.

RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. Asdiscussed in detail below, the average variation for RFAI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (± 3).Therefore, any location that attains an RFAI score of 45 (42 plus the upward sample variation of3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below thisthreshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold isused to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteriais obviously not adversely impacted. RFAI scores below this level would require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RFAI metric results andspecies of fish used in each metric would be an initial step to help identify if operation of WBNis a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index isbeing used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available.

The Quality Assurance (QA) component of VS monitoring deals with how well the RFAI scorescan be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of thesites each year. Previous statistical analyses with the QA component of VS has shown that thecomparison of RFAI index scores from 54 paired sample sets collected over a seven year periodranged from 0 to 18 points. Based on these findings, the 7 5 th percentile is 6 and the 90Qth

percentile is 12. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95percent confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. Therefore, a difference of 6 points or less was the valueselected for defining "similar" scores between years sampled at the downstream site. That is, ifthe downstream RFAI score is within 6 points compared to prior year's score then the fishcommunities will be considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greaterthan 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample setsexceeded that value). When this occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted todetermine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to bethermally related.

7

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for SitesUpstream and Downstream of WBN

Benthic grab samplers were used to collect samples at ten equally-spaced points along theupstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 M 2 ) was used formost samples. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample0.11 m2) was used. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures(OER-ESP-RRES-AMM-21.1 1; Quantitative Sample Collection - Benthic MacroinvertebrateSampling with a Ponar Dredge). Bottom sediments were washed on a 533 L screen; organismswere then picked from the screen and any remaining substrate. Organisms were identified in thefield to Order or Family level without magnification.

Benthic community results were evaluated using seven community characteristics or metrics.Results for each metric were assigned a rating of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they scoredbased on reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow (downstream of WBN) andforebay (upstream of WBN) sample sites. Scoring criteria for mainstem Tennessee Riverreservoirs are shown in Table 3. The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce abenthic score for each sample site. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological healthratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") arethen applied to scores. The individual metrics are shown below:

(1) Taxa richness-This metric is calculated by averaging the total number of taxapresent in each sample at a site. Taxa generally mean Family or Order level becausesamples are processed in the field. For chironomids, taxa refers to obviouslydifferent organisms (i.e., separated by body size, head capsule size and shape, color,etc.). Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness.

(2) EPT-This metric is calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversityof these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions.

(3) Long-lived organisms-This is a presence/absence metric which is evaluated basedon the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula,Hexagenia, mussels, and snails) present. The presence of long-lived taxa isindicative of conditions which allow long-term survival.

(4) Percentage as Oligochaetes-This metric is calculated by averaging the percentageof oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerantorganisms so a higher proportion indicates poor water quality.

(5) Percentage as dominant taxa-This metric is calculated by selecting the two mostabundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa,dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to apercentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for. the 10 samples at

8

each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site.This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing anaverage for a single dominant taxon for all samples a site. This metric is used as anevenness indicator. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions.

(6) Density excluding Chironomids and Oligochaetes-This metric is calculated byfirst summing the number of organisms, excluding chironomids and oligochaetes,present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at asite. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominateunder adverse conditions. A higher abundance of non-chironomids and non-oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions.

(7) Zero-samples (Proportion of samples with no organisms present)-This metricis the proportion of samples at a site which have no organisms present. "Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e. toxicity,unsuitable substrate, etc.). Any site having one empty sample was assigned a scoreof three, and any site with two or more empty samples received a score of one. Siteswith no empty samples were assigned a score of five.

The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from49 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 7 5thpercentile was 4 and the 9 0th percentile was 6. The mean difference between these 49 pairedscores was 3.1 points with 95 percent confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, adifference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between yearssampled at the downstream site. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points ofthe prior year's score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded thatWBN has had no effect. The Watts Bar Reservoir RBI forebay site (TRM 533.3) is used todocument any notable changes in Tennessee River ecological conditions above the WBNdischarge but will not be used for upstream/downstream comparisons of RBI scores. Onceagain, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expectedsimply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). Whenthis occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused thedifference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.

Results and Discussion

Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of WBN

The SAHI methodology was used to evaluate the quality of the aquatic habitat along theshoreline of Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs within the WBN downstream and upstreamfish community sampling areas. Eight shoreline sections on the left descending and rightdescending banks were assessed at both the downstream and upstream locations.

9

Within the RFAI sample area downstream from WBN (Chickamauga Reservoir inflow),shoreline aquatic habitat quality averaged a SAHI rating of 22 "Fair" on the left descendingshoreline and a rating of 19 "Fair" on the right descending shoreline (Table 4). Of the eightshoreline sections evaluated on each river bank, 75% scored "Fair" while 25% scored "Poor".

Within the RFAI sample area upstream from WBN (Watts Bar Reservoir forebay), shorelineaquatic habitat quality averaged a SAHI rating of 21 "Fair" on both the left and right descendingshorelines (Table 5). Of the eight shoreline sections evaluated on the left descending river bank,12.5% scored "Good", 62.5% scored "Fair", and 25% scored "Poor". Of the eight shorelinesections evaluated on the right descending river bank, 87.5% scored "Fair" and 12.5% scored"Poor".

Fish Community

In 2009, a fish community RFAI score of 44 ("Good") was observed at the site downstream ofWBN (Table 6). This site met BIP screening criteria and received the same RFAI score as in2008 (Table 7). When compared to the 2008 sample, the 2009 sample contained three additionalindigenous species, had a lower percentage of tolerant individuals, had a higher percentage ofnon-native species (inland silverside), and had a higher average of fish collected perelectrofishing run (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Overall, the samples were very similar.

RFAI data collected at TRM 531, Watts Bar Reservoir forebay, is used to indicate the health ofthe fish community upstream from WBN, but is not used as an upstream comparison between thesites. In 2009, a fish community RFAI score of 45 ("Good") was observed at this site (Table 6).This was a 9 point increase from the previous year (Table 7). When compared to the 2008sample, the 2009 sample contained one additional indigenous species, two additional benthicinvertivores, 1 additional intolerant species, a lower percentage of tolerant individuals, a lowerpercentage of dominance by one species, a higher percentage of non-native species(predominantly inland silversides), a lower percentage of omnivores, and a higher averagenumber of fish per run (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). This site showed much improvement from theprevious year.

The downstream site is compared with the previous sample at this site to determine BIP using thefive characteristics listed below. Because the upstream site is separated from the downstreamsite by Watts Bar dam and is within a forebay zone rather than an inflow zone, it will becompared to the previous sample at this site for explanation of upstream conditions that couldaffect the downstream site in the Chickamauga inflow.

(1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregionSite downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score)During 2009, 31 indigenous species were collected, which resulted in the highest score for thismetric (Tables 6 and 8). During 2008, 28 indigenous species were collected from this site, whichalso resulted in the highest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A, 2-A). Eight indigenous specieswere encountered in 2009 that were not collected during 2008 (longnose gar, bluntnose minnow,white crappie, threadfin shad, steelcolor shiner, white bass, sauger, and freshwater drum) (Table

10

8; Appendix 2-A). Compared to 5 indigenous species were encountered during 2008 that werenot collected during 2009 (bullhead minnow, largescale stoneroller, northern hogsucker, bluecatfish, and logperch).

Total number of centrarchid species (> 4 required for highest score)During 2009, 8 centrarchid species were collected, resulting in the highest score for this metric(Table 6). During 2008, 7 centrarchid species were collected, which also resulted in the highestscore for this metric. White crappie was collected during 2009, but not during the 2008 sample(Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

Total number of benthic invertivore species (> 6 required for highest score)During 2008 and 2009, this site received the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix1-A). Four benthic invertivore species were collected during 2009, while 5 were collectedduring 2008. Logperch and northern hogsucker were collected during 2008 but not during 2009,while freshwater drum was collected during 2009 but not during 2008 (Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

Total number of intolerant species (> 4 required for highest score)During 2008 and 2009, this site received the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Five intolerant species were collected during 2009, while 6 intolerant species were collectedduring 2008 (1 northern hogsucker was collected during 2008) (Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

Total number of top carnivore species (> 6 required for highest score)During 2008 and 2009, this site received the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Eleven top carnivore species were collected during 2009, while 7 were collected during2008. Longnose gar, white bass, white crappie, and sauger where collected during 2009 but notduring 2008 (Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

This site received the same score for these 5 diversity metrics during 2008 and 2009. Four of the5 diversity metrics received the highest score, indicating that fish community diversity in thevicinity of WBN is good.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score)During 2009, 28 indigenous species were collected, which resulted in the highest score for thismetric (Tables 6 and 9). During 2008, 27 indigenous species were collected, which resulted inthe mid-range score for this metric (Appendices 1-A and 2-B). Eight indigenous species wereencountered in 2009 that were not collected during 2008 (longnose gar, golden shiner, bluntnoseminnow, black redhorse, emerald shiner, steelcolor shiner, golden redhorse, and sauger) (Table9; Appendix 2-B). Conversely, 4 indigenous species were encountered during 2008 that werenot collected during 2009 (bullhead minnow, paddlefish, blue catfish, and logperch).

Total number of centrarchid species (> 4 required for highest score)During 2009, 7 centrarchid species were collected, resulting in the highest score for this metric(Table 6). During 2008, 8 centrarchid species were collected, which also resulted in the highestscore for this metric. Longear sunfish was collected during 2008, but not during the 2009 sample(Table 9; Appendix 2-B).11

Total number of benthic invertivore species (> 7 required for highest score)During 2009, 5 benthic invertivore species were collected, resulting in the mid-range score forthis metric (Table 6). During 2008, three benthic invertivore species were collected, resulting inthe lowest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A). Northern hogsucker and river redhorse werecollected during 2009 but not during 2008 (Table 9; Appendix 2-B).

Total number of intolerant species (> 4 required for highest score)During 2009, 5 intolerant species were collected, resulting in the highest score for this metric(Table 6). During 2008, 4 intolerant species were collected, resulting in the mid-range score forthis metric (Appendix 1-A).

Total number of top carnivore species (> 7 required for highest score)During 2008 and 2009, 9 top carnivore species were collected and this site received the highestscore for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

During 2009, 4 of the 5 diversity metrics received the highest score, indicating that fishcommunity diversity in Watts Bar Reservoir forebay is good. This site received the same scorefor these 5 diversity metrics during 2008 and 2009. During 2008, 2 of the 5 diversity metricsreceived the highest score, 2 of the 5 diversity metrics received the mid-range score, and 1 of the5 diversity metrics received the mid-range score. Results from 2009, indicate that a morebalanced fish community exists upstream from WBN than was present during 2008.

(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal changeSite downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Percentage of anomalies (< 2 % required for highest score)The percentage of anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites,muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) in the autumn sample should be indicativeof the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle.During 2008 and 2009, the percentage of anomalies was very low (2008- 0.9 %; 2009- 1.7 %)And this site received the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

Average number offish collected per electrofishing run (> 102 required for highest score)During 2009, 149 fish were collected per electrofishing run, compared to 94 fish per run during2008 (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

This site received the highest score for these 2 fish abundance and health metrics during 2009.During 2008, this site received the mid-range score for average number of fish per run due to alower catch rate.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Percentage of anomalies (< 2 % in gill net and electrofishing samples required for highest score)During 2008 and 2009, the percentage of anomalies was very low (2008 and 2009 electrofishing0.4 %; 2008 and 2009 gill net 0.9 %), resulting in the highest score for this metric (Table 6;Appendix 1-A).

