ML091670252

Submittal of 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

ML091670252
Person / Time
Site:	Sequoyah
Issue date:	06/11/2009
From:	Cleary T Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Cromer P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of TN, Dept of Environment & Conservation, Div of Water Pollution Control
References
Download: ML091670252 (66)

Text

Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37384-2000.

June 11, 2009 State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control Enforcement & Compliance Section 6th Floor, L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534

Dear Mr. Patrick Cromer:

SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - 2008 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT Enclosed is the "Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2008" Report. This report is submitted in accordance with Part III, Section F of the TVA - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. TN0026450. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ann Hurt at (423) 843-6714 or Stephanie Howard at (423) 843-6700 of Sequoyah's Environmental staff.

Sincerely, Timothy P. Cleary Site Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Enclosure cc (Enclosure):

Chattanooga Environmental Assistance Center Division of Water Pollution Control State Office Building, Suite 550 540 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2013 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 G.95

. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2008 Jeffrey W. Simmons Dennis S. Baxter May 2009 Tennessee Valley Authority Aquatic Monitoring and Management Chattanooga, Tennessee

Table of Contents T ab le of C onten ts .................................................................................................... . .........

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

L ist o f Figure s ....................................... ..................................................................... . ................ ii A cronym s and A bbreviations ........................ ........................................................................... iii Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 Methods 2 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of SQN.... 2 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN ........................................................................ .................... 2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN ........................................ 6 Spring Sport Fish Survey ................................................ 6 R esu lts an d Discu ssion ..............................................................  :................................................... 7 Fish Community .....................................................

Benthic M acroinvertebrate Com munity ................................................................................... 9 Spring Sport F ish Survey .................................................................................................... . . 10 Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN ............................. 11 Literature Cited................................................................... 12 Appendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores ................................................... 33 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List ..................... ............. 43 List of Tables Table 1. 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 ...... 13 Table 2. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482.0) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008 ...... 14 Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and GillNetting at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.............. ................ ....... 18 Table 4. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, A utum n 2008 .............................................. . .. ................. 19 i

Table 5. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir .......... 20 Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, A utum n 2008 .......................................................................................

. ........................... 21 Table 7. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the VitalSigns Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir .......... 22 Table 8. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2008........................................................ 23 Table 9. Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Chickamauga Reservoir, 1995-2008 .............. 24 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2008. . ........................................ 24 List of Figures Figure 1. Location map for Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant. 25 Figure 2. Map of SQN showing location of CCW intake and discharge. 26 Figure 3. Annual Chickamauga Reservoir RFAI scores for sample years between 1993 and 2007. 27 Figure 4. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Chickamauga Reservoir (all sites) during the Spring Sport Fish Survey, 2007. 29 Figure 5. Relative stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2007 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 29 Figure 6. Proportional stock density values for Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2007 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples. 30 Figure 7. Chickamauga Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass by RSD category and number of fish during 2007. 30 Figure 8. Daily average flows (cfs) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2007 through September 2008 and historic daily flows averaged for the period 1976 through 2007. 31 Figure 9. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge, October 2007 through October 2008. 32 i1

Acronyms and Abbreviations BIP Balanced Indigenous Population CCW Condenser cooling water CFS Cubic feet per second MW Megawatts NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PSD Proportional Stock Density QA Quality Assurance RBI Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index RSD Relative Stock Density RSDM Relative Stock Density of Memorable-sized RSDP Relative Stock Density of Preferred-sized RSDT Relative Stock Density of Trophy-sized SAHI Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant SSS Spring Sport Fish Survey TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee. Valley Authority VS Vital Signs Wr Relative Weight iii

Introduction Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes alternative thermal limits (ATL) for the control of the thermal component of a discharge from a point source so long, as the limits will assure 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; and (4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species.

Prior to 199,9, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) was operating under a 316(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TVA's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring programbegan in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TVA's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) methodology. RFAI has been thoroughly testedon TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al.,

1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index. (RBI) methodology: Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RFAI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges.

TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of SQN during 1999-2008 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results of autumn 2008 RFAI and RBI data collected upstream and downstream of SQN with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 1999-2007.

TVA's Spring Sport Fish Survey (SSS) data from 2008 is also included as supplemental information on the overall health of sport fisheries in Chickamauga Reservoir. The TVA SSS is conducted to evaluate the sport fish population of TVA Reservoirs. The results of the survey are used by state agencies to protect, improve and assess the quality of sport fisheries. Predominant habitat types in the reservoir are surveyed to determine sport fish abundance. In addition to I

accommodating TVA and state databases, this surveying method aligns with TVA Watershed Team and TVA's Reservoir Operations Study objectives. Sample sites are selected using the shoreline habitat characteristics employed by the Watershed Teams. The survey predominantly targets three species of black bass (largemouth, smalhmouth, and spotted bass) and black and white crappie. These species are the predominant sport fish sought after by fishermen.

Plant Description Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant (SQN) is located on the right (West) bank of Chickamauga Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 484.5. SQN is about 18 miles northeast of Chattanooga, TN and about 13 river miles upstream of Chickamauga dam (Figure 1).

SQN Unit 1 began commercial operation in on July 1, 1981, and Unit 2 began commercial operation on June 1, 1982. Net operating capacity is about 2,300 MW of electricity: Waste heat load is about 4,800 MW of thermal energy.

Waste heat is transferred to the condenser cooling water (CCW), pumped from the river at TRM 485.1 (Figure 2). This heat is then dissipated either to the atmosphere using two natural-draft

-cooling towers, to the river through a two-leg submerged multiport diffuser located at TRM 483.6, or by a combination of the two. With both units operating at maximum power, maximum water demand is 2558 cfs.,

Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of SQN Two sample locations, one upstream and'one downstream of the plant discharge, were selected in Chickamauga Reservoir. The SQN discharge enters the Tennessee River TRM 483.6. For the fish community, the downstream site was centered at TRM 482.0 (Figure 3) and the upstream.

sample site was centered at TRM 490:5 (Figure 4). For the benthic macroinvertebrate community, transects across the full width of the reservoir were established at TRM 482.0 (downstream) and TRM 490.5 (upstream).

Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN Fish sampling methods included boat electro-fishing and gill netting (Hubert, 1996; Reynolds, 1996). Electro-fishing methodology consisted of fifteen electro-fishing boat runs near the shoreline, each 300 meters long with a duration of approximately 10 minutes each. The total near-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 commercial fishing) are used as an additional gear type to collect fish from deeper habitats not effectively sampled by electro-fishing. Each experimentalgill net consists of five-6.1 meter panels for a total length of 30.5 meters (100.1 feet). The distinguishing Characteristic of experimental gill nets is mesh size that varies between panels. For this application, each net has panels With mesh sizes of 2.5, 5.1, 7.6, 10.2, and 12.7 cm. Experimental gill nets are typically set perpendicular to 2

river flow extending from near-shore to the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area.

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

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

Species Richness and Composition

1. Total number of species -- Greater. numbers of species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an areadecline.

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

3. Number of benthic invertivore species -- Due to the special dietary requirements bf this species group and the limitations of their, food source in degraded environments, numbers of benthic invertivore species increase with better environmental quality.

4. Number of intolerant species -- This group is made up of species that are particularly intolerant of physical, chemical, and thermal habitat degradation.

Higher numbers of intolerant species suggest the presence of fewer environmental stressors.

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

6. Percentage dominance by one species-- Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community.

7. Percentage of non-native species -- Based on the assump~jtion that non-na-tive species reduce. the. qualityI of resi-den~tfis~h comimunities.

8. Number of top carnivore species -- Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat.

Trophic Composition

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

10. Percentage of individuals as omnivores -- Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance.

3

Abundance

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

FishHealth

12. Percentage individuals with anomalies -- Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization are noted for all fish measured, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions.

RFAI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" 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 I - Total number of species. Determination of reference conditions based on the inflow zones of lower mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion.

(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 and

• upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document condition or health 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 integrate stressors through time. Examining the condition or health of a community at the end of the "biological year" (i.e., autumn) provides insights into how well the community has dealt with the stresses through an annual seasonal cycle. Likewise, evaluation of the condition of individuals in the community (in this case, individual fish as reflected in Metric 12) provides insights into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle adds to the evidence of whether or not the autumn monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes.

(3) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measiired by the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richness and Composition metrics. Existence of a healthy fish community indicates presence of necessary food chain species because the fish community is comprised of species that utilize multiple feeding mechanisms that transcend various levels in the aquatic food web. Basing evaluations on a sound multi-metric system such as 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-tolerant species is measured by metrics 3 (Number of benthic invertivore species), 4 (Number of intolerant species), 5 (Percentage of tolerant individuals), 6 (Percentage dominance by one species), and 10 (Percentage of individuals as omnivores).

4

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

If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., Percent tolerance individuals), the data from electro-fishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (i.e., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RFAI score for the area.

TVA uses RFAI results to determine maintenance of BIP using 2 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 upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RFAI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence of BIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP.

First, if an RFAI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60(adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RFAI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community 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"], 22-3 1

["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed 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 of

3) or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e., any fish community that meets these criteria is 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 and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step to help identify if operation of SQN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available.

