ML101550150
| ML101550150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/2010 |
| From: | Church C 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: ML101550150 (84) | |
Text
Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office BGx 2000, Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37384-2000 June 1, 2010 State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control Enforcement & Compliance Section 6 th Floor, L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534
Dear Mr. Patrick Cromer:
SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT - 2009 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT Enclosed is the "Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2009" 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.
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
Sincerely, ChristophrR C
~huc Site Vice President Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Enclosure cc (Enclosure):
Chattanooga Environmental Field Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Water Pollution Control ATTN: Document Control Desk State Office Building, Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20555 540 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2013
Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2009 Gregory P. Shaffer Jeffrey W. Simmons Dennis S. Baxter May 2010 Tennessee Valley Authority Aquatic Monitoring and Management Knoxville, Tennessee
Table of Contents T ab le o f C on ten ts...........................................................................................................................................
i L ist o f T ab les......................................
i L ist o f F ig u res..............................................................................................................................................
iv Acronyms and Abbreviations...........
vi In tro d u ctio n..............................................................................................................
1 P lan t D escrip tion.......................................................................................................................................
1 Methods.......................
............................................... 2 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of SQN.................. 2 Shoreline A quatic H abitat A ssessm ent..............................................................................................
.2 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN.. 3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and D ow nstream of SQN....
6 Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and SQN Temperature........................................................................
8 R esu lts an d D iscu ssion.................................................................................................................................
8 Shoreline A quatic H abitat A ssessm ent...............................................................................................
8 F ish C om m u n ity..............................
8 Fish C om m unity Sum m ary.....................................................................................................................
10 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community 11 Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN..............................................................
12 L iteratu re C ited..........................................................................................................................................
14 A ppendix A H istorical RFA I Scores....................................................................................................
42 A ppendix B H istorical Fish Species List..........................................................................................
........ 56 List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria 15 Table 2. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar.......................
17 Table 3. RBI scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community (field-processed samples) for forebay, transition zone, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton' Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar. TRM 482 was scored with forebay criteria and TRM 490.5 was scored with transition criteria.........................
18 Table 4. SAHI scores for 16 shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the upstream RFAI sampling area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, autumn 2009. Scores are shown for eight shoreline sections on the left descending bank (LD) and eight shoreline sections along the right descending bank (RD). Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35).....
19 Table 5. SAHI Scores for 16 Shoreline Habitat Assessments Conducted within the Downstream RFAI Sampling Area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009. Scores are Shown for Eight Shoreline Sections on the Left Descending Bank (LD) and Eight Shoreline Sections
Along the Right Descending Bank (RD). Scoring Criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and g o od (2 7 -3 5)............................................................................................................................
2 0 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482.0) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Downstream site (TRM 482) scored with forebay criteria, while upstream site (TRM 490.5) scored with transition criteria.......................................................................
2 1 Table 7. Species Listing, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance classification along with Catch per unit Effort during Fall Electrofishing and Gill netting (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill netting Effort = net-nights) at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, Autumn 2009............................................................ 26 Table 8. Species Listing, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance classification along with Catch per unit Effort during Fall Electrofishing and Gill netting (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill netting Effort = net-nights) at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, A utum n 2009...........................................................................................................
27 Table 9. Fish Species Collected Including Provisions for the Identification of the Representative Important Species at Areas Upstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: Benthic Invertivore (BI), Insectivore (IN), Omnivore (OM), Parasitic (PS), Planktivore (PK), Top Carnivore (TC). Tolerance: Tolerant (TOL), Intolerant (INT).. 28 Table 10. Fish Species Collected Including Provisions for the Identification of the Representative Important Species at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: Benthic Invertivore (BI), Insectivore (IN), Omnivore (OM), Parasitic (PS), Planktivore (PK), Top Carnivore (TC). Tolerance: Tolerant (TOL), Intolerant (INT).. 29 Table 11. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir..............................................
30 Table 12. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009.......... 31 Table 13. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2009.32 Table 14. Comparison of Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2008 and Autum n 2009........................................................................................
33 Table 15. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1994-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir..............................................
34 Table A-1. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482.0) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.................. 43 Table A-2. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007 47 Table A-3. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006............................................................
48 Table A-4. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005............................................................
49 ii
Table A-5. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004...........................................................
50 Table A-6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003............................................................
51 Table A-7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002............................................................
52 Table A78. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001..........................................................
53 Table A-9. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.............................................................
54 Table A-10. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.................................................
55 Table B-1. SpeciesCollected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant D ischarge, A utum n 2008....................................................................................................
57 Table B-2. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort
.During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant D ischarge, A utum n 2008.....................................................................................................
58 Table B-3. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007...........................................................................
59 Table B-4. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.............................................................................
60 Table B-5. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006............................................................................
61 Table B-6. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006............................................................................
62 Table B-7. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.............................................................................
63 Table B-8. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005...........................................................................
64 Table B-9. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004............................................................................
65 Table B-10. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.............................................................................
66 iii
Table B-11. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.............................................................................
67 Table B-12. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003............................................................................
68 Table B-13. Species Collected, Trophic. Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.............................................................................