12

Average number offish collected per electrofishing run (> 241 in electrofishing samples; > 24 ingill net samples required for highest score)During 2009, 91 fish were collected per electrofishing run, compared to 86 fish per run during2008, resulting in the lowest score for both samples (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). During 2009, 22fish were collected per gill net, compared to 21 during 2008, resulting in the mid-range score forthis metric for both sample years.

(3) The presence of necessary food chain speciesSite downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Percentage of top carnivores (> 22 % required for highest score)Although the diversity of top carnivore species was high (11 species), abundance in relation tothe overall fish community composition was low (7.2 %) during 2009 (Table 6). During 2008, 7top carnivore species were collected and abundance in relation to the overall fish communitycomposition was almost half (3.7 %) compared to 2009 (Appendix 1-A). This metric receivedthe lowest score during 2008 and 2009. The major factor which negatively skewed thepercentage of top carnivores during 2009 was the collection of a large number of inlandsilversides (constituted 52.7 % of the entire sample) and during 2008, the collection of a largenumber of bluegill (constituted 63 % of the entire sample) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

Percentage of omnivores (< 27 % required for highest score)Low percentages of omnivores were present during 2008 (14.6 %) and 2009 (8.5 %) (Table 6;Appendix 1-A). This site received the highest score for this metric both years.

Overall fish diversity was high at this site during 2009. All trophic levels were represented with11 insectivore species (all forage for top carnivores), 11 top carnivore species, 6 omnivorousspecies, 4 benthic invertivore species, and 1 planktivore species (Table 8).

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Percentage of top carnivores (> 10 % in electrofishing samples; > 50 % in gill net samplesrequired for highest score)Although the diversity of top carnivore species was high during 2008 and 2009 (9 species),abundance in relation to the overall fish community composition in the electrofishing samplewas low (2.7 % during 2008; 4.7 % during 2009) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). This portion of themetric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009. The major factor which negativelyskewed the percentage of top carnivores during 2008 and 2009 was the collection of a largenumber of bluegill (constituted 72.6 % of the entire electrofishing sample during 2008) andduring 2009, the collection of a large number of bluegill (constituted 34.5% of the entireelectrofishing sample) and inland silversides (constituted 33.5 % of the entire electrofishingsample) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). During 2009, the percentage of top carnivore species in gillnet samples was high (66.2%), resulting in the highest score for this portion of the metric (Table6). The percentage of top carnivore species in the 2008 gill net sample was almost half (33.6%)(Appendix 1-A).

Percentage of omnivores (< 24% in electrofishing samples; < 17% in gill net samples requiredfor highest score)

13

Low percentages of omnivores were present during 2008 (10.3%) and 2009 (6.2%) in theelectrofishing sample (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). This site received the highest score for thisportion of this metric both years. During 2009, 25.1% of the fish collected in gill nets wereomnivores, which resulted in a mid range score for this portion of the metric (Table 6). During2008, a much higher percentage of omnivores (61.6%) was collected in the gill net sample,resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A). This was predominantly due togizzard shad which consisted of 49.8% of the total.

Overall fish diversity was high at this site during 2009. All trophic levels were represented with9 insectivore species (all forage for top carnivores), 9 top carnivore species, 7 omnivorousspecies, 5 benthic invertivore species, and 1 planktivore species (Table 9).

(4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant speciesSite downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Percentage of tolerant individuals (< 29% required for highest score)During 2009, 33.8% of the fish collected were tolerant individuals, resulting in the mid-rangescore for this metric (Table 6). A majority of these individuals consisted of bluegill (21.08%),followed by gizzard shad (5.86%). During 2008, 82.3% of individuals were tolerant,predominantly due to large numbers of bluegill (63%), resulting in the lowest score for thismetric (Appendix 1-A).

As discussed above, this site received the highest score for the number of intolerant speciesduring 2008 (6 species) and 2009 (5 species) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Benthic invertivorediversity can also provide insight into water quality conditions; as the benthic macroinvertebratecommunity declines, these species should decline. Four benthic invertivore species werecollected during 2009, while 5 were collected during 2008.

Overall, the percentage of tolerant individuals was just above the cutoff for the highest rating,thus it was given a mid-range score. intolerant species were well represented, and a fair numberof benthic invertevore species were present.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Percentage of tolerant individuals (< 31% in electrofishing samples; < 14% in gill net samplesrequired for highest score)During 2009, 54.8% of the fish collected during electrofishing were tolerant individuals,resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6). A majority of these individualsconsisted of bluegill (34.49%), followed by spotfin shiner (7.52%). During 2008, 93.8% ofindividuals were tolerant, predominantly due to large numbers of bluegill (72.6%), resulting inthe lowest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A). During 2009, 23.7% of the fish collected duringgill netting were tolerant individuals, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6).A majority of these individuals consisted of gizzard shad (15.98%), followed by largemouth bass(6.39%). During 2008, 58.8% of individuals were tolerant, predominantly due to large numbersof gizzard shad (49.8%), resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Appendix I-A).

As discussed above, this site received the highest score for the number of intolerant species

during 2009 (5 species) and received the mid-range score during 2008 (4 species) (Table 6;

14

Appendix 1-A). Benthic invertivore species are considered intolerant due to the sensitivity oftheir prey base to pollution. Five benthic invertivore species were collected during 2009, while 3were collected during 2008.

Overall, the percentage of tolerant individuals fell within the mid-range of scoring criteria forthis metric. This site showed some improvement from 2008 when this metric received the lowestscore.

(5) IndigenousSite downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Percentage of non-indigenous species (< 2% required for highest score)During 2009, 31 indigenous and 2 non-indigenous species (common carp, 0.09% and inlandsilverside, 52.64%) were collected compared to 28 indigenous and 1 non-indigenous species(inland silverside, 3.2%) during 2008 (Table 6; Appendix I-A). During 2009, this site receivedthe lowest score due to collection of large numbers of inland silversides.

Inland silversides have successfully invaded the entire mainstem Tennessee River. They werefirst collected in Chickamauga Reservoir during 2004, and have been observed at much lowerdensities until 2009. Inland silversides and common carp are considered aquatic nuisancespecies (Table 10).

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Percentage of non-indigenous species (< 2 % in electrofishing samples; < 8 % in gill net samplesrequired for highest score)During 2009, 28 indigenous and 3 non-indigenous species (common carp, 0.04%, inlandsilverside, 33.53%, and striped bass, 2.7%) were collected compared to 27 indigenous and 2 non-indigenous species (common carp, 2.1% and striped bass, 3.3%) during 2008 (Table 6; Appendix1-A). During 2009, this site received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion due tocollection of large numbers of inland silversides. This species was first collected in Watts BarReservoir during 2002, and have been observed at much lower densities until 2009.

Fish Community Summary

Site downstream of WBN (TRM 529- Chickamauga inflow)Analysis of the five characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics indicated the sitedownstream of WBN was similar to the previous year and that this portion of ChickamaugaReservoir supported a balanced fish community during 2009. The 2009 sample contained threeadditional indigenous species, had a lower percentage of tolerant individuals, and had a higheraverage of fish collected per electrofishing run. The only metric that scored lower than theprevious year was the percentage of non-native species due to a large number of inlandsilversides.

Thirty-one indigenous species and 33 representative important species were collected at thedoxwrnstream site (Table 10). Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance asthose species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced,

15

indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which thedischarge is made (EPA and NRC 1977).

Two species were collected at the downstream site (spotted sucker and emerald shiner) which areconsidered thermally-sensitive (Table 10). Water temperatures greater than 32.20 C (90'F) areknown to be lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006). Three commerciallyvaluable species and 19 recreationally valuable species were also collected at this site during2009 (Table 10).

RFAI scores have an intrinsic variability of ±3 points. This variability comes from varioussources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutantloadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquaticvegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being measured (TWRC,2006). Another source of variability arises from the fact that nearly any practical measurement,lethal or non-lethal, of a biological community is a sample rather than a measurement of theentire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that anyreal change has taken place beyond method variability.

RFAI scores for the inflow site downstream from the WBN thermal discharge have averaged ascore of 45 during the 16 sample years from 1993 to 2009 (Table 7). Scores from every sampleyear were > 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 indicating that BIP had been maintained.The greatest score difference between consecutive sample years at this site was six points, whichhas been observed twice throughout the duration of RFAI sampling at this site (Table 7).Individual metric scores and overall RFAI scores from 1999 to 2008 for both sites are listed inAppendix 1-A to Appendix 1-J. Species collected, trophic level, native and toleranceclassification, and catch per unit effort during 1999 to 2008 at both sites are listed in Appendix 2-A to 2-T.

Site upstream of WBN (TRM 531- Watts Bar forebay)Analysis of the five characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics indicated the site upstreamof WBN improved from the previous year and that this portion of Watts Bar Reservoir supporteda balanced fish community during 2009. The 2009 sample contained one additional indigenousspecies, two additional benthic invertivores, 1 additional intolerant species, a lower percentage oftolerant individuals, a lower percentage of dominance by one species, a higher percentage ofnon-native species (predominantly inland silversides), a lower percentage of omnivores, and ahigher average number of fish per electrofishing run. The only metric that scored lower than theprevious year was the percentage of non-native species due to a large number of inlandsilversides.

Twenty-eight indigenous species and 31 representative important species were collected at thedownstream site (Table 11). Two species were collected at this site (spotted sucker andlogperch) which are considered thermally-sensitive (Table 11). Water temperatures greater than32.2°C (90'F) are known to be lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006). Fourcommercially valuable species and 19 recreationally valuable species were also collected at thissite during 2009 (Table 11).

16

RFAI scores for Watts Bar Reservoir forebay site have averaged a score of 42 during the 15sample years from 1993 to 2009 (Table 7). Scores from 9 of the 15 sample years were > 70% ofthe highest attainable score of 60.

Other sites within Chickamauga ReservoirOther RFAI samples in Chickamauga Reservoir (transition, forebay {2 sites}, and embayment)have averaged scores > 42 from 1993 to 2009 which are > 70% of the highest attainable scoreof 60 indicating that BIP had been maintained throughout Chickamauga Reservoir (Table 7).Lower scores at some sites have been observed in recent years, most notably during 2007 and2008. This period was a severe drought period which may have stressed fish communities atsites within the transition and forebay zones of the reservoir. This was also observed in WattsBar Reservoir forebay upstream of the WBN thermal discharge (Table 7). RFAI scores at theChickamauga Reservoir inflow site in the vicinity of WBN did not noticeably change during thisdrought period. Long term trends in RFAI scores do not indicate that overall fish communityhealth, diversity, and structure has declined in the vicinity of WBN or throughout ChickamaugaReservoir.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community

Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2009 from TRM 527.4 downstreamfrom WBN resulted in a RBI score of 23 ("Fair"), which was the same score that this sitereceived during 2008 and 2007 (Tables 12 and 13). A difference of 4 points or less between theprevious sample year is used to define "similar" conditions between the two samples; therefore,similar conditions have existed downstream of WBN during the past 3 sample years.

Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2009 from TRM 533.3 upstream fromWBN resulted in a RBI score of 11 ("Very Poor"), which was 2 points lower than the 2008 score(Tables 12 and 13). Because the upstream site is separated from the downstream site by WattsBar dam and is within a forebay zone rather than an inflow zone, it will be compared to theprevious sample at this site for explanation of upstream conditions that could affect thedownstream site in the Chickamauga inflow.

The following provide an explanation of 2009 results for each metric for the downstream andupstream sites with a comparison to 2008 results:

Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)Average number of taxa (> 5.8 required for highest score)An average of 4.2 taxa was collected during 2009, compared to 5.1 during 2008, resulting in themid-range score for this metric during both years (Table 13).

Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (which includes Corbicula, Hexageniamayflies, mussels, and snails; > 0.8 required for highest score)The metric received the highest score during 2009 and the mid-range score during 2008. Allsamples collected at this site during 2009 contained at least one long-lived organism, while 40%of 2008 samples contained a long-lived organism (Table 13). Mean density per m 2 of Corbiculaand freshwater mussels was much higher in 2009 than during 2008 (Table 14).

17

Average number ofEPT taxa (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies; > 0.8 required for highestscore)No EPT taxa were collected during 2009, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 12).During 2008, mean density per m was of EPT was low (2 Ephemeroptera {mayfly}individuals), which also resulted in the lowest score for this metric (Tables 13 and 14).

Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (< 20 required for highest score)The average proportion of oligochaete individuals in each sample was low during both 2009(0.6%) and 2008 (10.4%), resulting in the highest score for this metric during both years (Table13). Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; a low proportion ofOligochaetes in the samples are an indication of good water quality conditions.

Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (< 78.7 required for highestscore)During 2009, the proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa was92%, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 12). The two most dominant taxa wereCorbicula and amphipods (Table 14). Corbicula are long-lived and large numbers can indicategood water quality conditions. Amphipods are not typically tolerant of polluted waters, and aresometimes used as bio-indicators in water quality assessments. During 2008, the proportion oftotal abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa was 66.4%, resulting in the highestscore for this metric (Table 13). Observed densities of Corbicula and amphipods were muchlower during 2008 and no one particular taxa dominated the samples (Table 14).

Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 1153 required for highest score)Many taxa of chironomids and oligochaetes are very tolerant of poor water quality conditions; adominance of these taxa could indicate water quality degradation. During 2009, densitiesexcluding chironomids and oligochaetes were average, resulting in the mid-range score for thismetric (Table 12). This was an improvement from 2008, when this metric received the lowestscore for this metric (Table 13).

Proportion of samples containing no organisms (no samples lacking organisms required forhighest score)There were no samples which were void of organisms during 2008 or 2009 (Table 13).Therefore, both sites received the highest score for this metric.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebay scoring criteria)Average number of taxa (> 4.8 required for highest score)An average of 2.2 taxa was collected during 2009, compared to 2.5 during 2008, resulting in thelowest score for this metric during 2009 and the mid-range score during 2008 (Table 13).

Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (which includes Corbicula, Hexageniamayflies, mussels, and snails; > 0.8 required for highest score)This metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009 (Table 13). No 2008 samples,contained long-lived organisms, while 20% 2009 of samples contained long-lived organisms(snails and Corbicula) (Tables 13 and 14).

18

Average number ofEPT taxa (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies; > 0.8 required for highestscore)No EPT taxa were collected during 2008 or 2009, resulting in the lowest score for this metric(Table 13).

Average proportion of oligochaete individuals (< 14.8 required for highest score)The average proportion of oligochaete individuals in each sample was average (28.5%) during2009, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 12). The average proportion ofoligochaetes during 2009 was much lower than during 2008 (77.7%).

Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (< 81.3 required for highestscore)During 2008 and 2009, the proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominanttaxa was 100% and 96.8%, respectively, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 13).The only 2 taxa collected during 2008 were oligochaetes and chironomids (Table 14). During2009, 5 taxa were collected but were dominated by chironomids and leeches (Table 14).

Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 236 required for highest score)This metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009 (Table 13). Only oligochaetes andchironomids were collected during 2008, while relatively low densities of 4 additional taxa werecollected during 2009 (Table 14).

Proportion of samples containing no organisms (no samples lacking organisms required forhighest score)During 2009, 1 of the 10 samples contained no organisms, which resulted in the mid-range scorefor this metric (Table 12). There were no samples which were void of organisms during 2008(Table 13).

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary

Site downstream of WBN (TRM 527.4- Chickamauga inflow)Benthic macroinvertebrate communities were similar between 2008 and 2009. During 2009, themetrics "proportion of samples with long lived organisms" and "average density excludingchironomids and oligochaetes" received a higher score than the previous year, while the metric"proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa" received a lower scoreduring 2009. During the past three years, this site has received a score of 23 "Fair", which islower than the score for samples collected during 2001 to 2005 (score range 27-35; "Good toExcellent") (Table 15). The past several years have been a period of severe drought, which mayhave contributed to the low scores observed during 2007 to 2009. The 2009 sample did indicatesome improvement from the previous two years, especially in the metric "average densityexcluding chironomids and oligochaetes" (Table 13). No score difference existed between the2008 and 2009 samples, which indicate that WBN's thermal effluent did not impact the benthicmacroinvertebrate community downstream of WBN.

Site upstream of WBN (TRM 533.3- Watts Bar forebay)

19

Although this site scored 2 points lower during 2009, diversity of taxa was greater but in lowerabundance (Tables 13 and 14). Five of the 7 metrics received the lowest score during both 2008and 2009. During 2009, 2 of the 7 metrics received a mid-range score, while 1 received thelowest score and 1 received the mid-range score during 2008. Watts Bar Reservoir forebay RBIdata collected between 1994 and 2008 reflect little change in the overall ecological health of thebenthic macroinvertebrate community at this site; 12 of the 13 sample seasons scored in the"Poor" range, while the 1996 sample scored "Very Poor" (Table 15).

Other sites within Chickamauga ReservoirThe Chickamauga Reservoir VS inflow zone (TRM 518), transition zone (TRM 490.5), andforebay (TRM 482.0 and 472.3) sampling sites are included to provide additional information onthe downstream integrity of the benthic macroinvertebrate community (Table 15). These sitesare located > 37 river miles downstream of WBN and sampling results should not reflecttemperature effects from the plant. All of these sites have a long-term average score of "Good"(Table 15).

Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near WBN

Average daily flows from Watts Bar Dam from October 2008 to October 2009 are shown inFigure 4. Daily average flows were similar (daily average flows averaged 2% less) to historicaldaily average flows from 1976 through 2008.

Average hourly water temperatures recorded immediately downstream of Watts Bar Dam,October 2008 through November 2009, are shown in Figure 5.

20

Literature Cited

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) technical guidance manual and guide forthermal effects sections of nuclear facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division,Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC.

Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. (1993) The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press,Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 p.

Hickman, G. D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index-A potential measure of reservoir quality. In: D. DeVries (Ed.) Reservoir symposium-Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee,Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. Pp 85-97.

Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R.Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American FisheriesSociety Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages inthe Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11:263-274.

McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: Atool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In:Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fishcommunities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540.

Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapidassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA.

Reynolds, J. B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis,editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda,Maryland, USA.

TWRC 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission,Nashville, TN. March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf

Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the technical justificationfor existing Ohio River mainstem temperature criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute,Columbus, Ohio.

21

Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria.

Metric Scoring Criteria Score

Cover Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 5

to 75 % of the drawdown zone

Stable cover in 10 to 25 % or > 75 % of the drawdown zone 3

Stable Cover in < 10 % of the drawdown zone 1

Substrate Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 5

Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 3

Percent substrate gravel < 10 1

Erosion Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody 5vegetation.

Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable 3vegetation cover (grasses) on > 25 % of bank surfaces.

Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along > 30% of shoreline. 1

Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy > 60 % along adjacent bank 5

Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60 % along adjacent bank 3

Tree or shrub canopy < 30 % along adjacent bank 1

Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters 5

Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters 3

Width buffered < 6 meters 1

Habitat Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, 5gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all lifehistory aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present..

Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but proportion of one is 3less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas.

Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to lower species 1diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas.

Gradient Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 10 percent of 5shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging.

Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 40 % of the shoreline 3resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline.

Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in > 40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. 1Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline.

22

Table 2. RFAI Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs.Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar.

Scoring CriteriaForebay Transition Inflow

Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5

1. Total species

2. Total Centrarchid species

3. Total benthic invertivores

4. Total intolerant species

5. Percent tolerant individualls

6. Percent dominance by 1 species

7. Percent non-indigenous species

8. Total top carnivore species

9. Percent top carnivores

10. Percent omnivores

11. Average number per run

12. Percent anomalies

23

Combined

Combined

Combined

Combined

ElectrofishingGill netting



Combined





<14

<2

<4

<2

>62%>28%

>50%>29%

>4%>16%

<4

<5%<25%

>49%>34%

<121<12

>5%>5%

14-27

2-4

4-7

2-4

31-62%14-28%

25-50%15-29%

2-4%8-16%

4-7

5-10%25-50%

24-49%17-34%

121-24112-24

2-5%2-5%

>27

>4

>7

>4

<31%<14%

<25%<15%

<2%<8%

>7

>10%>50%

<24%<17%

>241>24

<2%<2%

<15

<2

<4

<2

>62%>32%

>40%>28%

>6%>9%

<4

<6%<26%

>44%>46%

<105<12

>5%>5%

15-29

2-4

4-7

24

31-62%16-32%

20-40%14-28%

3-6%5-9%

4-7

6-11%26-52%

22-44%23-46%

105-21012-24

2-5%2-5%

>29

>4

>7

>4

<31%<16%

<20%<14%

<3%<5%

>7

>11%>52%

<22%<23%

>210>24

<2%<2%

<14

<3

<3

<2

>58%

14-27

3-4

3-6

2-4

29-58%

>27

>4

>6

>4

<29%

>46% 23-46% <23%

>17% 8-17% <8%

>6

>22%

<3

<11%

3-6

11-22%

>55% 27-55% <27%

<51 51-102 >102

>5% 2-5% <2%

Table 3. Scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (field-processed) for forebay, transition, and inflowsections of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Inflow scoring criteria were used for the site downstream of WBN.Forebay scoring criteria were used for the Watts Bar Reservoir site upstream of WBN.

Benthic Community Forebay Transition Inflow

Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5

Average number oftaxa •2.4 2.5-4.7 Ž4.8 •2.1 2.2-4.3 Ž4.4 •2.8 2.9-5.7 Ž>5.8

Proportion of samples with long-lived •0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž0.8 •0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž0.8 <0.3 0.4-0.7 _>0.8organisms

Average number of EPT •0.4 0.5-0.7 Ž0.8 •0.3 0.4-0.7 _>0.8 •0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž>0.8(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera)

Average proportion of oligochaete Ž29.7 14.9-29.6 •<14.8 Ž>28.0 14.0-27.9 •13.9 Ž>40.0 20.1-39.9 <20.0individuals

Average proportion of total abundance Ž90.7 81.4-90.6 •<81.3 ->87.8 78.8-87.7 •<78.7 _>85.0 78.8-84.9 <78.7comprised by the two most abundant taxa

Average density excluding chironomids _<118 119-235 Ž>236 •<291 292-580 _>581 •<568 569-1152 _>1153and oligochaetes

Zero-samples - proportion of samples _>0.2 0.1 0 _>0.2 0.1 0 _>0.2 0.1 0containing no organisms

24

Table 4. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reachdownstream of WBN in Chickamauga Reservoir inflow, Autumn 2009. Eightshoreline sections were located on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were locatedon the right descending bank (RD).

I(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD) Avg.

Latitude 35.58826 35.59048 35.5924 35.59687 35.60293 35.60751 35.61227 35.61712Longitude -84.79591 -84.78782 -84.78342 -84.77759 -84.77477 -84.77464 -84.7752 -84.77593

Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SAHI VariablesCover 3 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 3

Substrate 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2

Erosion 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5

Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 4

Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 4

Habitat 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 2

Slope 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2

Total 25 25 19 23 25 21 11 11 22Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair

1(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.