A difference in RFAI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from SQN's operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RFAI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RFAJ index scores 5

ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 75th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 9 0 th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RFAI scores is the value selected for defining "siniilar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and if there are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to determine any difference in-scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN Ten benthic grab samples were collected at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler was used for most samples but a Peterson sampler was used when heavier substrate was encountered. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures. Bottom sediments were washed on a 533piscreen; organisms were then picked from the screen and remaining substrate and identified in the field 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 scored based on reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites, The ratings for the seven metrics were summed to produce a benthic score for each sample site. Potential scores ranged from 7 to 35. Ecological health ratings (7-12 "Very Poor", 13-18 "Poor", 19-23 "Fair", 24-29 "Good", or 30-35 "Excellent") are then applied to scores.

A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to SQN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 75th percentile is 4, the 90'h percentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that SQN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.

Spring Sport Fish Survey A spring sportfish survey was conducted on Chickamauga Reservoir March 18-20, 2008.

Sampling was conducted using boat mounted electrofishing gear at twelve sites in Harrison Bay and Sale Creek. Typically; there are three locations sampled on Chickamauga Reservoir, but due to inclement weather conditions, the Ware Branch site was not sampled during 2008. Sampling 6

effort at each site consisted of thirty minutes of continuous electrofishing in the littoral zones of prominent habitat types present. After being stunned, fish were collected with dip nets, counted, weighed, measured, and then released unharmed.

Results of the SSS monitoring were calculated using Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index (SAHI), Relative Stock Density (RSD), Proportional Stock Density (PSD), and Relative Weight (Wr). Habitat type is evaluated using the SAHI metric and is a critical component incorporated into the SSS. The resultant habitat designations ("Good", "Fair", and "Poor") are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). RSD is the number of fish greater than a minimum preferred length in a stock divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock size. PSD is the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum quality length in a sample divided by the number of fish greater than or equal to a minimum stock length. Wr is an index that quantifies fish condition and the preferred range value is 90%-105% for moderate density bass populations such as those found in the Tennessee Valley latitudes.

Results and Discussion Fish Community In 2008, fish community RFAI scores of 38 ("Fair") and 34 ("Fair") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 2). Neither site met BIP screening criteria, but were within the 6 point range of acceptable variation and are considered similar.

An examination of the autumn 2008 RFAI showed that all or a portion of three metrics (number of species, number of intolerant species, and the electrofishing portion of percent omnivores) scored lower at the upstream site while the downstream site scored lower for a portion of one metric (electrofishing portion of percent anomalies) (Table 2).

A discussion of the individual metric scores follows (refer to Tables 2, 3, and 4):

1. Total number of Species: At the sampling areas downstream of SQN, 30 species were collected, while 27 species were collected at areas upstream of SQN. Six native species (longnose gar, bluntnose minnow, mooneye, brook silverside, steelcolor shiner, and sauger) and one non-native species (common carp) were collected at the downstream area that were not encountered at the upstream area, while three native species (green sunfish, smallmouth buffalo, and bullhead minnow) were collected at the upstream area that were not encountered at the site downstream of SQN. The downstream site received the highest score for this metric-while the upstream site received the mid-range score.

2. Number of Centrarchid Species (less Microptenis): Seven centrarchid species were collected at the downstream site while eight centrarchid species were collected at the upstream site (2 green sunfish were collected upstream but not downstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric.

3. Number of benthic invertivore species: The same three benthic invertivore species were collected upstream and downstream of SQN. Both sites received the lowest score for this metric.

7.

4. Number of intolerant species: Five intolerant species were encountered at the downstream site, while 3 intolerant species were collected upstream of SQN (brook silverside and mooneye were collected downstream but not upstream). The downstream site received the highest score for this metric, while the upstream site received the mid-range score.

5. Percent tolerant individuals: Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing and gill net portions of this metric. Low scores were the result of high percentages of bluegill and gizzard shad in the electrofishing samples and gizzard shad in the gill net samples at both sites.

6. Percent dominance by one species: Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing and gill net portions of this metric. Low scores were the result of high percentages of bluegill in the electrofishing samples and gizzard shad in the gill net samples at both sites.

7. Percent non-native fish: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of this metric primarily due to collection of inland silversides. No non-native species were collected in gill net samples at either site.

8. Number of top carnivores: Eleven species of top carnivores were collected downstream of SQN while nine species were collected upstream (longnose gar and sauger were collected downstream but not upstream). Both sites received the highest score for this metric..

9. Percent top carnivores: Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion of this sample due to low percentages of top carnivore species. Gill net samples at both sites contained considerably higher percentages of top carnivores and both sites received the mid-range score for this portion of the metric.

10. Percent of omnivore species: The downstream site had a much lower percentage of omnivores in the electrofishing samples resulting in the highest score for this portion of the metric. The upstream site scored I point lower due to a higher percentage of gizzard shad. Both sites received the lowest score for the gill net portion of this metric, predominately due to high percentages of gizzard shad.

11. Overall fish abundance: This metric is measured by the average number of fish caught for each electro-fishing and gill net effort. Average catch per unit effort was low at both sites in electrofishing and gill net samples. Both sites received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion and the mid-range score for the gill net portion of the metric.

12. Percent anomalies: Both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest score for the gill net portion of this metric due to a low percentage of observed anomalies-(i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities; and' hybridization). The downstream site had 1% more anomalies in the electrofishing samples resulting in a one point lower score for this portion of the metric.

As discussed above, RFAI scores have an intrinsic variability of +/-3 points. This variability comes from various sources, including annual variations in air temperature and stream flow; 8

variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; 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 the entire population. As long as the score is within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real change has taken place beyond method variability.

It is important to note that the upstream site is scored with transition criteria and the downstream site is scored using forebay criteria (Table 1).. More accurate comparisons can be made between sites that are located in the same reservoir zone (i.e., transition to transition). Due to the location of SQN, it is not possible to have an upstream and downstream site within the same reservoir zone. SQN is located at the downstream end of the transition zone on Chickamauga Reservoir; therefore the downstream site is located in the upstream section of the forebay. The physical and chemical composition of a forebay is different than that of a transition; consequently, inherent differences exist among the aquatic communities (e.g. species diversity is often higher in a transition than a forebay zone).

Over the ten sample years, the upstream site has averaged a score of 45 ("Good") while 'the downstream site has averaged a score of 42 ("Good"), indicating the sites were similar annually and that the SQN heated effluent is not adversely affecting the fish community in the vicinity of the plant (Table 5). During 2008, the upstream site scored ten pointslower than the previous year while the downstream score remained the same. This was the only site in Chickamauga Reservoir that exhibited a RFAI score decrease. RFAI scores are presented for the Chickamauga Reservoir inflow site (TRM 529.0), the forebay site (TRM 472.3), and the Hiwassee River embayment site (HiRM 8.5) to provide additional information of the health of the fish.

community throughout the reservoir; however, aquatic communities at these sites are not affected by SQN temperature effects and are not used to determine BIP in relation to SQN (Table 5). The average RFAI scores at these three sites over all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range.

Individual metric scores and overall RFAI scores for the upstream and downstream sampling sites of SQN for sample years 1999-2007 are listed in Appendix 1 (A-I). Species collected and catch per effort during electrofishing and gill netting at the upstream and downstream sampling sites of SQN for sample years 1999-2007 are listed in Appendix 2 (A-R).

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2008 from TRM 482.0 downstream of SQN and from TRM 490.5 upstream of SQN resulted in a RBI scores of 25 ("Good") and 17,

("Poor"), respectively (Table 6). With the exception of 2000, the downstream site has scored in the "Good" to "Excellent" ecological health range for all sampling years (Table 7). The upstream site has received it lowest scores during 2007 and 2008. A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites. Scores for these two sites exceeded a difference of 4 points during 2001 and 2008 when the downstream site received a >4 point higher score. These-data indicate that a healthy benthic macroinvertebrate community exists in the downstream vicinity of SQN and that the plant is not adversely impacting this fauna.

9

Table 8 provides density by taxon from the 2008 samples at these sites. There were distinct differences in the benthic macroinvertebrate communities between the two sites during 2008.

The downstream site contained a much higher proportion of taxa that are considered long-lived (8 Hexagenia mayflies > 10 mm, 17 snails, 2 mussels, and 13 Corbicula > 10 mm). Oligochaetes and chironomids, considered tolerant of poor water quality, were the most abundant organisms at the upstream site. Both the benthic macroinvertebrate and fish communities in the upstream vicinity of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant exhibit an impact. B'ecause a decrease in RFAI and RBI scores were observed upstream from SQN but not downstream, it is probable that an impact unrelated to the SQN heated discharge is causing this decline.

RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Hiwassee River embayment sites are included to provide additional data on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Chickamauga Reservoir (Table 7). RBI scores have averaged "Good" for the inflow and forebay sites and "Fair" for the Hiwassee River embayment over all sample years.

Spring Sport Fish Survey A total of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of electrofishing resulted in collection of 750 largemouth bass, 89 spotted bass, and 20 smallmouth bass; of these, 72.4% were harvestable size (>10 inches). Overall catch rate (71.5 fish/hour) was higher than the 2007 catch rate (61.1) and substantially more than the long term average (Table 9). The largest black bass collected was a 9.5 pound largemouth bass taken from Sale Creek. Large bass were well represented with 59 bass greater than three pounds, 33 greater than four pounds, and 17 over five pounds. Length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution of black bass with the dominant size classes being the 7-8 inch and 11-14 inch groups (Figure 5). All size classes up to 24 inches were represented in the population.