69 Table B-14. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002............................................................................
70 Table B-15. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and.Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001...................................
71 Table B-16. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah N uclear Plant D ischarge, A utum n 2001...................................................................................
72 Table B-17. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000...................................
73 Table B-18. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.............................................................................
74 Table B-19. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999...................................
75 Table B-20. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999............................................................................
76 List of Figures Figure 1. Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant is located on the west side of Chickamauga Reservoir near the town of Soddy-Daisy at Tennessee River M ile 484.5...........................................................
35 Figure 2. Map of SQN showing location of CCW intake and discharge......................
36 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations......
37 Figure 4. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations.....................
38 Figure 5. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) intake and downstream of SQN discharge during October 2008 through November 2009. Station 14 was used for upstream ambient iv
temperatures of the SQN intake and was located at TRM 490.4. Station 8 was used for temperatures downstream of SQN discharge and was located at TRM 483.4.....................
39 Figure 6. Total daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee 1 Dams, October 2008 through November 2009 and historic total daily average flows averaged for the sam e period 1976 through 2008...............................................................................
40 Figure 7.,Daily average, water temperatures ('F) at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake (Station 14) and downstream of SQN discharge (Station 8), October 2008 through November 2 0 0 9................
4 1 V
Acronyms and Abbreviations BIP Balanced Indigenous Population CCW Condenser cooling water CFS Cubic feet per second MW Megawatts NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System QA Quality Assurance RBI Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index SAHI Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority VS Vital Signs vi
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; (4) lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species; and (5) indigenous.
Prior to 1999, 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 program began 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 tested on 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 and shoreline habitat in areas immediately upstream and downstream of SQN during 1999-2009 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents theresults of autumn 2009 RFAI and RBI data collected upstream and downstream of SQN with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data collected at these sites during autumn 1999-2008.
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 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.
1
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).
Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHI), including several habitat parameters important to* resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant during autumn 2009. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to reservoir resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral or shoreline zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and/or adult feeding (Table 1). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species into one index.
Individual metrics are scored through comparison of observed conditions with these "reference" conditions and assigned a corresponding value: good-5; fair-3; or poor-I (Table 1). The scores for each metric are summed to obtain the Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) value. The range of potential SAHI values (7-35) is trisected to provide some descriptor of habitat quality (poor 7-16, fair 17-26, and good 27-35).
The quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. This was much easier to accomplish when the reservoir was at least 10 feet below, full pool during the assessment allowing accurate determination of near-shore aquatic habitat quality. Eight line-of-sight transects were established across the width of Chickamauga reservoir within the SQN downstream (TRMs 481.2 to 483.1) and upstream (TRMs 487.5 to 491.1) fish community sampling areas. Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending (LD) and right descending (RD) bank locations for each of the eight line-of-sight transects. These individual sections (8 on the LD bank and 8 on the RD bank for a total of 16 shoreline assessments) were then scored using SAHI criteria. Percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas of the 8 LD and 8 RD shoreline sections were also estimated.
SAHI scores and aquatic macrophyte estimations for both the downstream and upstream fish community sampling areas can be found in Tables 4 and 5 respectively.
2
Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN Fish sampling methods included boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert, 1996; Reynolds, 1996).
Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen electrofishing 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 electrofishing. Each experimental gill 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 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 indigenous species -- Greater numbers of indigenous species are considered representative of healthier aquatic ecosystems. As conditions degrade, numbers of species at an area decline.
(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 -- Dueto the special dietary requirements of 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) Percent dominance by one species -- Ecological quality is considered reduced if one species inordinately dominates the resident fish community.
(7) Percentage of non-indigenous species -- Based on the assumption that non-indigenous speciesreduce the quality of resident fish communities.
3
(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) Percentage 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.
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.
Fish Health (12) Percentage of 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 five 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 1-
"total number of indigenous 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 measured 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 4
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 ("Percent dominance by one species"), and 10 ("Percentage of individuals as omnivores").
(5) Indigenous: Non-indigenous species reduce the quality of indigenous fish communities through increased competition for resources, predation on indigenous species, and degradation of the water quality. Metrics measuring the indigenousness of the fish communities are 1 ("Number of indigenous species") and 7 ("Percentage of non-indigenous species").
Scoring categories are based on "expected" fish community characteristics in the absence 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 most degraded (1). Scoring criteria for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs is shown in Table 2.
If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percentage of tolerant individuals"), the data from electrofishing 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 two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RFAI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values. The other is "relative" in that it compares RFAI scores attained downstream to the 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"], 22-31 ["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 (Q 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.
5
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 RFAI index scores 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 7 5th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 9 0th 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 "similar" 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 Benthic grab samples were used to collect samples at ten equally-spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 M2) was used for most samples. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 M 2) was used. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures (OER-ESP-RRES-AMM-2 1.11; Quantitative Sample Collection - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling with a Ponar Dredge). Bottom sediments were washed on a 533ýt screen; organisms were then picked from the screen and any remaining substrate.