SAHI Variables

Cover 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 1 4

Substrate . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Erosion 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4

Canopy Cover 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 4

Riparian Zone 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 2

Habitat 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3

Slope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 23 17 21 19 21 19 15 11 19Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair

Scoring criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair

25

(17-26); and Good (27-35).

Table 5. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reach upstreamof WBN in Watts Bar Reservoir forebay, Autumn 2009. Eight shoreline sections werelocated on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were located on the right descendingbank (RD).

I(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD) Avg.



SAHI VariablesCover 1 5 5 3 1 5 5 3 4

Substrate 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1

Erosion 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 3

Canopy Cover 3 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 4

Riparian Zone 3 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 4

Habitat 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3

Slope 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 2

Total 15 27 25 21 9 25 17 19 21Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair

1(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.



SAHI Variables

Cover 3 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 4

Substrate 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2

Erosion 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4

Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 4

Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 4

Habitat 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2

Slope 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

Total 21 25 23 17 21 15 19 21 21Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair

Scoring criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and Good (27-35).

26

Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 529.0) and Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts BarNuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009.

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0

Metric Obs Score Obs Score

A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of indigenous species(refer to Tables 7 and 8)

2. Number of centrarchid species(less Micropterus)

31 5 28 5

3. Number of benthic invertivore species

8Black crappie

BluegillGreen sunfish

Longear sunfishRedbreast sunfish

Redear sunfishWarmouth

White crappie

4Black redhorse

Freshwater drumGolden redhorseSpotted sucker

5Black redhorse

Brook silversideLongear sunfishSmallmouth bass

Spotted sucker

5

3

5

7Black crappie

BluegillGreen sunfish

Redbreast sunfishRedear sunfish

WarmouthWhite crappie

5Freshwater drum

LogperchNorthern hog sucker

River redhorseSpotted sucker

5Brook silverside

Northern hog sucker-River redhorseSmallmouth bassSpotted sucker

5

3

5

4. Number of intolerant species

27

Table 6. (Continued)

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 33.8%Bluegill 21.08%

Bluntnose minnow 0.27%Common carp 0.09%Gizzard shad 5.86%Golden shiner 0.63%Green sunfish 0.49%

Largemouth bass 2.73%Longnose gar 0.31%

Redbreast sunfish 0.81%Spotfin shiner 1.48%White crappie 0.04%

54.8%Bluegill 34.49%

Bluntnose minnow 1.40%Common carp 0.44%Gizzard shad 3.91%Green sunfish 2.2 1%

3 Largemouth bass 3.10%Redbreast sunfish 1.77%

Spotfin shiner 7.52%

1.5

Gill Netting 23.7%Gizzard shad 15.98%

Largemouth bass 6.39%White crappie 1.37%

1.5

6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

52.7%Inland silverside

34.5%Bluegill1

33.8%Yellow bass

7. Percent non-indigenous species 52.8%Common carp 0.09%

Inland silverside 52.64%

34.0%Common carp 0.44%

Inland silverside 33.53%

1.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

3.2%Hybrid striped bass 0.46%

Striped bass 2.74%

28


Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


8. Number of top carnivore species 11Black crappie

Flathead catfishLargemouth bass

Longnose garSauger

Smallmouth bassSpotted bassSpotted garWhite bass

White crappieYellow bass

9Black crappie

Flathead catfishLargemouth bass

SaugerSmallmouth bass

Spotted garWhite bass

White crappieYellow bass

5 5

B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 7.2%Black crappie 0.40%

Flathead catfish 0.22%Hybrid bass 0.09%

Largemouth bass 2.73%Longnose gar 0.31%

Sauger 0.04%Smallmouth bass 0.67%

Spotted bass 1.57%Spotted gar 0.04%White bass 0.04%

White crappie 0.04%Yellow bass 0.99%

4.7%Black crappie 0.07%

Flathead catfish 0.37%Largemouth bass 3.10%Smallmouth bass 1.11%

Spotted gar 0.07%

I 0.5

Gill Netting 66.2%Black crappie 11.87%Flathead catfish 4.57%

Hybrid striped bass 0.46%Largemouth bass 6.39%

Sauger 3.20%Striped bass 2.74%White bass 1.83%

White crappie 1.37%Yellow bass 33.79%

2.5

29


Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 8.5%Bluntnose minnow 0.27%

Channel catfish 1.57%Common carp 0.09%Gizzard shad 5.87%Golden shiner 0.63%

Smallmouth buffalo 0.04%

6.2%Bluntnose minnow 1.40%

Channel catfish 0.37%Common carp 0.44%Gizzard shad 3.91%

Smallmouth buffalo 0.07%

25.1%Blue catfish 5.94%

Channel catfish 2.28%Gizzard shad 15.98%

Hybrid shad 0.46%Smallmouth buffalo 0.46%

2.5

Gill Netting

1.5

C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

148.7 5 90.5

21.9

0.4%

0.9%

0.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

12. Percent anomalies 1.7% 5

Overall RFAI Score 44 45

Good Good

30

Table 7. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well asScores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in ChickamaugaReservoir.

Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average

WBNUpstream TRM 531.0 44 48 --- 43 --- 41 36 44 39 39 45 43 46 42 36 36 45 42Forebay

WBN DownstreamInflow TRM 529.0 52 52 48 42 44 -- 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 42 42 44 44 -

Transition TRM 490.5 51 40 48 44 39 --- 45 46 45 51 42 49 46 47 44 34 41 45

Forebay TRM 482.0 --- ... .. . 47 --- --- 41 48 46 43 45 41 39 35 38 38 37 42

Forebay TRM 472.3 43 44 47 -- 40 --- 45 45 48 46 43 43 46 43 41 41 42 44

Hiwassee River HiRM 8.5 46 39 39 --- 40 --- 43 43 47 --- 36 42 45 --- 41 --- 42 42Embayment S-P 2r( 4o5c

RIFAJ Scores: 12-2 1 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 4 1-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent").

31

Table 8. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification,Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing at Areas Downstream (TRM 529) ofWatts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic level: benthicinvertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), parasitic (PS), planktivore(PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT).

Common NameLongnose gar

Gizzard shad

Common carp

Golden shiner

Spotfm shiner

Bluntnose minnow

Redbreast sunfish

Green sunfishBluegillLargemouth bass

White crappie

Spotted sucker

Black redhorse

Longear sunfish

Smallmouth bassBrook silverside

Spotted gar

Threadfm shadEmerald shiner

Steelcolor shiner

Smallmouth buffalo

Golden redhorse

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

White bass

Yellow bass

Warmouth

Redear sunfish

Hybrid sunfish

Spotted bass

Hybrid bass

Black crappie

SaugerFreshwater drum

Scientific nameLepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianum

Cyprinus carpioNotemigonus crysoleucas

Cyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatus

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirus

Micropterus salmoides

Pomoxis annularis

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma duquesnei

Lepomis megalotis

Micropterus dolomieu

Labidesthes sicculus

Lepisosteus oculatus

Dorosoma petenense

Notropis atherinoides

Cyprinella whipplei

Ictiobus bubalus

Moxostoma erythrurumIctalurus punctatus

Pylodictis olivaris

Morone chrysops

Morone mississippiensis

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis microlophus

Hybrid lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatus

Hybrid micropterus sp.

Pomoxis nigromaculatus

Sander canadenseAplodinotus grunniens

Menidia beryllina

Trophic level

TCOM

OM

OM

IN

OM

IN

ININTC

TC

BI

BI

IN

TCIN

TC

PK

IN

IN

OMBI

OM

TC

TC

TC

IN

IN

IN

TC

TC

TC

TCBI

Sunfishspecies

xxx

x

x

xxx

x

Indigenous Tolerancespecies

TOTO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TOTO

TO

INTINT

INT

INTINT

EF Catch RatePer Run

0.478.73

0.13

0.93

2.2

0.4

1.2

0.73

31.44.07

0.07

0.130.33

0.8

1

1.33

0.07

2.07

0.07

0.27

0.070.2

2.33

0.33

0.07

1.47

0.73

5.2

0.07

2.33

0.13

0.6

0.07

0.33

EF Catch RatePer Hour

1.9135.69

0.54

3.81

8.99

1.63

4.9

3

128.3416.62

0.27

0.54

1.36

3.27

4.09

5.45

0.27

8.45

0.27

1.09

0.270.82

9.54

1.36

0.27

5.99

3

21.25

0.27

9.54

0.54

2.45

0.27

1.36

Total fishEF7

131

2

14

33

6

18

11

471611

2

5

12

15

20

131

1

4

13

355

122

11

781

35

2

9

15

mianmi silversioe IIN -- /-6--7.4 320U.44 1176

Total 148.73 607.86 2231

Number of Samples 15

Indigenous SpeciesCollected 31(Excluding hybrids)

32

Table 9. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishingand Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 531) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009.

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carp

Spotfm shiner

Bluntnose minnow

Redbreast sunfish

Green sunfishBluegill

Largemouth bass

White crappie

Northern hog sucker

Spotted sucker

River redhorseSmallmouth bass

Brook silverside

Spotted garThreadfm shad

Hybrid shad

Steelcolor shiner

Smallmouth buffalo

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

White bass

Yellow bass

Striped bass

Hybrid striped x white bass

Warmouth

Redear sunfish

Black crappie

Logperch

Sauger

Freshwater drum

Inland silverside

Total

Number of Samples

Indigenous Species Collected(Excluding hybrids)

33

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianum

Cyprinus carpio

Cyprinella spiloptera

Pimephales notatus

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis cyanellus

Lepomis macrochirus


Pomoxis annularis

Hypentelium nigricans

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma carinatum

Micropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculus


Dorosoma petenense

Hybrid dorosoma

Cyprinella whipplei

Ictiobus bubalus

Ictalurusfurcatus

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis olivaris

Morone chrysopsMorone mississippiensis

Morone saxatilis

Hybrid morone

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis microlophus


Percina caprodes

Sander canadense

Aplodinotus grunniens

Menidia beryllina

TrophiclevelOMOMIN

OMINININTCTCBIBIBI

TCINTCPKOMIN

OMOMOMTCTCTCTCTCININTCBITCBIIN

Sunfishspecies

x

xx

x

xxx

Indigenousspecies

x

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxx

Tolerance

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

INT

INT

INT

INTINT

EF Catch RatePer Run

3.530.46.731.271.62

31.22.80

0.070.201

0.470.074.40

0.070.07

00.330.33

0000

0.132.80.070.27

00.33

30.3390.47

EF Catch RatePer Hour

15.51.75

29.535.56

7.028.77

136.8412.28

00.290.88

04.392.050.2919.30

0.290.29

01.461.460000

0.5812.280.291.170

1.46133.04396.8

Total fish GN Catch RateEF536

1011924304684201

301571

66011

05500002421

405

4551357

15

24

Per Net Night3.50000001.40.301

0.10000

0.10

0.11.30.51

0.47.40.60.10.10.12.60

0.70.60

21.9

Total Gillnet fish

3500000014301010000101135

104746111

2607

60

21910

19

Total fishCombined

88

6

101

19

24

30

468

56

3

1

13

1

15

7

1

66

112

13

10

15

4

74

6

1

3

43

27

4

7

11

455

1576

Table 10. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areasdownstream (TRM 529) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN),omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT)

Representative Thermally Threatened/ Commercially RecreationallyTrophic Indigenous Rersnaie Aquatic Tolerance Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable

Common Name Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution)Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species

Longnose garGizzard shad

Common carp

Golden shiner

Spotfin shiner

Bluntnose minnow

Redbreast sunfish

Green sunfish

Bluegill

Largemouth bass

White crappie

Spotted sucker

Black redhorse

Longear sunfish

Smallmouth bass

Brook silverside

Spotted gar

Threadfin shad

Emerald shiner

Steelcolor shiner

Smallmouth buffalo

Golden redhorse

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

White bass

Yellow bass

Warmouth

Redear sunfish

Hybrid sunfish

Lepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianum

Cyprinus carpio

Notemigonus crysoleucas


Pimephales notatus

Lepomis auritus

Lepomis cyanellus

Lepomis macrochirus


Pomoxis annularis

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma duquesnei

Lepomis megalotis

Micropterus dolomieu

Labidesthes sicculus


Dorosoma petenense

Notropis atherinoides

Cyprinella whipplei

Ictiobus bubalus

Moxostoma erythrurum

Ictalurus punctatus

Pylodictis olivaris

Morone chrysops


Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis microlophus

Hybrid lepomis sp.