Habitat type is derived from the SAHI which was developed by TVA's.Resource Stewardship Program. The resultant habitat designations (Good, Fair, and Poor) are correlated to black bass abundance (numbers/hour). Among the two areas sampled, the correlations at Harrison Bay were positive (96, 67 and 44 at good, fair and poor habitat types, respec.tively) whereas Sale Creek showed some variability among habitat types, i.e., the catch rates (abundance) did not align with the habitat designation types (Table 10). Overall catch rates for the reservoir were 86, 79 and 47 fish/hour at the good, fair and poor habitats, respectively, illustrating a positive correlation of black bass density to habitat type reservoir-wide.

The following results describe the quality and condition of black bass collected in Chickamauga Reservoir during spring 2008: The RSD value (22) was within the desirable range (10-25)

(Figure 6). The PSD value (65) was also within the preferred range (40-70) (Figure 7). Wr values shown in Figure 8 are designated by inch groups which reflect the classical categories, i.e., 0-7 = substock, 8-11 = stock, 12-14 = quality, 15-19 = preferred, 20,24 = memorable and 25+ = trophy. All categories, except trophy, fell within the desired range, which indicates a balanced population structure. Largemouth bass length frequency histograms illustrated a bimodal distribution with the 8 inch size class (age-2) and I I and 12 inch class (age-3) being the dominant size classes (Figure 5).

10

Only 152 crappie (122 black and 30 white crappie) were collected during the survey. Crappie were collected predominantly from tree tops, stumps and other physical structures in shallow water. Optimum water temperatures for crappie spawning occurred earlier in the spring of 2008.

Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN Average weekly flows from Watts Bar Dam from October 2007 to October 2008 are shown in Figure 9. Weekly average flows were less than the 30-year long-term weekly average during the majority of the year. During 2007, the Tennessee Valley experienced the most extreme drought conditions recorded during the past 118 years. Even with the low flow conditions, 2008 aquatic monitoring downstream from SQN resulted in higher scores for both fish and benthic macroinvertebrates compared to the site located upstream from SQN.

Daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of the SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge, October 2007 through October 2008, are shown in Figure 10. Water temperatures.

remained within permitted limits throughout the year.

II

Literature Cited 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, 2 nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

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

McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In:

Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540.

Reynolds, J. B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2.n 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/twiva/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf 12

Table 1. Scoring criteria (2002) forforebay, 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 Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5

1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <15 15-29 >29 <14 14-27 >27

2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4

3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4. 4-7 >7 <3 3-6 >6

4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >62% 31-62% <31% >62% 31-62% <31% >58% 29-58% <29%

Gill netting >28%Vo 14-28% <14% >32% 16-32% <16%

6. Percent dominance by I Electrofishing >50% 25-50% <25% >40% 20-40% <20% >46% 23-46% <23%

species Gill netting >29% 15-29% <15% >28% 14-28% <14%

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing >4% 2-4% <2% >6% 3-6% <3% >17% 8-17% <8%

Gill netting >16% 8-16% <8% >9% 5-9% <5%

8. Total top carnivore species Combined <4 4-7 >7 .<4 4-7 >7 <3 3-6 >6

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing <5% 5-10% >10% <6% 6-11% >11% <11% 11-22% >22%

Gill netting <25% 25-50% >50% <26% 26-52% >52%

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing >49% 24-49% <24% >44% 22-44% <22% >55% 27-55% <27%

Gill netting >34% 17-34% <17% >46% 23-46% <23%

11. Average number per run Electrofishing <121 121-241 >241 <105 105-210 >210 <51 51-102 >102.

Gill netting <12 12-24 >24 <12 12-24 >24

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% - <2% >5% 2-5% <2%

Gill netting >5% 2-5% <2% >5% 2-5% <2%

13

Table 2. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482.0) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species (Tables 3 and 4) 30 species 5 27 species 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 species 8 species (less Micropterus) Bluegill Green sunfish Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 5 Warmouth Redear sunfish Black crappie Warmouth White crappie Black crappie White crappie

3. Number of benthic invertivore species 3 species 3 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Freshwater drum 1 Freshwater drum Logperch Logperch

4. Number of intolerant species 5 species 3 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish 3 Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Mooneye 14

Table 2. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 80.7%

.86.7%

Bluegill 58.2%

Bluegill 54.0%

Gizzard shad 9.0%

Gizzard shad 27.6%

Redbreast sunfish 7.8%

Redbreast sunfish 1.9%

Largemouth bass 1.8%

0.5 Largemouth bass 1.6% 0.5 Spotfin shiner: 1.7%

Spotfin shiner 0.5%

Bluntnose minnow 1.2%

Golden shiner 1.1%

Golden shiner 0.9%,

Green sunfish 0.2%

Common. carp 0.2%

Gill Netting , 41.9% 4.7.5%

Gizzard shad 38.2% Gizzard shad 44.2%

Largemouth bass 2.1% 0.5 Largemouth bass 2.8% 0.5 White crappie 0.5% White crappie 0;6%

Longnose gar 0.5%

6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 58.2% 53.9%

Bluegill 0.5 Bluegill 0.5 Gill Netting 38.2% 44.2%

Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 2.3% 4%

Inland silverside 1.9% Inland silverside 3.9%

1.5 Yellow perch 0.08% 1.5 Yellow perch 0.2%

Common carp 0.2%

Gill Netting 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 15

Table 2. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

8. Number of top carnivore species 11 species 9 species Spotted gar Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Spotted.bass Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass 5 White bass 5 White bass Yellow bass Yellow bass Flathead catfish Flathead catfish White crappie White crappie Black crappie Black crappie Sauger B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 4.7% 5.4%

Largemouth bass 1.8% Largemouth bass 1.6%

Spotted bass 1.7% .Spotted bass 1.1%

Smallmouth bass 0.2% Smallmouth bass 0.6%

0.5 0.5 Spotted gar 0.8% Spotted gar 0.9%

Black crappie 0.3% Black crappie 0.6%/

Flathead catfish 0.6%

Gill Netting 47.1%

40.3%

Largemouth bass 2.1%

Largemouth bass 2.8%

Spotted bass 23.0%

Spotted bass 1.1%

White bass 1.6%

White bass 1.1%

Yellow bass 7.3%

.1.5 Yellow bass 20.4% 1.5 Flathead catfish 1.0%

Flathead catfish 2.2%

White crappie 0.5%

Whitecrappie 0.6%

Black crappie 10.5%

Black crappie 12.2%

Sauger 0.5%

Longnose gar 0.5%

16

Table 2. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs, Score Obs Score

.10. Percent. omnivores Electrofishing 13.1% 29%

Gizzard shad 9.0% Gizzard shad 27.6%*

Goldenshiner 0.9% 2.5 Golden shiner 1.1%.

Channel catfish 1.5% Channel catfish 0.2%

Bluntnose minnow 1.2% Smallmouth buffalo 0.8%

Blue catfish 0.3%

Common carp 0.2%

Gill Netting 47.1% . 49.2%

Gizzard shad 38.2% 0.5 Gizzard shad 44.2% 0.5 Blue catfish 6.3% Blue catfish 3.9%

Channel catfish 2.6% Channel catfish 1.1%

C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 79.7 0.5 86.3 0.5 Gill Netting 19.1 1.5 18.1 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 2.1% 1.5 1.1% 2.5 Gill Netting 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 38 34 Fair Fair

• TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 1).

RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent")

17

Table 3. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Trophic Sunfish Tro phicSies Native scies Tolerance Electrofishing Catch Rate Per Electrofishing Catch Rate Per Total fish Catch Gill Netting Rate Per Total Gill Total fish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL 0.10 1 I 108 73 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM

• x TOL 7.20 30.08 7.30 181 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.56 2 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM

• x TOL 0.73 3.06 11 11 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN

• x TOL 1.33 5.57 20 20 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM

• x TOL 0.93 3.90 14 14 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 6.20 25.91 93 0.10 94 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 46.33 193.59 695 695 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmo ides TC

• x TOL 1.40 5.85 21 0.40 25 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TOL 0.10 1 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus IN INT 0.10 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.33 1.39 5 0.10 6 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT 1.27 5.29 19 19 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x x INT 0.13 0.56 2 2 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN

• x INT 0.07 0.28 .1 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN

• xx TOL 0.27 1.11 4 4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC

• x 0.60 2.51 9 9 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK

• Xx 1.47 6.13 22 0.10 23 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN

• Xx 0.07 0.28 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM

• x 0.27 1.11 4 1.20 16 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM

• x 1.20 5.01 18 0.50 26 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC

• x 0.20 White bass Morone chrysops TC

• x 0.30 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x x 1.40 14 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 0.07 0.28 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x 5.73 23.96 86 23 86 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC x x 20 4.40

• 1.33 5.57 64 Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC x x 0.07 0.28 1 1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC

• x 0.20 0.84 3 2.00 23 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN

• x 0.13 0.56 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x x 0.40 1.67 6 0.70 13 Sauger Sander canadensis TC 0.10 1