TCOMOM

OM

INOM

IN

IN

INTC

TCBI

BI

INTC

IN

TC

PK

IN

IN

OM

BI

OM

TC

TC

TC

ININ

IN

x

TOTO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TOINT

INTINT

INTINT

x

x

x x

xxxxx

xx

x

xxxxxx

x

x

x

34


Representative Thermally Threatened/ Commercially RecreationallyTrophic Indigenous RersnaieAquatic Tolerance Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable

Common Name Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution) SSpecies Species (Federal Status) Species Species

Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X X ...............- X

Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC X .....................

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X ...............- X

Sauger Sander canadense TC X X ...............- X

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X ---............ X

In la n d s ilv e r s id e M e n id ia b e ry llin a IN --- X X ....... ........

Total 31 33 2 2 0 3 19(Excluding Hybrids)

35

Table 11. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areas upstream(TRM 531) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM),planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT)

Representative Thermally Threatened/ Commercially RecreationallyTrophic Indigenous Aquatic Tolerance Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable

Common Name Scientific name level species important Nuisance (Pollution)Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species

Gizzard shadCommon carpSpotfm shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieNorthern hog suckerSpotted suckerRiver redhorseSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfm shadHybrid shadSteelcolor shinerSmallmouth buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassHybrid striped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishBlack crappie

Dorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpio


Pimephales notatus

Lepomis auritusLepomis cyanellus

Lepomis macrochirus


Pomoxis annularis

Hypentelium nigricans

Minytrema melanops

Moxostoma carinatum

Micropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculus


Dorosoma petenense

Hybrid dorosoma

Cyprinella whippleiIctiobus bubalus

Ictalurusfurcatus

Ictalurus punctatusPylodictis olivaris

Morone chrysops


Morone saxatilis

Hybrid morone

Lepomis gulosus

Lepomis microlophus


OMOM

IN

OM

ININ

IN

TCTC

BI

BIBI

TC

IN

TC

PK

OM

IN

OM

OM

OMTC

TC

TC

TC

TC

IN

IN

TC

TO

TO

TO

TO

TOTO

TO

TO

TO

TO

TO

INTINT

INT

INTINT

x

x

x

xx

x

xxxxx

x

xxxxxxxxxx

36


Representative Thermally Threatened/ Commercially RecreationallyTrophic Indigenous RersnaieAquatic Tolerance Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable

Common Name Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution)Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species

L ogperch P ercina cap rodes B I X X --- X .........

Sauger Sander canadense TC X X ...............- X

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X ... ............- X

I n la n d s ilv e r s id e M e n id ia b e ry llin a IN --- X X . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .

Total 28 31 2 2 0 4 19(Excluding Hybrids)

37

Table 12. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream andDownstream Sampling Sites Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2009.

Downstream UpstreamTRM 527.4 TRM 533.3

Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating

1. Average number of taxa 4.2 3 2.2 1

2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 1 5 0.2 1

3. Average number of EPT taxa 0 1 0 1

4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 0.6 5 28.5 3

5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 92 1 96.8 1two most abundant taxa6. Average density excluding chironomids and 685 3 31.7 1oligochaetes7. Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0.1 3organisms

Benthic Index Score 23 11Fair Very

Poor

Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"),("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")

19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29

38

Table 13. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites NearWatts Bar Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs, Autumn 2001-2009. *TRM 527.4 was notsampled during 2006; data from TRM 518 was used for the downstream site during 2006.

DownstreamDwTReM 52001 2002 1 2003 2004 2005 2006* 2007 2008 2009(TRM 527.4) jOsSoeISe b cr

Metric Obs Score Obs Score Ohs Score Obs Score Ohs cor Obs Score' Obs Score Obs Score

Avg No. Taxa 6.1 5 5.1 3 6.6 5 11.6 5 6.8 5'--- --- 3 3 5.1 3 4.2 3

% Long-Lived 0.9 5 1 5 1 5 0.9 5 1 5 -- .--- 0.8 5 0.4 3 1 5

Avg. No. EPT taxa 0.1 1 0.5 3 1 5 2.7 5 0.9 5 -- .--- 0.4 3 0.1 1 0 1

% Oligochaetes 1.9 5 1.6 5 0.5 5 1 5 0.8 5 -... .. 1.2 5 10.4 5 0.6 5

%Dominant Taxa 77.3 5 77 5 75.4 5 63.5 5 72 5 ... ...- 86.2 1 166.4 5 92 1

Density excl chiron and! 618.3 3 147.3 1 926.7 3 1538.3 5 480 1 . 168.3 1 165 1 685 3oligo

Zero Samples 0 5 0 5 0 50 5 0. 5 --- --- 5 0 5 0 5

Overall Score i 29 27 33 35 31 - 23 23 23

Upstream20 70 8(TRM 533.3) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006* 2009

Metric Obs Score Obs Score ObObs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score1 Obs Score Obs Score

Avg No. Taxa 3.4 3 4 3 3.8 3 4 3 2.9 3 3.3 3 3.4 3 2.5 3 2.2 1

% Long-Lived 0.1 11 0.1 1 0.1 1 0 1 0.2 1 0.1 1 0 1 0 1 0.2 1

Avg. No. EPTtaxa 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.1 1 0 1 0 1 J 0 1 0 1

% Oligochaetes 32.3 1 59.2 1 27.4 3 23.9 3 10.2 .5 28.5 3 35.6 1 77.7 1 28.5 3%Dominant Taxa 198.3 1 98.8 1 96 1 88.3 3 95..4 1 100 1 I 100 1 96.8 1

Density excl chiron and2.7 1 23.3 1 76.7 1 38.3 1 121.7 1 16.7 1 0 1 0 11 31.7 1

oligo ' IZero Samples 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0.1 3 0.1 3 0 5 1 0 5 0.1 3

Overall Score 13 13 15 17 15 13 13: 13 11

39

Table 14. Comparison of Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic TaxaCollected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near WBN, Chickamauga andWatts Bar Reservoirs, Autumn 2008 and Autumn 2009.

Downstream UpstreamTRM 527.4 TRM 533.3

Taxa 2009 2008 2009 2008

TubellariaTricladida

PlanariidaeOligocheata

OligochaetesHirudineaCrustacea

AmphipodaIsopoda

InsectaEphemeropteraDiptera

ChironomidaeChironomids

GastropodaSnails

BivalviaUnionoida

UnionidaeMussels

VeneroidaCorbiculidae

Corbicula (<10mm)Corbicula (> 10mm)

SphaeriidaeFingernail clams

DreissenidaeDreissena polymorpha

15 47

5

40

1523

320

--- 25055 ---

2

7

15 10

73 70

8

13

428158

35 72

8 2

7 23 15

Density of organisms per meter' 690 187 160 320Number of samples 10 10 10 10Total area sampled (meter2 ) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

40

Table 15. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well asScores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in ChickamaugaReservoir.

Station Location 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Aereige

ForebayWBNU•pstream TRM533.3 13 --- 11 --- 13 --- 15 13 13 15 17 15 13 13 13 11 13•

InflowWBN Downstream TRM 527.4 --- --- --- 29 27 33 35 31 --- 23 23 23 28

Inflow TRM 518.0 19 31 --- 25 --- 21 23 29 23 27 35 29 33 25 --- 31 27

Transition TRM 490.5 33 29 --- 31 --- 31 23 25 25 31 31 31 27 21 17 27 27

Forebay TRM 482.0 --- --- .------ --- 23 31 29 29 33 31 31 25 25 23 "28

Forebay TRM 472.3 31 27 --- 29 --- 25 27 27 21 27 29 27 29 19 25 23 26

Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")

41

SCCW Intake

Intake Pumping Station

Subm

80 Feet

Figure 1. Map of WBN showing location of SCCW intake and discharge.

42

Te

E1ectrof~hin~ 1ocations~355 N35 36.927 W84 46.819356 N35 36.734 W84 46.743357 N35 36.488 W84 46.682358 N35 36.184 W84 46.709359 N35 35.881 W84 46.891360 N35 35.716 W84 47.073361 N35 35.562 W84 47.391362 N35 35.451 W84 47.765363 N35 37.152 W84 46.738364 N35 37.142 W84 46.631365 N35 36.818 W84 46.537366 N35 36.510 W84 46.491367 N35 36.060 W84 46.518368 N35 35.791 W84 46.708369 N35 35.467 W84 47.156

Figure 2. RFAI electrofishing downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, represented by black squares.

43

Electrofishing Locations Gill Net locations1482 N35 37.948 W84 46.772 N35 37.800 W84 46.9831483 N35 37.640 W84 46.772 N35 38.053 W84 47.0531484 N35 37.815 W84 46.978 N35 38.225 W84 46.9431485 N35 38.022 W84 47.000 N35 38.337 W84 46.8631486 N35 38.203 W84 46.980 N35 38.513 W84 46.6981487 N35 38.329 W84 46.835 N35 38.603 W84 46.6271488 N35 38.533 W84 46.683 N35 38.828 W84 47.2571489 N35 37.854 W84 47.570 N35 38.629 W84 47.3901490 N35 37.748 W84 47.512 N35 38.421 W84 47.5051491 N35 37.528 W84 47.592 N35 38.302 W84 47.5931492 N35 37.359 W84 47.7 10 N35 37.927 W84 47.6091493 N35 37.446 W84 47.508 N35 37.390 W84 46.7021494 N35 37.515 W84 47.3061495 N35 37.356 W84 47.1701496 N35 37.376 W84 46.696

Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Black squaresrepresent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations.

44

90000

80000 -2009 Daily Average

70000 - Historic Daily Average 1976-2008

60000

t 50000

0 40000 n

3 0 0 0 0 -AY

20000

10000

L

Date

Figure 4. Daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2008 through November 2009 and historic dailyflows averaged for the same period 1976 through 2008.

45

90

8o

70

60

0. so

E. 40

30

20

10

0

Date

Figure 5. Average hourly water temperatures immediately below Watts Bar Dam, October 2008 to November 2009.