'BI 1.11 4 Logperch Percinacaprodes 0.27 4 tIt 1 <1 A AIl 911 Total 79.66 332.87 1195 19.1 191 1386 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 17 18

Table 4. Species Collected, Trophic level, Native and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Trophic Troephi Sunfish cSuiesh Native speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per gTotal fish Catch Rate Per Total Gill notalish Total fish Combish Common Name Scientific name level species species Run. Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma ceedianum OM X TOL 23.80 116.67 357 8.00 80 437 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.93 4.58 14 14 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN x TOL 0.40 1.96 6 6 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x TOL 1.60 7.84 24 24 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TOL 0.13 0.65 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x. TOL 46.53 228.10 698 698 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TOL 1.40 6.86 21 0.50 5 26 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC .x TOL 0.10 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.13 0.65 2 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT 0.07 0.33 1 1 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC x INT 0.53 2.61 8 8 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.73 3.59 11 11 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK x 0.20 0.98 3 3 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN x 0.20 0.98 3 3 Bullhead minnow. Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.60 2.94. 9 9 Smailmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.33 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM x 0.70 7 7 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM x 0.20 0.98 3 0.20 2 5 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.53 2.61 8 0.40 4 12 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 3.70 37 37 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x 0.07 0.33 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x 2.80 13.73 42 1.30 13 55 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus .TC x 0.93 4.58 14 0.20 2 16 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x 0.53 2.61 8 2.20 22 30 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.33 1 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI x 0.27 1.31 4 4 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.13 0.65 2 0.60 6 8 IKTI 'I A 1ý i7 liilalnU bsiYt[1UC e IVWILULLA n11 LLLL4'I . J.tU 1 .), .11 .

Total 86.25 422.87 1294 . 18.1 181 1475 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected .. 25 12 19

Table 5. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir.

Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Inflow TRM 529.0 52 52 44 44. 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 42 42 44 Transition TRM 490.5 49 40 46 39 45 46 45 51 42 49 48 47 44 34 SQN Upstream ForebaySQN TRM482.0 --- .. .--- 41. 48 .46 43 45 41' 39 37 38 38 Downstream Forebay TRM 472.3 44 44 47 39 45 45 48 46 43 43 46 43 41 41' Hiwassee River ERM 8.5 47 39 39 40 43 43 47 --- 36 42 45 --- 41 Embayment RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent")

20

Table 6. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2008.

Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating

1. Average number of taxa 5.8 5 5.4 5

2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.6 3 0.3 1

3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.6 3 0.1 1

4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 21.7 3. 16.7 3

5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 8 two most abundant taxa

6. Average density excluding chironomids and 166.7 3- 31.7 1 oligochaetes

7. Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no organisms Benthic Index Score 25 17 Good Poor Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"),, 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29

("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")

I,'

21

Table 7. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2008 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir.

Station Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 A'ir ie Inflow TRM 527.4 --- --- 29 27 33 35 31 --- 23 23 1 1i::

Inflow TRM 518.0 19 31 25 21 23 29 23 27 35 29 33 25 27 Fo r e a y SQNUpstream TRM 490.5 33 29 31 31 23 25 25 31 31 31 27 21 17 27

,ii::i::i:::i:ii...........

SQN Downstream TRM 482.0 --- --- --- --- 23 31 29 29 33 31 31 25 25 ..... Ž .9...

Forebay TRM 472.3 31 27 29 25 27 27 21 27 29 27 29 19 25 .......

Hiwassee River Hiwa ymeeni HiRM 8.5 17 27 25 21 --- 21 --- 31 --- 25 --- 13 --- il.

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

22

Table 8. Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2008.

Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae 5 Oligocheata Oligochaetes 133 93 Hirudinea 35 3 Crustacea Amphipoda Isopoda Insecta Ephemeroptera

" Mayflies other than Hexagenia Ephemeridae Hexagenia (< 10 mm) 8 ---

Hexagenia (>10 mm) 7 2 Odonata Trichoptera Caddisflies 15 Plecotera Stoneflies Coeleoptera Diptera Ceratopogonidae Chironomidae Chironomids 238 352 Gastropoda Snails 17 3

-Basommatophora Ancylidae Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Mussels 2 Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula (<10mm) 48 2 Corbicula (>10mm) 13 Sphaeriidae Fingernail clams 8 20 Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha 8 Density of organisms per meter 2 537 475 Number of samples 10 10 Total area sampled (meter 2 ) 0.6 0.6 23

Table 9. Electrofishing Catch Rates and Population Characteristics of Black Bass Collected During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Chickamauga Reservoir, 1995-2008.

EF Catch Rate Mean Weight Largest bass Year (#/hr.) (lbs.)  % Harvestable Bass >4 lbs. Bass >5 lbs. (lbs.)

2008 71.5 1.6 72.4 33 17 9.5 2007 61.1 1.5 63.2 20 8 6.7 2006 39.4 1.3 71.7 14 7 7.1 2005 72.6 1.3 36.9 15 9 6.2 2004 40.9 1.3 60.2 13 6 6.6 2003 62.0 1.3 65.8 '23 8 6.4 2002 57.4 1.1 59.4 9 )4 6.6 2001 34.5 0.8 45.2 0 0 2.8 2000 34.4 1 51.2 3 0 4.8 1999 10.6 1.3 60.7 3 1 6.1 1998 37.2 1.1 44.5 9 2 6.6

.1997 40.2 1 70.1 8 4 8.7 1996 51 1.2 42.6 13 9 7.9 1995 62 .1.2 61.8 28 12 8.3 Average 48.2 1.2 57.6 14 6 6.7 Table 10. Black Bass Catch Per Hour Compared to Habitat Types by Location During Spring Sport Fish Surveys on Chickamauga Reservoir, 2008..

Habitat Designation Site Good, Fair Poor Harrison Bay 96(4) 67(4) 44(4)

Sale Creek 75(4) 90(4) 50(4)

Catch per hour = number of fish collected per hour

()= number of transects sampled at each location 24

Th S.t ,Wa'.Lae

w. ~Watt O'j Dam 0,,,: i.5 .MI o:~~~ }:.'.. ......:........

i~i~i....?".

i..:!!!::!:i

• ~~~~~~~~~~~ *-* ~... .......

ScDarn ai Red Bank o a .

!i!:** " :ch attan o

.:ii Figure 1. Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant is located on the west side of Chickamauga Reservoir near the town of Soddy-Daisy at Tennessee River Mile 484.5.

25

+

CCW discharge to diffu .ser

onf..reservoir bottom..

Figure 2. Map of SQN showing location of CCW intake and discharge.

26

Electrofishing locations Gill net locations P355 N35 12.950 W85 05.569' N35 13.142 W85 05.270 P356 N35 13.017 W85 05.890 N35 12.977 W85 05.366 P357 N3512.800 W85 05.916 N35 12.966 W85 05.533 P358 N35 12.875 W85 06.586 N35 13.045 W85 05.914 P359 N35 12.775 W85 06.863 N35 12.875 W85 05.860 P360 N35 12.545 W85 07.194 N35 12.448 W85 06.032 P361 N35 12.316 W85 07.325 N35 12.386 W85 05.903 P362 N35 12.115 W85 07.373 N35 12.538 W85 05.775 P363 N35 11.699 W85 07.178 N35 12.532 W85 05.520 P364 N35 11.968 W85 07.161 N35 12.684 W85 05.442 P365 N35 12.355 W85 06.891 N35 12.698 W85 05.293 P366 N35 12.372 W85 06.615 N35 12.720 W85 05.139 P367 N35 12.424 W85 06.096 P368 N35 12.461 W85 05.889 P369 N35 12.550 W85 05.543 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.

Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations.

27

Electrofishing. locations Gill net locations 340 N35 16.138 W8505.848 N35 16.958 W85 04.968 341 N35 16.350 W85 05.781 N35 17.068 W85 04.762 342 N35 16.514 W85 05.641 N35 17.165 W85 04.575 343 N35 16.958 W85 05.028 N35 17.288 W85 04.427 344 N35 17.078 W85 04.674 N35 17.763 W85 04.008 345 N35 17.195 W85 04.573 N35 18.230 W85 04.520 346 N35 17.620 W85 04.139 N35 17.837 W85 04.837 347 N35 18.553 W85 04.326 N35 17.628 W85 04.937 348 N35 1.8.371 W85 04.437 N35 17.435 W85 05.190 349 N35 18.047 W85 04.654 N35 17.298 W85 05.328 350 N35 17.848 W85 04.828 N35 17.228 W85 05.447 351 N35 17.656 W85 04.953 N35 17.227 W85 05.550 352 N35 17.549 W85 05.083 353 N35 17.452 W85 05.147 354 N35.17.247 W85 05.444 Figure 4. RFAI electro1ishing and gill net locations upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant' Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds. represent gill net locations.

28

140 120 i*:..:I!.:.!.!* :.:..::.:::: i:::.::.:!:::ii::!:7 8**

100 U 83 89[

C 80 69

i!i 60 LL. 44 4I i I-40 :i:i . . q 17 20 :iil 19)1 3i

.0 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Total Length (inches)

Figure 5. Length frequency distribution for largemouth bass collected from Chickamauga Reservoir (both sites) during the Spring Sport Fish Survey, 2008.