46

ADpendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores

Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Areas Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2008

47

Appendix 1-A. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar NuclearPlant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0



1. Number of species

2. Number of centrarchid species(less Micropterus)

28 species 5 27 species 3

7 speciesRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLongear sunfishWarmouthRedear sunfishBlack crappie

5

8 speciesRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLongear sunfishWarmouthRedear sunfishBlack crappieWhite crappie

3 speciesSpotted suckerLogperchFreshwater drum

3. Number of benthic invertivore species 5 speciesSpotted suckerLogperchBlack redhorseGolden redhorseNorthern hog sucker

6 speciesSpotted suckerBrook silversideLongear sunfish 5Smallmouth bassBlack redhorseNorthern hog sucker

4. Number of intolerant species 4 speciesSpotted suckerBrook silversideLongear sunfishSmallmouth bass

48

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 82.3%Bluegill 63.0%Gizzard shad 12.7%Golden shiner 0.6%Spotfin shiner 1.2%Largemouth bass 1.1%Green sunfish 1.8%Redbreast sunfish 1.8%

93.8%Bluegill 72.6%Gizzard shad 9.7%Common carp 0.2%Spotfin shiner 6.1%Largemouth bass 1.6%Green sunfish 0.6%Redbreast sunfish 3.0%

0.5

Gill Netting

6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing

58.8%Bluegill 0.9%Gizzard shad 49.8%Common carp 1.9%Largemouth bass 5.7%White crappie 0.5%

0.5

0.5

0.5

63%Bluegill

72.6%BluegillI

Gill Netting 49.8%Gizzard shad

0.2%Common carp

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing

Gill Netting

3.2%Inland silverside 5 2.5

2.55.2%Striped bass 3.3%Common carp 1.9%

49

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


8. Number of top carnivore species7 speciesLargemouth bassSmallmouth bassSpotted bassSpotted garFlathead catfishYellow bassBlack crappie

5

9 speciesLargemouth bassSmallmouth bassSpotted bassSpotted garFlathead catfishYellow bassWhite bassWhite crappieBlack crappie

5

B. Trophic composition9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 3.7%

Largemouth bass 1.1%Smallmouth bass 0.1%Spotted bass 0.9%Spotted gar 0.5%Flathead catfish 0.7%Yellow bass 0.07%Black crappie 0.4%

1

Gill Netting

2.7%Largemouth bass 1.6%Smallmouth bass 0.5%Spotted bass 0.08%Spotted gar 0.2%Flathead catfish 0.4%White bass 0.08%

33.6%Yellow bass 12.3%Largemouth bass 5.7%Flathead catfish 4.3%Striped bass 3.3%Black crappie 3.3%White bass 2.8%Spotted bass 0.9%Smallmouth bass 0.5%White crappie 0.5%

0.5

1.5

50

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 14.6%Gizzard shad 12.7%Smallmouth buffalo 0.07% 5Channel catfish 1.1%Blue catfish 0.1%Golden shiner 0.6%

10.3%Gizzard shad 9.7%Smallmouth buffalo 0.2%Channel catfish 0.2%Common carp 0.2%

61.6%Gizzard shad 49.8%Blue catfish 4.3%Common carp 1.9%Channel catfish 1.4%Smallmouth buffalo 3.3%Hybrid shad 0.9%

2.5

Gill Netting

0.5


11. Average number per run Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

94.3 3 85.8

21.1

0.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

12. Percent anomalies 0.9% 5 0.4%

0.9%


Good Fair

51

Appendix 1-B. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.

Autumn 2007 Downstream UpstreamTRM 529.0 TRM 531.0


A. Species richness and composition1. Number of species

2. Number of centrarchid species

3. Number of benthic invertivores4. Number of intolerant species

5. Percent tolerant individuals


7. Percent non-native species

8. Number of top carnivore species







Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

27

7

6

6

75.6

51.9

0.3

8

3

5

351

1

5

5

26

8

2

4

85.1

46.8

52.2

41.4

2.6

3.4

9

9.5

45.8

22.5

50.2

35.9

29.5

1.3A '"7

3

5

1

3

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

5

1.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

2.5

12 3

16.1 5

51.6

3.2

3

3

---. I '+.l 1.,


Good Fair

52

Appendix 1-C. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.






3. Number of benthic invertivores












Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

28

7.5

6

82.3

63

3.2

55

3

5

1

1

5

7 5

29

8

3

5

85.2

34.8

37.9

26.1

1.1

2.5

10

6

54

30.5

32.9

85.3

16.1

0.2

5

5

1

5

0.5

0.5

1.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

3.7 1

14.6 5

94.3

0.9

3

5

~..--- Ifd~il U Z. D


Good Good

53

Appendix 1-D. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.


















Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

27

666

58.6

30.5

1

7

16.7

33.3

3

53

51

3

5

5

3

3

31

8

3

5

81.9

11.9

48.3

34.9

0.8

2.3

10

5

80.7

19.5

10.1

74.5

21.8

0.8

5

5

1

5

0.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

67 3

2.2 3

L ____________________________________________________I U


Good Good

54

Appendix 1-E. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.










8. Number of top carnivore speciesB. Trophic composition






29

7

4

4

64.8

55

3

3

1.0Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

50.0 1.0

0.5 5.0

10 5

28

7

3

4

81.8

26.6

36.8

23.4

1.4

1.3

11

6.5

57.1

35.1

31.8

66.6

15.4

1.6A•

5

5

1

3

0.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

1.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

16.9 3.0

51.2 3.0

99.9 3.0

1.3 5.0

---. I U


Good Good

55

Appendix 1-F. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.




2. Number of centrarchid species3. Number of benthic invertivores












Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

308

5

5

57.7

34.2

0.6

10

10.2

18.7

69.1

0.7

5

5

3

5

3

3

5

5

1

5

29

7

3

5

78.8

27.9

48.5

28.4

1.0

5.3

11

5.9

56.8

20.0

32.6

57.619.0

0.8'3 1

5

5

1

5

0.5

1.5

1.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

2.5

1.5

3

5

0.51.5

2.5

1.1X X'Lffl iii .... 2. 1 1 .,)


Good Good

56

Appendix 1-G. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.










8. Number of top carnivore speciesB. Trophic composition



C. Fish abundance and health11. Average number per run


Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing"; 11 NTýt+;n

26

7

5

6

37.5

29.4

0.8

7

12.1

13.2

85.7

0.5

3

5

3

5

3

3

5

5

3

5

27

7

3

4

78.0

33.9

60.0

26.2

1.7

4.7

10

9.7

56.7

10.2

35.6

28.2

23.3

0.9

3

5

1

3

0.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

2.5

0.5

0.51.5

2.5

3

5

,.-1 1I I ,,.,Lxih 5 ... .. [ U ..


Good Fair

57

Appendix 1-H. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

















Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishingill LMttln

29

7

6

6

51.8

29.5

0.4

8

8.4

55

3

5

3

3

5

5

1

27

6

4

4

75.9

37.5

44.7

33.1

2.2

2.5

9

4.7

48.4

6.6

39.6

39.3

27.5

0.7

3

5

3

3

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

5

0.5

1.5

2.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

2.5.

12.8, 5

37.5

1.2

1

5

"IiL± . ' 1 •tlhl•5 .... U.A+.


Good Fair

58

Appendix 1-I. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.


















Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

24

7

4

4

62.5

38.5

4.2

7

20.6

14.7

3

5

3

31

3

5

5

3

5

31

7

3

5

81

43.5

46.7

31.8

1.6

4.7

10

8.7

51.8

15.3

39.4

5

5

1

5

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

2.5

2.5

5

1.5

2.5

2.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

2.5

61.5 3 47.34

1.4A

1.1 5

± ________________________I U Z.J


Good Good

59

Appendix 1-J. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream andDownstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.


















Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

Electrofishing

Gill Netting

27

5

7

4

25.1

46.9

0.7

9

7.9

11.1

3

55

3

5

1

5

5

1

Sw

26

7

3

4

71

61.4

29.7

58

8.4

2

11

14.2

19.4

25.8

71

10.3

44.8

1.3A'

3

5

1

3

0.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

5

2.5

0.5

1.5

0.5

0.5

2.5

2.511 C•

37.1

2.7

1

3

I ____________________________________________________U


Good Fair

60

Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List

Species Collected and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing (TRM 529 and 531)and gill netting (TRM 531) at Areas Upstream and Downstream of

Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2008.

61

Appendix 2-A. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and CatchPer Unit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts BarNuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Common NameGizzard shadGolden shinerSpotfin shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassNorthern hog suckerSpotted suckerBlack redhorseLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garLargescale stonerollerEmerald shinerBullhead minnowSmallmouth buffaloGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishYellow bassWarmouthRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieLogperchInland silversideTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumNotemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesHypentelium nigricansMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma duquesneiLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusCampostoma oligolepisNotropis atherinoidesPimephales vigilaxIctiobus bubalusMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone mississippiensisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercina caprodesMenidia bervllina

Trophiclevel

OMOMININININTCBIBIBIINTCINTCHBININOMBIOMOMTCTCININTCTCBIIN

Sunfish Nativespecies species

XXX

X XX XX X

XXXX

X XXXXXXXXXXXXX

X XX X

XX X

X

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fishTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF

Run HourTOL 12.00 55.90 180TOL 0.53 2.48 8TOL 1.13 5.28 17TOL 1.73 8.07 26TOL 1.73 8.07 26TOL 59.47 277.02 892TOL 1.00 4.66 15INT 0.07 0.31 1INT 0.07 0.31 1INT 0.20 0.93 3INT 1.27 5.90 19INT 0.13 0.62 2INT 0.13 0.62 2

0.47 2.17 70.07 0.31 10.33 1.55 50.07 0.31 10.07 0.31 10.47 2.17 70.13 0.62 21.07 4.97 160.67 3.11 100.07 0.31 10.80 3.73 126.20 28.88 930.87 4.04 130.33 1.55 50.27 1.24 43.00 13.98 4594.35 439.42 1,415

1529

62

Appendix 2-B. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing andGill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total f Gill Netting _Total.fishTotalGilTtlfsTrophicSunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combinedlevel species species Run Hour Net Night

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSpotted suckerLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversidePaddlefishSpotted garThreadfin shadHybrid shadBullhead minnowSmallmouth buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieLogperchFreshwater drumTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

63

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisMinytrema melanopsLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusPolyodon spathulaLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseHybrid DorosomaPimephales vigilaxIctiobus bubalusIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid Lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercina caprodesAplodinotus ,zrunniens

OMOMININININTCTCBIINTCINPKTCPKOMINOMOMOMTCTCTCTCINININTCTCBIBI

XXX

X

X

X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTINTINTINT

8.330.135.272.530.53

62.331.33

0.130.530.400.13

0.130.13

0.400.13

0.200.330.07

39.060.6324.6911.882.5

292.196.25

0.632.501.880.63

0.630.63

1.880.63

0.941.560.31

1252

79388

93520

10.50.40

1054

2862

22

62

35

3311

32

1287

0.201.200.100.30

0.10

0.10

0.20

0.700.900.300.900.602.600.70

0.10

0.200.70

0.3021.11020

21213

1

1

2

79396267

1

27

3211

2306

79388

9373215872122269961472671

3413735

1498

X XX XX X

X

X XXX

0.072.200.070.07

0.200.1385.77

1524

0.3110.310.310.31

0.940.63

402.23

Appendix 2-C. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and CatchPer Unit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts BarNuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.