55 50 45 40 /*

0) 35 30 w

U 25 20 * [:~ i.:: :~i: i*- -.-

,a,,22 ------!:i -i-i~ii~i:

--:-i---"-ý~~'22

---

-4,222 0.

15-10-

---

~ ~Desirable RSD 15 Ranige - - - - - - - -- - - - -- "2- - - - - - -

5-0 zQ 3: 0.

C- 0 0~.

0*

C Reservoir Figure 6. Relative Stock Density values for mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples.

29

100 90 80 0

70 60 C i~i~

l~

iii!:i!~

liiiiii~

l~i~i!l~iiiiii: !::*44 i:iQ;i:i ii¸¸I:i:i:ii:!:ij~ iiiii*4i~i::ii iiiiii *ii i !ii!i!i/~:!ii::,ii! :iii:*

iii*~ iil iiiii¸!!

iiiiii! !: :iii::iii* iiiii!i:ii!i~

0 D-b-SD-Pe---------------------

U 0 40 a- 30 20-10 0

C: .. 0. i::Eii.

0 7

! !!iii C:*ii~ ::!':ii 0 CL  !: T*i: il i il i ii iiii

'I-ii~ CO 0 0.*

0 'C-C Reservoir Figure 7. Proportional stock density values for mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs calculated from 2008 Spring Sport Fish Survey samples.

~ Pecent-.--# of Fish 120 350 100 300 80 250 LL 60 200 0 150 40 100 E 20 50 Z

0 0 0-7 8-11 12-14 15-19 20-24 25+

Relative Stock Size by Inch Group Figure 8. Chickamauga Reservoir mean relative weights (Wr) for largemouth bass by RSD category and number of fish during 2008.

30

45000 -

40000 35000 30000 25000 U

L 20000 15000 10000 5000 0

IV Date Figure 9. Daily average flows (cfs) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2007 through November 2008 and historic daily flows averaged for the period 1976 through 2007.

31

90.0 80.0 _

70.0

-:Downstream of SQN ranoSO LL 0~

M 60.0 E

50.0 40.0 30.0 Date Figure 10. Daily average water temperatures at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge, October 2007 through November 2008.

32

Appendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Areas Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2007.

33

Appendix 1-A. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.

Downstream Upstream Autumn 2007 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species *26 3 31 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 8 5*

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 75.7 0.5 76.5 0.5 Gill Netting 37.7 0.5 29 1.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 36.3 1.5 29.7 1.5 Gill Netting 31.6 0.5 27.7 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.7 2.5 1 2.5 Gill Netting 0.4 2.5 0 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species .9 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 6.4 1.5 10.7 1.5 Gill Netting 40.4 1.5 62 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 22 2.5 33.9 1.5 Gill Netting 51.3 0.5 27.7 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 37.3 0.5 54.9 0.5 Gill Netting 22.8 1.5 32.1 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.4 2.5 1.6 2.5 Gill Netting .1.3 2.5 0.6 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 38 44 Fair Good 34

Appendix 1-B. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.

Autumn 2006 Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 31 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 .7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 4 3

4. Number of intolerant species 3 3 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 72.4 0.5 70.1 0.5 Gill Netting 29.6 0.5 30 1.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 33.6 1.5 35.3 1.5 Gill Netting 22.5 1.5 25.2 1.5'

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0 2.5 0 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species - 8 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 6.5 1.5 8.3 1.5 Gill Netting 40.8 1.5 51.2 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing .24.6 1.5 37.2 1.5 Gill Netting 47.9 0.5 27.2 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 60.9 0.5 4.9.1 0.5 Gill Netting 14.2 1.5 25 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.4 2.5 0.3 .2.5 Gill Netting. 3.5 1.5 0.4 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 37 47 Fair Good 35

Appendix 1-C. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.

Autumn 2005 Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Ohs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 30 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 4 3

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 7 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing .70.2 0.5 76.2 0.5 Gill Netting 43.4 0.5 23 1.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 25.1 1.5 39.4 1.5 Gill Netting 41 0.5 19.8 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0;2 2.5 0.2 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5,

8. Number of top carnivore species 9, 5 9. 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 7.3 1.5 14.2 2.5 Gill Netting 34 1.5 45.2 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 26 1.5 19.9 2.5 Gill Netting 58 0.5 37.3 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 58.5 0.5 41.8 0.5 Gill Netting 21.5 1.5 12.6 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.9 2.5 0.8 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 39 48 Fair Good 36

Appendix 1-D. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.

Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 . TRM 490.5 Metric Obs' Score Obs Score

• A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 32 5.

2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 4 3

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 58.8 1.5 55.1 1.5 Gill Netting 45.9 0.5 22.9 1.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 30.4 1.5 29.6 1.5 Gill Netting 29.6 0.5 20.7 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.9 2.5 0.8 2.5 Gill Netting 0.6 2.5 0.5 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 9.6 1.5 19.9 2.5 Gill Netting 39.6 1.5 50.5 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 19.4 2.5 15.0 2.5 Gill Netting 48.4 0.5 33.0 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 60.8 0.5 49.3 0.5.

Gill Netting 15.9 1.5 18:8 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.5 2.5 1.2 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 41 49 Good Good 37

Appendix 1-E. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites-Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.

Autumn 2003 Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 25 3 29 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 54.7 1.5 67.0 0.5 Gill Netting 26.4 1.5 29.7 1.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 24.8 2.5 31.2 1.5 Gill Netting 19.6 1.5 28.1 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.3 2.5 1.1 2.5 Gill Netting 0.7 2.5 0.8 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 5 51 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 11.2 2.5 11.8 2.5 Gill Netting 37.2 1.5 31.3 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 20.4 2.5 20.8 2.5 Gill Netting 39.2 0.5 44.2 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 45.7 0.5 41.3 0.5 Gill Netting 14.8 1.5 24.9 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.3 2.5 1.0 2.5 Gill Netting 0.7 2.5 6.4 0.5 Overall RFAI Score 45 42-Good Good 38

Appendix 1-F. Individual.Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.

Autumn 2002 Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species .24 3 30 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 5 3 5

4. Number of intolerant species 5 6 5

5. Percent.tolerant individuals Electrofishing 70.3 0.5 57.9 1.5 Gill Netting 6.2 2.5 9.8 2.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 30.6 1.5 32.0 1.5 Gill Netting 42.0 0.5 34.8 0:5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.5 2.5 0.8 2.5 Gill Netting 3.7 2.5 2.3 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 10 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 14.3 2.5 16.3 2.5 Gill Netting 67.9. 2.5 81.1 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 33.5 1.5 18.0 2.5 Gill Netting 17.3 1.5 11.4 2.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 38.8 0.5 75.3 0.5 Gill Netting 8.1 0.5 13.2 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.9 2.5 0.6 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 51 Good Excellent 39

Appendix 1-G. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

Downstream Upstream Autumn 2001 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number. of species 29 5 31 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 67.7 0.5 60 1.5 Gill Netting 29.5 0.5 34 0.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing .45.4 1.5 17.5 2.5 Gill Netting 23.6 1.5 28.1 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.1 2.5 2 2.5 Gill Netting .0 2.5 0.2 2.5 8..Number of top carnivore species 11 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 7.4 1.5 13.5 2.5 Gill Netting 56.8 2.5 49.4 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 11.4 2.5 28.6 1.5 Gill Netting 32.4 1.5 32.9 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health I1. Average number per run Electrofishing 59.5 0.5 37 0.5 Gill Netting 35.2 2.5 44.1 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 Gill Netting 1.7 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 46 45 Good Good 40

Appendix 1-H. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.

Downstream Upstream Autumn 2000 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 28 5. 23 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 7, 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 2 1 2 1

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 66.5 0,5 54.4 1.5 Gill Netting 4.9 2.5 8 2.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 37.5 1.5 25.1 1.5 Gill Netting 23 1.5 25.5 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.2 2.5 4.5 1.5 Gill Netting 1.6 2.5 3.6 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 11.2 2.5 23.3 2.5 Gill Netting 57.4 2.5 78.1 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 21.4 2.5 20.5 2.5 Gill Netting 14.8 2.5 4.4 2.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run .Electrofishing 55.3 0.5 22.1 0.5 Gill Netting 6.1 0.5 13.7 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.7 2.5 3 1.5 Gill Netting 1.6 2.5 1.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 48 46 Good Good 41

Appendix 1-I. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.

Autumn 2000 Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 25 3 28 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 6 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 3 1 4 3

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 26.3 2.5 38 1.5 Gill Netting 45.3 0.5 49.2 0.5

6. Percent dominance by I species Electrofishing 21 2.5 16.3 2.5 Gill Netting 42 0.5 48.4 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 7.4 0.5 2.4 2.5 Gill Netting 0 *2.5 0 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 9 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 9.9 1.5 17.8 2.5 Gill Netting. 27.1 1.5 38.1 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 15.6 2.5 17.8 2.5 Gill Netting 59.7 0.5 51.2 0.5

.C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 16.2 0.5 13.9 0.5 Gill Netting 18.1 1.5 24.4 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.8 2.5 2.9 1.5 Gill Netting 0.6 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 41 45 Good Good 42

Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List.

Species Collected and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing at Areas Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2007.

43

Appendix 2-A. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Atitumn 2007.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC -X TOL T.10.10 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 7.27 34.49 109 7.20 72 181 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.10 1 1 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.10 1 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 1.33 6.33 20 .. 20 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.07 0.32 1 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 4.53 21.52 68 0.10 1 69 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.20 0.95 3 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 13.53 64.24 203 0.80 8 211 Largemouth bass Microprerussalmoides TC . X TOL 1.33 6.33 20 0.20 2 22 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 1.80 18 18 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.53 2.53 8 8 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis . IN X X INT 0.60 2.85 9 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.07 0.32 1 0.10 1 2 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.27 1.27 4 0.10 1 5 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.13 0.63 2 0.10 1 3 Hybrid shad Hybriddorosoma OM X 0.30 3 3 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 2.67 12.66 40 40 Bullhead minnow Pimephalesvigilax IN X 0.20 0.95 3 . 3 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.07 0.32 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.07 .0.32 1 3.20 32 33 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.80 3.80 12 0.80 8 20 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.07 0.32 1 0.40 .4 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X . 3.20 32 32 Redear sunfish Lepomis mzcrolophus IN X X 2.67 12.66 40 0.30 3 43 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.60 2.85 9 1.20 12 21 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.07 0.32 1 2.10 21 22 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.13 0.63 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotusgrunniens BI. X 0.60 6 6 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 0.13 0.63 2 2 Total 37.34 177.24 560 22.80 228 788 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 20 44

Appendix 2-B. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Nettin2 Unstream (TRM 490.5) of Seouovah Nuclear Plant Dischartte. Autumn 2007.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing T Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish species

-Tolerance T

Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined level species Run Hour Net Night Common Name Scientific name Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus. TC X TOL 0.10 I 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianrum OM X" TOL 16.33 71.64 245 7.70 77 322 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.27 1.17 4 4 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM .* X TOL 1.67 7.31 25 0.20 2 27 Spotfin shiner - Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.60 2.63 9 9 Bluntnose miniow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.20 0.88 3 3 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 6.27 27.49 94 94 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL- 0.33 1.46 5 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 15.20 66.67 228 0.30 3 231 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 1.13 4.97 17 0.90 9 26 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1 1 Skipjack herring A losa chrysochloris TC X INT 3.20 32 32

.X Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI INT 0.13 0.58 2 0.30 3 5 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.87 3.80 13 13 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.33 1.46 5 5 X 7.31 .26 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC 1.67 25 0.10 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.29 1 1 X

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides 1N 2.40 10.53 36 36 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.07 0.29 1 1

Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.29 1 0.10 2 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.70 71 7 X

Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM

• 0.07 0.29 0.20 2 3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 1.07 4.68 16 0.10 17 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.20 2 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.13 0.58 2 8.90 89 91 X X Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x X 0.27 1.17 4 4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 2793 12.87 44 1.20 12 56 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.27 5.56. 19 0.70 7 26 Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC X 0.13 0.58 2 2 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.13 0.58 2 5.60 56 58 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.29 1 1 Logperch *Percina caprodes BI X 0.47 2.05 7 7 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.60 2.63 9 1.40. 14 23 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 0.20 0.88 3 3 trIhtl,,,nm,n*Tn rntnno,, C Chestnut lamprey Total 54.95 240.93 824 32.10 321 1,145 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 29 20 45

Appendix 2-C. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Auhtmn 2006.

Electrofishing Electrofisbing Gill Netting Total-Gill Total fish levelphicSiesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name. level Name peis pcesRun namnet species Hour Net Night fish Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC x TOL 0.20 2 2 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM

• x TOL 12.53 54.65 188 3.20 32 220 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM x TOL 0.27 1.16 4 0.20 2 6 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN

• x TOL 2.53 11.05 38 38 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM

• x. TOL 2.00 8.72 30 30 Western mosquitofish Gambusiaaffinis IN

• x TOL 0.07 0.29 1 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TOL 4.67 20.35 70 70 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TOL 0.07 0.29 1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TOL 20.47 89.24 307 0.50 5 312 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 1.53 6.69 23 0.10 1 24 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC x.

X INT 2.10 21 21 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI -" a INT 0.13 0.58 2 0.10 1 3 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.73 3.20 11 11 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X X 0.13 0.58 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.33 1.45 5. 5 Hybrid shad Hybrid dorosoma OM X x 0.50 5 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN. x .1.73 7.56 26 26 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN x 0.13 0.58 .2 2 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM xX 1.50 .15 15 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X

x xx 0.20 0.87 3 1.40 14 17 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X

• xx 0.13 0.58 2 0.30 3 5

'Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC 0.90 9 9 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 7.47 32.56 112 0.70 7 119 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC x xx 2.00 8.72 30 0.90 9 39 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.13 0.58 2 1.30 13 15 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI 1..00 4.36 15 15 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI 0.13 0.58 2 0.30 3 5 Inland silverside Menidia bervllina IN. 2 53 11 05 3R Total 60.91 265.69 914 14.20 142 1,056 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 16 46

Appendix 2-D. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish levelphi c is Natie Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Tot Gill Totlish Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 17.33 84.14 260 6.30 63 323 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.60 2.91 9 9 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.40 1.94 6 6 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM 'X TOL 0.07 0.32 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 4.33 21.04 65 65 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.07 0.32 1 Bluegill Lepomis inacrochirus IN X X TOL 11.40 55.34 171 0.80 8 179 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.27 1.29 4 0.40 4 8 Skipjack herring A losa chrysochloris TC X INT 3.10 ,31 31 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07. 0.32 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.33 1.62 5 0.10 1 6 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 1.00 4.85 is 15 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.13 5.50 17 0.10 18 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.32 1 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.10 59 3.87 18.77 58 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.53 7.44 23 23 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.07 0.32 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus *OM X 0.10 1 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.27 1.29 4 0.40 4 8 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.20 0.97 3. 3 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.80 8 8 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 5.50 55 55 X X 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN' 0.07 0.32 X X

• Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 2.80 13.59 42 3.70 37 79 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC N 1.60 7.77 24 1.00 10 34 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.80 3.88 12 1.80 18 30 X

Logperch Percina caprodes BI 0.27 1.29 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 0.97 6 3 0.60 9 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 0.40 1.94 6 6 Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus PS X 0.10 1 1 Total 49.15 238.46 737 25.00 250 987 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected - 25 17 47

Appendix 2-E. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Trophic Native Sunfish P" Total fishToaGil otlfs Trophi c is Natie Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Tot Gill Totlish Common Name Scientific name pcie species Run Hour. NetNight Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.10 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepediatnum OM X TOL 13.53 70.98 203 8.70 87 290 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.70 2 2 Golden shiner N6temigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 1.07 5.59 16 16 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X 1 1 TOL 0.07 0.35 Redbreast sunfish LeIjomis auritus IN X X TOL 10.13 53.15 152 152 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.13 0.70 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 'IN X X TOL 14.67 76.92 220 0.20 2 222 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 1.33 6.99 20 0.20 2 22 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 1.70 17 17 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 1.05 3 0.10 4 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN. INT 0.80 4.20 12 12 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.07 0.35 1 1 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.40 2.10 6 6 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 1.73 9.09 26 26 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 4.73 24.83 71 71 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 2.30 23 23 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus X OM 0.40 2.10 6 1.30 13 19 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris X 0.80 TC 0.33 1.75 5 8 13 White bass Morone chtysops TC X 0.30 3 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.13 0.70 2 1.80 18 20 X X Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 0.13 0.70 2 2 X X Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 5.40 28.32 81 0:90 9 90 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.00 10.49 30 2.10 21 51 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.40 2.10 6 0.20 2 8 Logperch Percinacaprodes Bi X 0.40 2.10 .6 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 0.50 8" 1.05 .3 5 lIM 0.12 ,,1 ,.1 A '7A Total 58.51 307.01 878 21.20 212 1,090 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 48

Appendix 2-F. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ComnNmTSiepicSish sies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Pern net fish Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night Combined Common Name Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 8.07 42.61 121 2.40 24 145 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL .0.07 0.35 I.

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.35 .1 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.07 0.35 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.70 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 4.33 22.89 65 65 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 1.76 5 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 16.47 86.97 -247 0.50 252 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 2.33 12.32 35 35 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.70 7 7 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus IN X INT 0.10 1 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.33 1.76

• 5 0.20 2 7 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.07 0.35 1 X X 12 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis. IN INT 0.80 4.23 12 Smnallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.60 8.45 24 24 Brook silverside Lab idesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.33 .1.76 5 5 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.70 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.47" 2.46 7 7 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.40 7.39 21 21 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 1.70 17 17 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.60 6 6 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.20 1.06 3 0.20 2 5 Yellow bass Morone.mississippiensis TC X 2.50 25 25 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.07 0.35 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.13 11.27 32 0.80 8 40 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis spp. IN X X 0.13 0.70 2 2 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.47 7.75 22 1.80 18. 40 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.20 1.06 3 0.40 4 7 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.20 1.06 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.10 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.13 0.70 2 0.60 6 8 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina t?' o'~)7 I Ai Li 4 IN 027 141 4 Total 41.80 220.76 627 12.60 26 126 753 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 14 49 16

Appendix 2-G. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and TQlerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish TrlphicSuiesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per.TEa Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 9.80 49.16 147 .4.70 47 194 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.53 2.68 8 8 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X .TOL 0.20 1.00 3 .1.50 15 18 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.07 0.33 1 1 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X 0.20 3 TOL 1.00 3 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 3.73 18.73 56 56 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 18.47 92.64 277 0.50 5 282 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X X X TOL 2.73 13.71 41 0.40 4 45 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TOL 0.20 2 2

.- X Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC INT 1.50 15 15 X

Spotted sucker , Minytrema melanops BI INT 0.40 2.01 6 0.10 7 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.47 2.34 7 7 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X .INT 0.33 1.67 5 5 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X INT 067 3.34 10 10 X

Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC 0.53 2.68 8 8 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 1.07 5.35 16 16 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 12.20 61.20 183 183 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.33 1 I

Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM x X 0.80 8 8 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.00 5.02 15 0.70 7 22 Flathead catfish .Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.20 2 2 x X Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC 1.70 17 17 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 1 1 X X Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 5.07 25.42 76 0.80 8 84 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.93 9.7.0 29 1.80 18 47 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.33 1.67 5 0.40 4 9 Logperch Percinacaprodes 131 X 0.07 0.33 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.87 4.35 13 0.50 5 18 Chestnut lamnrev . Jrzhthvnm vznn rn¢tnnp,ju o O17

.... .... lamp....