Common NameLongnose garGizzard shadCommon carpGolden shinerSpotfm shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassNorthern hog suckerSpotted suckerBlack redhorseRock bassLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassThreadfin shadEmerald shinerSteelcolor shinerGolden redhorseChannel catfishFlathead catfishYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieLogperchFreshwater drumTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

Scientific nameLepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioNotemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesHypentelium nigricansMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma duquesneiAmbloplites rupestrisLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesCyprinella whippleiMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniens

Trophiclevel

TCOMOMOMININININTCBIBIBITCINTCPKININBI

OMTCTCTCININTCTCBIBI


XX

XX

X XX XX X

XXXXX

X X

XXXXXXXX

X XX X

XX X

XX


Run HourTOL 0.07 0.32 1TOL 7.40 '35.02 111TOL 0.07 0.32 1TOL 0.07 0.32 1TOL 1.80 8.52 27TOL 1.47 6.94 22TOL 0.20 0.95 3TOL 26.80 126.81 402TOL 1.13 5.36 17INT 0.07 0.32 1INT 0.33 1.58 5INT 0.13 0.63 2INT 0.07 0.32 1INT 0.60 2.84 9INT 0.27 1.26 4

0.07 0.32 10.40 1.89 60.07 0.32 10.60 2.84 90.80 3.79 121.87 8.83 280.47 2.21 70.07 0.32 10.40 1.89 63.60 17.03 542.00 9.46 300.27 1.26 40.33 1.58 50.20 0.95 351.63 244.20 774

1529

64

Appendix 2-D. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing . ... Gill Netting Totallevel species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Ea Catch Rate Per net fish Combined

Run Hour EF Net NightOM X TOL 6.87 33.77 103 12.20 122 225

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSkipjack herringSpotted suckerLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassThreadfin shadHybrid shadBullhead minnowSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieFreshwater drumInland silverside

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuDorosoma petenenseHybrid DorosomaPimephales vigilaxIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid Lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusAplodinotus grunniensMenidia beryllina

OMIN

OMINININTCTCTCBIINTCPKOMINOMOMOMOMTCTCTCTCINININTCTCBIIN

XX

X XX XX X

X

X XXX

X X

XXXXXXXXXXX

X XX XX X

XX X

X

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTINTINTINT

0.471.070.070.530.3318.732.400.07

0.200.070.130.40

0.070.270.13

0.270.470.07

2.305.250.332.621.64

92.1311.800.33

0.980.330.661.97

0.331.310.66

1.312.300.33

7161

85

281361

31

26

1

42

471

0.10 1

0.201.000.300.400.50

0.20

1.40

0.500.100.300.201.400.304.600.90

4.400.50

29.501019

210345

2

14

51

32143

469

445

295

816185

283464481

46141

9336

214469231244487

833

0.132.070.130.27

0.200.4735.89

1525

0.6610.160.661.31

0.982.30

176.42

23124

37

538TotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

65

Appendix 2-E. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar NuclearPlant Discharge, Autumn 2006.

Common NameLongnose garGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassSpotted suckerBlack redhorseRock bassLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadEmerald shinerGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishYellow bassRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieLogperchFreshwater drumInland silversideTotalNumber SamplesSnecies Collected

Scientific nameLepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma duquesneiAmbloplites rupestrisLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone mississippiensisLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniensMenidia bervllina

Trophiclevel

TCOMOMININININTCBIBITCINTCINTCPKINBI

OMOMTCTCINTCTCBIBIIN


XX

XX XX XX X

XXXX

X XXXXXXXXXXX

X XX

X XXX

Electrofishing ElectrofishingToa fishTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF

Run HourTOL 0.13 0.58 2TOL 17.93 77.52 269TOL 0.07 0.29 1TOL 2.93 12.68 44TOL 1.27 5.48 19TOL 0.20 0.86 3TOL 16.67 72.05 250TOL 1.07 4.61 16INT 0.20 0.86 3INT 0.40 1.73 6INT 0.07 0.29 1INT 1.67 7.20 25INT 0.67 2.88 10TNT 1.00 4.32 15

0.13 0.58 20.07 0.29 11.27 5.48 190.80 3.46 120.07 0.29 11.33 5.76 200.47 2.02 70.53 2.31 85.53 23.92 832.13 9.22 320.33 1.44 51.47 6.34 221.27 5.48 192.00 8.65 3061.68 266.59 925

1528

66

Appendix 2-F. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting TotalGilTtlfs

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfm shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSkipjack herringSpotted suckerLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieYellow perchLogperchFreshwater drumInland silversideTotalNumber SamplesSnecies Collected

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercaflavescensPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniensMenidia beryllina

..... ...... . .... Run Hour Net Night . . .OMOMIN

OMINININTCTCTCBIINTCINTCPKOMOMOMOMTCTCTCTCININTCTCINBIBIIN

X

XX

X XX XX X

X

X XXX

X XXXXXXXXXXXX

X XX X

XX X

XX

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTJNTINTINTINT

23.530.605.731.405.531.60

32.332.00

0.530.400.730.200.130.070.200.07

0.270.331.40

0.130.133.670.200.200.200.470.073.2085.32

1528

94.392.41

22.995.61

22.196.42

129.688.02

2.141.602.940.800.530.270.800.27

1.071.345.61

0.530.5314.710.800.800.801.870.2712.83

342.22

35398621832448530

4.200.40

8

611321

3

45

21

22

5533371

481,280

0.100.400.500.200.80

0.500.40

0.200.101.001.102.60

0.10

2.90

0.60

42 3954 13

86218324

1 4864 345 52 28 16

611

32

5 64 7

1

2 21 5

10 1511 3226 26

21 3

553

29 3237

6 748

161 1,44116.101017

67

Appendix 2-G. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2005.

Common NameLongnose garGizzard shadCommon carpGolden shinerSpotfin shinerStriped shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassNorthern hog suckerSpotted suckerBlack redhorseLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideThreadfin shadEmerald shinerGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishYellow bassRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieYellow perchLogperchFreshwater drumTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

Scientific nameLepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioNotemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraLuxilus chrysocephalusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesHypentelium nigricansMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma duquesneiLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone mississippiensisLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercaflavescensPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniens

Trophiclevel

TCOMOMOMIN

OMINININTCBIBIBIINTCINPKINBIOMOMTCTCINTCTCINBIBI


X TOLX TOL

TOLX TOLX TOLX TOL

X X TOLX X TOLX X TOL

X TOLX INTX INTX INT

X X INTX 1NTX TNTXXXXXXX

X XX

X X

XX

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fishCatch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF

Run Hour0.07 0.34 1

20.47 105.86 3070.40 2.07 60.20 1.03 30.27 1.38 40.13 0.69 21.93 10.00 292.00 10.34 3011.80 61.03 1772.00 10.34 300.07 0.34 10.53 2.76 80.13 0.69 23.07 15.86 461.67 8.62 250.07 0.34 13.73 19.31 562.93 15.17 440.53 2.76 80.13 0.69 21.00 5.17 151.13 5.86 170.87 4.48 135.67 29.31 853.73 19.31 561.73 8.97 260.27 1.38 40.27 1.38 40.20 1.03 367.00 346.51 1,005

1529

68

Appendix 2-H. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpGolden shinerSpotfm shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSkipjack herringSpotted suckerLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadEmerald shinerSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieYellow perchLogperchFreshwater drumInland silversideTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioNotemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerIctalurusfurcatuslctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid Lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercaflavescensPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniensMenidia beryllina

Trophiclevel

OMOMOMINOMINININTCTCTCBIINTCINTCPKINOMOMOMOMTCTCTCTCINININTCTCINBIBIIN


X

XXX

X XX XX X

XX X

XX

X XXXXXXXXXXXXX

X XX XX X

XX X

XX

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTINTINTINTINT

0.076.800.071.672.3336.000.93

0.270.330.803.470.330.330.130.130.40

0.671.130.27

0.070.532.330.130.130.070.070.200.800.8774.53

1531

0.3535.790.358.7712.28189.474.91

1.401.754.2118.251.751.750.700.702.11

3.515.961.40

0.352.8112.280.700.700.350.351.054.214.56

392.25

1

1021

253554014

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting ToTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per

Run Hour EF Net Night

TOL 12.73 67.02 191 1.20TOL 0.47 2.46 7 0.30

45125255226

10174

1

835221131213

1,118

0.700.400.901.70

0.10

0.10

0.400.201.101.407.600.20

5.20

0.30

tal Gill Total fishet fish Combined

12 2033 10

1

1021

2535540

7 214 49 917 21

51 13

52552

1 36

4 42 12

11 2814 1876 762 3

83522

52 5313

3 1513

218 1,33621.801016

69

Appendix 2-I. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2004.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fishlevel species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF

Common Name Scientific name Run HourLongnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 1.20 6.21 18Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 50.00 258.62 750Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.40 2.07 6Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.34 1Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.73 3.79 11Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.07 0.34 1Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.27 6.55 19Green sunfish Lepomis eyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 1.72 5Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 5.93 30.69 89Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 4.33 22.41 65White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.40 2.07 6Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.27 1.38 4Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 2.13 11.03 32Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.67 8.62 25Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.53 2.76 8Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.34 1Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 13.07 67.59 196Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB X 0.07 0.34 1Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.60 3.10 9Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.34 1Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI . X 0.13 0.69 2Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 0.60 3.10 9Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.60 3.10 9White bass Morone chrysops TC X 2.13 11.03 32Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 1.73 8.97 26Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 4.27 22.07 64Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.34 1Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 3.27 16.90 49Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.53 7.93 23Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.34 1Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 1.20 6.21 18Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 1.13 5.86 17Total 99.94 516.85 1,499Number Samples 15Species Collected 32

70

Appendix 2-J. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.

Electrofishing Electrofishing .... Gill Netting Total Gill Total fishTro picSiesh seies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net Gill Totlish

Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net NightLongnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.07 0.38 1 1Gizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSkipjack herringSpotted suckerSmallmouth bassBrook silversideThreadfin shadEmerald shinerSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassWarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieYellow perchSaugerFreshwater drum

Dorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid Lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercaflavescensSander canadenseAplodinotus grunniens

OMOMININININTCTCTCBITCINPKINOMOMBIOMOMTCTCTCTCINININTCTCINTCBI

X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXX

XX

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTNTTNTINTTNT

22.070.471.073.800.7324.531.73

0.931.732.400.070.730.600.13

126.342.676.11

21.764.20

140.469.92

5.349.9213.740.384.203.440.76

0.761.910.380.380.761.9116.032.671.15

1.91

3.82381.30

3317165711

.36826

142636111

92

2511

25

4273

5

10999

3.600.10

0.130.330.070.070.130.332.800.470.20

0.33

0.6766.59

1526

0.100.303.401.300.10

0.10

0.100.300.800.301.700.500.10

0.10

0.901.30

0.100.2015.40

1020

361

3341313

I

1

3

831751

I

913

1

2154

3678165711

36827334272736111

1021

31081863543712135112

1,153TotalNumber SamplesSp~ecies Collected

71

Appendix 2-K. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2003.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fishlevel species specie Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF

Common Name Scientific name species Run HourLongnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.20 1.08 3Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 11.87 63.80 178Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.40 2.15 6Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 1.08 3Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.73 3.94 11Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.72 2Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.47 2.51 7Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.20 1.08 3Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 23.60 126.88 354Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.00 10.75 30White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.07 0.36 1Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.27 1.43 4Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.40 2.15 6Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.20 1.08 3Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.67 3.58 10Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.13 0.72 2Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 17.67 94.98 265Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.20 1.08 3Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN X 0.27 1.43 4Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.40 2.15 6Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.33 1.79 5Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.79 5White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.13 0.72 2Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 1.13 6.09 17Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.07 0.36 1Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 4.07 21.86 61Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis sp. IN X X 0.13 0.72 2Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 1.60 8.60 24Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.87 4.66 13Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 0.07 0.36 1Walleye Sander vitreus TC X 0.07 0.36 1Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.08 3Total 69.08 371.34 1,036Number Samples 15Species Collected 32

72

Appendix 2-L. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting T.....Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Gill Totlish

Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 9.93 52.65 149 4.00 40 189Common carp Cvprinus carpio OM TOL 0.53 2.83 8 0.40 4 12Golden shinerSpotfin shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSkipjack herringSpotted suckerLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bassRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieLogperchSaugerFreshwater drum

Notemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisLepomis microlophusHybrid Lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercina caprodesSander canadensisAplodinotus grunniens

OMINOMINININTCTCTCBIINTCINTCPKOMOMOMOMTCTCTCTCININTCTCBITCBI

XXX

X XX XX X

X

X XXX

X XXXXXXXXXXXX

X XX X

XX X

XXX

TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTINTINTINTINT

0.403.330.131.201.07

27.930.87

2.1217.670.716.365.65

148.064.59

65021816

41913

0.400.130.734.670.130.070.20

0.330.270.13

0.073.330.070.800.400.13

0.3357.58

1526

2.120.713.89

24.730.710.351.06

1.771.410.71

0.3517.670.354.242.120.71

1.77305.31

62117021

3

542

50112

62

5864

0.800.100.201.40

0.20

0.500.900.100.300.501.700.605.400.60

0.400.70

0.100.1019.00

1020

81214

2

59135176546

47

11

190

65021816

4192112

202

137026121

310218

547

501

16

13216

1,054TotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

73

Appendix 2-M. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2002.


Common Name Scientific name Run HourGizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 9.20 51.49 138Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.61 7Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 1.12 3Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 1.87 10.45 28Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.27 7.09 19Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.27 1.49 4Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1N X X TOL 16.27 91.04 244Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.60 14.55 39Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X 1NT 0.07 0.37 1Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.53 2.99 8Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.13 0.75 2Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.53 2.99 8Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.07 5.97 16Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X 1NT 1.33 7.46 20Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 25.20 141.04 378Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.13 0.75 2Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.40 2.24 6Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.47 2.61 7Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 1.47 8.21 22Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.40 2.24 6White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.60 3.36 9Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.33 13.06 35Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.37 1Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.33 1.87 5Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 14.73 82.46 221Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.07 11.57 31Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.20 6.72 18Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.13 0.75 2Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.40 2.24 6Total 85.74 479.86 1,286Number Samples 15Species Collected 29

74

Appendix 2-N. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.

fish Gill Netting Total 1Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total nsh Gill Notal Gil Total fish

Tro p cS iesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combinedlevel species species Run Hour E Net Night

TC X TOL 0.30 3 3Common NameLongnose garGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieNorthern hog suckerSpotted suckerSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadSmallmouth buffaloBlack buffaloBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bass


WarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieFreshwater drumTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

75

Scientific nameLepisosteus osseusDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisHypentelium nigricansMinytrema melanopsMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseIctiobus bubalusIctiobus nigerIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilis*Hybrid morone (chrysops xsax)Lepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusAplodinotus grunniens

OMOMIN

OMINININTCTCBIBITCINTCPKOMOMOMOMTCTCTCTC

TC

INININTCTCBI

XXX

X

X


TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLINTINTINTINT

1.800.470.400.130.930.4716.930.87

0.070.400.400.270.07

0.330.07

0.070.670.07

9.222.392.050.684.782.3986.694.44

0.342.052.051.370.34

1.710.34

0.343.410.34

27762147

25413

166

41

51

1010

6.10 610.30 3

1.000.20

0.700.20

0.100.30

1.100.501.801.804.200.50

0.30

102

72

13

1151818425

881062147

2542321

13841181

116

2819425

3 3

XXX

X

XXXXXX

0.272.400.200.600.070.27

28.231524

1.3712.291.023.070.341.37

144.39

436391

4423

0.402.501.00

23.301019

42510

233

4363132614

656

Appendix 2-0. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2001.

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpGolden shinerSpotfin shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassWhite crappieSpotted suckerRiver redhorseBlack redhorseLongear sunfishSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadEmerald shinerGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassWarmouthRedear sunfishHybrid sunfishSpotted bassLogperchFreshwater drumTotalNumber SamplesSpecies Collected

Scientific nameDorosoma cepedianumCyprinus carpioNotemigonus crysoleucasCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesPomoxis annularisMinytrema melanopsMoxostoma carinatumMoxostoma duquesneiLepomis megalotisMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseNotropis atherinoidesMoxostoma erythrurumIctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisLepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusHybrid lepomis sp.Micropterus punctulatusPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniens

Trophiclevel

OMOMOMIN

OMINININTCTCBIBIBIINTCINTCPKINBI

OMOMTCTCTCINININTCBIBI


X

XXX

X XX XX X

XX X

XXX

X XXXXXXXXXXXX

X XX XX X

XXX


Run HourTOL 2.93 12.68 44TOL 0.13 0.58 2TOL 0.20 0.86 3TOL 2.07 8.93 31TOL 0.07 0.29 1TOL 1.00 4.32 15TOL 0.73 3.17 11TOL 11.07 47.84 166TOL 1.13 4.90 17TOL 0.07 0.29 1INT 0.40 1.73 6INT 0.07 0.29 1INT 0.07 0.29 1INT 0.13 0.58 2INT 0.13 0.58 2INT 1.27 5.48 19

0.07 0.29 10.00 0.00 02.20 9.51 330.53 2.31 80.73 3.17 110.73 3.17 110.53 2.31 80.07 0.29 10.07 0.29 10.07 0.29 19.27 40.06 1390.07 0.29 11.07 4.61 160.20 0.86 30.40 1.73 637.48 161.99 562

1530

76

Appendix 2-P.

Common NameGizzard shadCommon carpSpotfin shinerBluntnose minnowRedbreast sunfishGreen sunfishBluegillLargemouth bassSkipjack herringSpotted suckerSmallmouth bassBrook silversideSpotted garThreadfin shadSteelcolor shinerSmallmouth buffaloGolden redhorseBlue catfishChannel catfishFlathead catfishWhite bassYellow bassStriped bass


WarmouthRedear sunfishSpotted bassBlack crappieYellow perchLogperchFreshwater drum

Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total Gill Netting Total Gill Total fishTro p cSiesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish CombinedScientific name species species Run Hour Net NightDorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 1.67 8.39 25 9.10 91 116Cyprinus carpioCyprinella spilopteraPimephales notatusLepomis auritusLepomis cyanellusLepomis macrochirusMicropterus salmoidesAlosa chrysochlorisMinytrema melanopsMicropterus dolomieuLabidesthes sicculusLepisosteus oculatusDorosoma petenenseCyprinella whippleiIctiobus bubalusMoxostoma erythrurumlctalurusfurcatusIctalurus punctatusPylodictis olivarisMorone chrysopsMorone mississippiensisMorone saxatilisHybrid morone (chrysops xsax)Lepomis gulosusLepomis microlophusMicropterus punctulatusPomoxis nigromaculatusPercaflavescensPercina caprodesAplodinotus grunniens

OMIN

OMINININTCTCBITCINTCPKINOMBIOMOMTCTCTCTC

TC

ININTCTCINBIBI

XXX


TOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOLTOL]NTINTINTINT

0.536.130.202.400.5317.600.80

0.470.400.930.13

2.070.13

0.070.200.13

2.6830.871.01

12.082.6888.594.03

2.352.014.700.67

10.400.67

0.341.010.67

8923

368

26412

76142

312

1

32

0.20 2

0.500.500.201.200.10

0.30

0.100.100.501.000.800.507.100.40

0.10

552121

3

1

51085

714

1

1

234

11275

10923

368

2691721971423

3131

511117714

X XX X

X

X X

XX

3.730.070.130.330.270.4039.32

1523

18.790.340.671.681.342.01

197.98

561

2546

590

0.10

0.203.40

1.1027.50

1021

563

365417

865TotalNumber SamplesSt~ecies Collected

77

Appendix 2-Q. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream (TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 2000.


Common Name Scientific name Run ourGizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 6.07 34.73 91Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 2.53 14.50 38Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.38 1Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 1.53 8.78 23Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.07 6.11 16Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.27 1.53 4Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 23.67 135.50 355Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 3.13 17.94 47Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.38 1Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.33 1.91 5Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.60 3.44 9Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.27 7.25 19Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK X 1.80 10.31 27Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.27 1.53 4Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.27 1.53 4Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.07 0.38 1Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 0.20 1.15 3Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.91 5White-bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.40 2.29 6Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.27 12.98 34Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.38 1Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.60 3.44 9Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 9.13 52.29 137Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.13 0.76 2Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 2.33 13.36 35Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 2.87 16.41 43Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.07 0.38 1Total 61.42 351.55 921Number Samples 15Species Collected 27

78

Appendix 2-R. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.

Sunfish NativehTNative Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fishlevel speciesh seive Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Gl o fishlevel species species EFnet fish Combined

Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 5.27 27.15 79 10.50 105 184Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.73 3.78 11 0.90 9 20Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.33 1.72 5 5Spotfm shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 4.40 22.68 66 66Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM X TOL 0.07 0.34 1 1Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.60 3.09 9 9Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 2.33 12.03 35 35Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 1.40 7.22 21 21Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 21.93 113.06 329 0.10 1 330Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.00 5.15 15 1.30 13 28White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 2.00 20 20Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.50 5 5Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.40 2.06 6 1.00 10 16Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.07 0.34 1 1Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.13 5.84 17 17Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 1.60 8.25 24 24Threadfim shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.10 11Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN X 0.07 0.34 1 1Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.34 1 0.30 3 4Bigmouth buffalo Ictiobus cyprinellus PK X 0.07 0.34 1 1Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.10 1 1Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.80 8 8Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 0.13 0.69 2 0.80 8 10Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.40 2.06 6 1.50 15 21White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.20 2 2Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 10.80 108 108Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.40 4 4Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.30 3 3Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.20 1.03 3 3Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.93 15.12 44 44Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 1.07 5.50 16 16Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.47 2.41 7 0.20 2 9Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.40 4 4Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.33 1.72 5 1.80 18 23Total 47.00 242.26 705 34.00 340 1,045Number Samples 15 10Species Collected 24 20

79

Appendix 2-S. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch PerUnit Effort During Electrofishing Downstream(TRM 529.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear PlantDischarge, Autumn 1999.

STrophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fishlvlpicSuiesh NativTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per

Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.13 0.85 2Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 3.07 19.57 46Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.27 1.70 4Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.40 2.55 6Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.60 3.83 9Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.85 2Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.40 2.55 6Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 2.13 5"Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 3.47 22.13 52Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.53 3.40 8Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.27 1.70 4Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.60 3.83 9Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.33 2.13 5Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.20 1.28 3Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 17.40 111.06 261Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.40 2.55 6Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum BI X 0.07 0.43 1Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.47 2.98 .7Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 0.27 1.70 4Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.40 2.55 6White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.20 1.28 3Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.40 2.55 6Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN' X X 4.20 26.81 63Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.43 1Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 0.73 4.68 11Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.27 1.70 4Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 1.27 8.09 19Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.07 0.43 1Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.28 3Total 37.15 237.02 557Number Samples 15Species Collected 29

80

Appendix 2-T. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort DuringElectrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing . ... Gill Netting Total Gill Total fishlevel species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per F Catch Rate Per net fish CombinedCommon Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night

Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.10 1 1Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 1.67 10.00 25 26.00 260 285Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.87 5.20 13 0.60 6 19Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.40 2.40 6 6Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.47 2.80 7 7Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 3.07 18.40 46 0.10 1 47Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.73 4.40 11 0.30 3 14White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.40 4 4Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT . 1.30 13 13Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 2. 2Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.07 0.40 1 1Smalimouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.33 2.00 5 5Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK X 1.70 17 17Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.40 2.40 6 6Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.80 2 0.40 4 6Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.07 0.40 1 1Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 3.70 37 37Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 1.10 11 11Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 2.00 5 0.40 4 9White bass Morone chrysops TC X . 1.00 10 10Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 4.50 45 45Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.30 3 3Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 1.13 6.80 17 0.10 1 18Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X 0.07 0.40 1 1Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.20 2 2Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.20 2 2Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.47 2.80 7 2.20 22 29Total 10.34 62.00 155 44.80 448 603Number Samples 15 10Species Collected 16 20

81

Enclosure 2, Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River ...

Documents

Transcript of Enclosure 2, Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River ...