.... .Icht l .... .. ta......eu ca PSv XJ 00 03 Total 60.81 304.99 912 15.90 159 1,071 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 16 50

Appendix 2-H. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Secuoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting ' Total Gill Total fish ComnraeceniicnmpcS ies N Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night Common Name Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC . X TOL 0.10 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 5.73 29.35 86 3.90 39 125 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.27 1.37 4 4 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.40 2.05 6 0.10 1 7 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.13 0.68 2 *2 Bluntnose minnow OM X. TOL 5 5 Pimephales notatus" 0.33 1.71 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 2.87 14.68 43 43 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.07 0.34 1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 14.60 74.74 219 ,0.20 2 221 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 2.67 13.65 40 40 X X White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TOL 0.13 0.68 2 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 2.80 28. 28 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 1.02 3 0.20 2 5 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.87 4.44 13 13 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.20 6.14 18 18 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.87 4.44 .-13 13 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.53 2.73 8 8 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.33 1.71 5 5 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 4.13 21.16 62 62 Golden redhorse Moxostoma eiythrurum BI. X 0.07 0.34 1 0.10 1 2 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus GM X 1.50 15 15 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.67 3.41 10 0.70 7 17 Flathead catfish Pylodictisolivaris TC X 040 2.05 6 0.40 4 10 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.07 0.34 1 3.10 31 32 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC X X 0.10 1 I Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 0.53 2.73 8 0.20 2 10 X X Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 5.07 25.94 76 1.90 19 95 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 3.27 16.72 49 1.80 18 67 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 1.53 7.85 23 1.00 10 33 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.13 0.68 2 2 Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 0.20 1.02 3 3 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.20 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 1.27 6.48 19 0.50 5 24 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN . 0.67 3.41 10 10 Chestnut lamprey .Ichthyomyzon castaneus PS X o0.13 0.68 2 2 Total 49.34 252.54 740 18.80 188 928 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 30 18 51

Appendix 2-I. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Clevel species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.10 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum . OM X TOL 8.40 45.32 126 2.90 29 155 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM . TOL 0.13 0.72 2 0.10 1 3 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.40 2.16 6 0.10 t 7 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.33 7.19 20 20 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.93 10.43 29 . 29 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 11.33 61.15 170 0.40 4 174 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.47 . 7.91 22 0.20 2 24 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1 1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT , 0.70 7 7 Spotted sucker Minytrema nielanops BI X INT 0.27 1.44 4 0.50 5 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 1.93 10.43 29 29 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.13 0.72 2 1.20 12 14 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.93 5.04 14 14 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC .X 0.20 1.08 3 3 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 6.20 33.45 93 93 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X . 1.20 12 12 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM _X 0.40 2.16 6 1.50 15 21 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.13 0.72 2 0.30 3 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.13 0.72 2 1.80 18 20 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 6.40 34.53 96 1.60 16 112 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.80 15.11 42 0.80 8 50 Black crappie Pornoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.27 1.44 4 0.10 1 5 Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 0.60 3.24 9 9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X. 0.20 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI. X 0.33 1.80 5 1.00 10 15 Total 45.71 246.76 686 14.80 148 834 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 21 19 52

Appendix 2-J. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Trophic Sunfish Native mgTotal fish Total Gill Total fish levelic level speciesh species seies species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per - EFnet EF , Catch Rate Per fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run fHour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 5.60 28.38 84 7.00 70 154

. - .,- CVA 'TT flAn f CA Ctommon carp Cyprinus carpio TOL, Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 1.67 8.45 25 25 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 1.27 6.42 19 19 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.80 4.05 12 12 x x Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN TOL 3.87 19.59 58 58 x x Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN TOL 0.20 1.01 3 3 X X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TOL 12.87 65.20 193 193 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X 1.00 5.07 15 0.30 3 18 X X TOL White crappie Pomoxis annulatris TC TOL 0.10 1 X 21 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC INT 2.10 21 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops. BI X 0.40 2.03 6 0.30 3 9 x x INT Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN TNT 1.80 9.12 27 27 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X 0.80 4.05 12 12 INT Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X, INT .0.67 3.38 10 10 Lake sturgeon Acipenserfulvescens IN X 0.10 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.34 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense. PK X 1-.13 5.74 17 0.10 18 Emerald shiner *Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.00 5.07 15 15 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 2.60 26 26 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.13 0.68 2 1.40 14 16 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.69 5 0.40 4 9 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 3.30 33 33 X X Warmouth Lepomis gulosus - IN 0.93 4.73 14" 14 X X Redear sunfish Lepornis microlophus IN 3.00 15.20 45 4.70 47 92 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.40 7.09 21 0.70 7 28 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 1.27 6.42 19. 0.80 8 27 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.34 ,1 0.20 2 3 Logperch Percina caprodes BI X 0.27 1.35 4 4 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.33 1.69 5 0.70 7 12 Total 41.28 209.12 619 24.9 249 868 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 17 53

Appendix 2-K. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing lectrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish CmoNaeSiniinaelevel level species speciesh species seies Tolerance CatchRuRate Per orEF Per Catch Rate Net Rate Catch NightPer net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name .Run HourNeNih Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 11.33 71.13 170 0.30 3 173 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM . TOL 0.20 1:26 3 3 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM . X TOL 0.07 0.42 1 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X. X TOL 1.67 10.46 25 25 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 11.87 74.48 178 178 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.13 13.39 32 32 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X x TOL . . 0.20 2 2 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.30 3 3 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.33 2.09 5 0.30 3 8 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.53 3.35 8' 8 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.53. 3.35 8 0.20 2 10 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.73 4.60 11 . 11 Emerald shiner ANotropis atherinoides IN X 1.27 7.95 19 19 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus . OM X 0.53 3.35. 8 0.20 2 10 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.87 5.44 13 0.90 9 22 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.20 1.26 3 0.30 3 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.42 1. 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.07 0.42 1 0.10 1 2 Striped bass Morone saxatihis TC . 0.30 3 3 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.27 1.67 4 0.10 1 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 3.33 20.92 50 0.20 2 52 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.33 14.64 35 3.40 34 69 Black crappie . Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC AX X 0.20 . 1.26 3 0.10 1 4 Logperch Percina caprodes BI .X 0.13 0.84 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.60 6 6 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.13 0.84 2 0.60 6 8 Total 38.79 243.54 582 8.10 81 663 Number Samples 15 .10 Species Collected 22 16 54

Appendix 2-L. Species Collected, Trophic Level,iNative and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.

Trophic Sunfish Native SSnih NtElectrofishing Tolerance Electrofishing Catch Rate Per Total fish Catch Gill Netting Rate Per Tnotal Gill Total fish Scientific name iet fish Combined Common Name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 10.87 61.51 163 1.20 12.00 175 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 047 2.64 7 7 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 1.07 6.04 16 16 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0 47 2.64 7 7 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 2.67 15.09 40 40 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.27 1.51 4 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 24.07 136.23 361 361 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 3.73 21.13 56 56 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1.00 1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 1.50 15.00 15 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.38 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops *BI X INT 0.27 1.51 4 4 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.93 5.28 14 14 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.93 10.94 29 0.20 2.00 31 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X 1NT 0.87 4.91 13 13 Threadfin shad X

Dorosomapetenense PK 8.93 50.57 134 134 x

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN 3.60 20.38. 54 54 x

Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN 0.07 0.38 1 1.00 x 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI 0.07 0.38 0.10 1.00 2 x 17 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM 1.13 6.42 0.30 3.00 20 x 3.00 5 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC 0.13 0.75 2 0.30 x

White bass Morone chrysops TC 0.40 4.00 4 x

Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC 1.20 6.79 18 4.60 46.00 64 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.20 2.00 2 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax) TC 0.10 1.00 1 x x Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 1.60 9.06 24 24 x x Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 4.73 26.79 71 0.60 6.00 77 x.

Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC 4.07 23.02 61 2.10 21.00 82 x x Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC .1.13 6.42 17 0.80 8.00 25 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.13 0.75 2 2 x 1 Logperch Percina caprodes BI 0.07 0.38 x

Sauger Sander canadensis TC 0.07 0.38 0.40 4.00 5 x

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI 0.47 2.64 7 0.30 3.00 10 x

Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus PS 0.20 1.3 3 3 Total 75.29 426.05 1,129 13.20 132 75.29 Number Samples 15 10 15 Species Collected 29 16 29 55

Appendix 2-M. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

TrophicElectrofishing Electrofishg Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ComnTaerceniicepc.iesh N Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.30 3 .3.

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 5.07 26.57 76 8.30 83 159.

Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas ,X TOL 3.85 11 0.80 8 19 OM 0.73 Sporfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 2.73 14.34 41 41 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.27 1.40 4 4 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X 39 X X TOL 2.47 12.94 37 0.20 2 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN TOL 0.07 0.35 1 X X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TOL 27.00 141.61 405 0.30 3 408 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC "X TOL 10.14 29 32 X X 1.93 0.30 3.

White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TOL 0.07 0.35 1 0.20 2 3 X

Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC INT 0.60 86 6 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.13 0.70 0.80 10 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 3.13 16.43 47 0.20 2 49 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.27 1.40 4 4 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT *0.40 2.10 6 6 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.33 5 5

.1,75 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.35 0.20 3 2

Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 6.53 34.27 98 98 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.35 1 0.10 2 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.13 0.70 2 1.80 18 20 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.53 2.80 8 0.40 4 12 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.35 1 2 0.07 0.10.

White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.30 3 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 8.00 80 80 X X Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 5.13 26.92 77 2.00 20 97 X X Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis spp. IN .0.20 1.05 3 3 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.73 9.09 26 7.00 70 96 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 3.20 32 32 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.35 1 X I Logperch Percina caprodes 13 0.33 1.75 5 5 X

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens. BI 0.907 0.35 0.10 1 2 Total 59.53 312.26 893 35.20 352 1,245 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 21 56

Appendix 2-N. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish leeophcSiesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 6.20 32.63 .93 11.50 115 208 Common carp Cyprinus carpio 11 -11 OM TOL 0.73 3.86 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.73 3.86 0.20 2 13 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 1.40 7.37 21 21 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM TOL 1.40 7.37 21 21 X X Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN TOL 2.53 13.33 38 38 X X Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN TOL 0.67 3.51 10 10 X X Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TOL *6.47 34.04 97 2.30 23 120 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 2.07 10.88 31 31 X X White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TOL 1.00 10 10 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X 1NT 3.90 39 39 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.60 3.16 0.10 1 10 X X 9 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.53 2.81 8 8 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.53 2.81 8 0.10 9 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.47, 2.46 7 7 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.27 1.40 4 0.40 4 8 Threadfin shad Dorosomb petenense PK X 0.13 0.70 2 0.20 2 4 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 4.60 24.21 69 69 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.07 0.35 1 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus GM X 0.20 1.05 3 3 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.20 1.05 3 3 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 1.70 17 17 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.13 5.96 17 1.10 11 28 X 3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC 0.20 1.05 3 0.30 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.35 1 0.40 4 5 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 12.40 124 124 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone (chrysopsx sax) TC 0.10 1 1 X X Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 0.13 0.70 2 2 X X Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 1.67 8.77 25 3.90 39 64 X X Hybrid sunfish Hybrid Lepomis spp. IN 0.47 2.46 7 7

, X Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC 1.47 7.72 22 2.70 27 49 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.40 2.11 6 0.50 5 11 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 1.53 .8.07 23, 23 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.13 0.70 .2 1.30 13 15 Total 37.00 194.74 555 44.10 441 996 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 29 19 57

Appendix 2-0. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0). of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run. Hour *F Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cevedianum OM X TOL 9.00 54.22 135 135 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.40 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.73 4.42 18 11 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.20 7.23 18 18 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.80 4.82 12 12 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X 2.00 30 30 TOL 12.05 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X X X TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2.

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TOL 20.73 124.90 311 0.30 3 314 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmo ides TC X 31 TOL 2.07 12.45 31 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.30 3 3 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 1I X INT 0.07 0.40 0.80 8 9 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 3.00 18.07 45 45 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.47 2.81 7 0.10 8 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X INT 0.13 0.80 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 5.53 33.33 83 83 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.07 0.40 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.67 4.02 10 0.80 8 1'8 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.53 3.21 8 0.10 9 Flatheadcatfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X. 0.10 1 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.10 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.40 2.41 6 0.90 .9 15 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.10 1 X X Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN 0.27 1.61 4 0.10 5 X X Redear sumfish Lepomnis microlophus IN 4.00 24.10 60 0.30 3 63

x. X Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC 3.13 18.88 47 1.40 14 61 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatuis TC 0.13 0.80 2 0.20 2 4 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0:40 1 1 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.30 3 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 2 2 DQ 1' Chestnut lamprey JLM4asytotrycIJrL CUtLLA

1) A7 uumyzo.

A Ail I tneus Total 55.27 332.93 829 6.10 61 890 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected .24 16 58

Appendix 2-P. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.

Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Trophic Sunfish Common Name Scientific namn level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 2.27 13.39 34 0.60 6 40 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.87 5.12 13 . 13 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.80 4.72 12 12 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 5.53 32.68 83 0.40 4 87 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.53 14.96 38 38 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1 1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT . 0.80 8 8 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI . X INT 0.33 1.97. 5 1.00 10 15 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis . IN X X INT 0.47 2.76 7 7 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.27 1.57 4 0.60 .. 6 10 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.07 0.39 1 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.73 10.24 26 26 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.40 8.27 21 21 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.10 1 1 White bass Morone chtysops TC X  : -. 0.30 3 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X . 0.27 1.57 4 3.40 34 38 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.50 5 5 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.53 .3.15 8 0.10 1 9 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.33 13.78 , 35 0.80 8 43 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctvlatus TC X 0.87 5.12 13 3.50 35 48 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.20 7.09 18 0.90 9 27 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN . 0.13 0.79 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.50 5 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.18 3 0.10 1 4 Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus PS X 0.27 1.57 4 .... 4 Total 22.07 130.32 331 13.70 137 468 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 19 16 59

Appendix 2-Q. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.

TrophicElctrofishing Electrofish g Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish levelp spcSuniessh paies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM "X TOL 0.93 5.38 14 7.60 76 90 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.73 4.23 11 11 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.67 3.85 10 10 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.07 0.38 1 1 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 1.67 9.62 25 0.30 3 28 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.20 1.15 3 0.30 3 6 Skipjack herring . Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.07 0.38 1 1.90 19 20 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus IN X INT -. 0.10 1 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.53 3.08 8 0.40 4 12 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.07 0.38 1 1 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu -TC X INT 0.07 0.38 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC -X ' 0.40 2.31 6 6 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 1.00 5.77 15 050 5 20 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 3.20 18.46 48 48 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.60 3.46 9 0.10 1 10 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 1.50 15 15 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.27 1.54 4 1.60 16 20 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.1.0 1 1 White bass Morone chtysops TC X 0.07 0.38 1 0.10 1 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X ' . 1.60 16 16 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X. X 3.40 19.62 51 0.60 6 57 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis spp. IN X X 0.07 0.38 1 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.80 4.62 12 0.50 17 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.47 2.69 7 7 Logpaerch Percina caprodes BI X .0.60 3.46 9 9 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X .. 0.40 4 4 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.27 1.54 4 0.50 5 9 Chestnut lamprey Ichthyomyzon castaneus PS X 0.07 0.38 1 1 Total 16.23 93.44 243 18.10 181, 424 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 17 60

Appendix 2-R. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and. Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Scienificn s elevel s s Tolerance -Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per C R P net fish Combined species species Run Hour EF Net Night Common Name Scientific name Gizzard shad Dorosornacepedianurn OM "X TOL 1.87 10.81 28 11.80 118 146 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 1.16 3 3 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.39 .1 Bluntnose minnow X 0.39 11 Pimnephales notatus OM TOL 0.07 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.73 4:25 11 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.07 0.39 Bluegill Lepomis.macrochirus IN X X TOL 1.93 11.20 29 0.10 30 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 0.33 S1.93 5 6 Skipj ack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 3.50 35 35 Mooneye Hiodon tergisus 1N INT 0.20 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytremna melanops BI X INT 0.27 1.54 4 4 X X 4 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN 1NT 0.27 1.54 4 X iNT 13 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC 0.87 5.02 13 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.77 2 2

.0.13 X

Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK

• x 0.67 3.86 10 0.20 2 12 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.80 10.42 27 27 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.77 2 2' Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.33 1.93 5 5 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.40 4 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X 0.13 0.77 2 0.30 3 5 Flathead catfish 1 Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.07 0.39 White bass Morone chrysops TC 0.30 3 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X X 5:00 50 50 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 2.27 13.13 34 0.80 8 42 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.87 5.02 0.10 14 X X 13 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.07 0.39 1 0.10 2 Yellow perch 1 Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.39- 1 Logperch X 1 Percinacaprodes BI 0.07 0.39 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.07 0.39 0,20 2 3 Hybrid walleye x sauger 1 Hybrid Sander TC 0.07 0.39 Freshwater'drum Aplodinotus grunniens "1BI X 0.47 2.70 7, 1.30 13 20 Total 13.90 80.33 208 24.40 244 452 Number Samples 15. 10 Species Collected 26 15 61