Organisms were 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. Scoring criteria for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 3. 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. The individual metrics are shown below:
(1) Average number of taxa-This metric is calculated by averaging the total number of taxa present in each sample at a site. Taxa generally mean family or order level because samples are processed in the field. For chironomids, taxa refers to obviously different organisms,(i.e., separated by body size, head capsule size and shape, color, etc.). Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness.
(2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms-This is a presence/absence metric which is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, and snails) present. The presence of long-lived taxa is indicative of conditions which allow long-term survival.
(3) Average number of EPT taxa-This metric is calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera taxa present in each sample at a site.
6
Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions.
(4) Average proportion of Oligochaete individuals-This metric is calculated by averaging the percentage of oligochaetes in each sample at a site. Oligochaetes are considered tolerant organisms so a higher proportion indicates poor water quality.
(5) Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa-This metric is calculated by selecting the two most abundant taxa in a sample, summing the number of individuals in those two taxa, dividing that sum by the total number of animals in the sample, and converting to a peicentage for that sample.
The percentage is then averaged for the 10 samples at each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site. This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples a site. This metric is used as an evenness indicator.
Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions.
(6) Average density excluding Chironomids and Oligochaetes-This metric is calculated by first summing the number of organisms, excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. A higher abundance of non-chironomids and non-oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions.
(7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples with containing no organisms-This metric is the proportion of samples at a site which have no organisms present.
"Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e.
toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). Any site having one empty sample was assigned a score of three, and any site with two or more empty samples received a score of one. Sites with no empty samples were assigned a score of five.
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 9 0 th 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.
7
Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and SQN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Watts Bar Dam, Apalachia Dam (Hiwassee River), and Ocoee 1 Dam (Ocoee River) was used to describe the amount of water flowing past SQN and was obtained from TVA's River Operations database.
Water temperature data was also obtained from TVA's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge are depicted in Figure 5. Station 14 was used to measure the ambient temperature upstream of the SQN intake and was located at TRM 490.4. Station 8 was used to measure temperatures downstream of SQN discharge and was located at TRM 483.4. Water temperatures at both stations were computed as the average of temperature measurements at three depths: 3 feet, 5 feet, and 7 feet.
Results and Discussion Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Assessment The SAHI methodology was used to evaluate shoreline habitat at 32 sections of shoreline located within the RFAI sample sites upstream and downstream (16 shoreline sections at 8 transects each) of SQN during autumn 2009. Eight shoreline sections were located on the left descending bank and 8 were located on the right descending bank upstream of SQN. The same distribution of shoreline sections was used for downstream of SQN.
Of the sixteen shoreline sections sampled upstream of SQN, 6% (1 transect) scored as good, 88% (14 transects) scored as fair, and 6% (1 transect) scored as poor. The average score for transects on the left descending bank was 22 ("Fair"), while scores for transects on the right descending bank averaged 21
("Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 0% on each shoreline (Table 4).
Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream of SQN, 19% (3 transects) scored as good, 56% (9 transects) scored as fair, and 25% (4 transects) scored as poor. The average scores for transects on the left descending bank were equal to those on the right descending bank (22 "Fair"). The average percentage of macrophytes was 2% and 5% on the left and right descending banks, respectively (Table 5).
Fish Community In 2009, fish community RFAI scores of 37 ("Fair") and 41 ("Good") were observed at the downstream and upstream stations, respectively (Table 6). The score at the downstream site was within the 6-point range of acceptable variation when compared to that of the upstream site; therefore, the sites were considered similar and BIP was maintained at the downstream site. The upstream and downstream sites were compared using the five characteristics of BIP. For the discussion of each characteristic, the downstream site was compared to the upstream site (control) using those metrics useful in this determination.
(1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Twenty-three indigenous species were collected at the downstream site, while 28 indigenous species were collected at the upstream site (Tables 7 and 8). Thirty-one species were needed to attain the highest score possible for the metric "number of indigenous species" (Table 2).
Both upstream and downstream sites received the highest possible score for the metric "number of centrarchid species" (Table 6).
8
The metrics "number of benthic invertivores" and "number of intolerant species" both recorded the same scores at the upstream and downstream sites. Three benthic invertivore species and 4 intolerant species were collected at each site. The benthic invertivore golden redhorse was collected at the downstream site, but not the upstream site; whereas, logperch were collected at the upstream site, but not the downstream site, Brook silverside, longear sunfish, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker were the intolerant.species collected at each site (Table 6).
Ten top carnivore species were collected at the upstream site compared to 8 at the downstream site; however, both sites recorded the highest possible score of 5 for the metric "number of top carnivore species" (Table 6).
Based on these results, a diverse fish community existed at the downstream site in autumn 2009 as compared to the upstream site.
(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change The percentage of anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) in the autumn sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Both upstream and downstream sites recorded the highest possible score for gill netting portion of the metric "percent anomalies." For the electrofishing portion of this metric, the downstream site recorded the highest possible score (5), while the fish collected at the upstream site exhibited a slightly higher incidence of anomalies resulting in a moderate score (3) (Table 6).
The difference between sites in those individuals possessing some anomaly was small (0.8%); therefore, the fish community at the downstream site was considered similar to the upstream site and able to withstand the stressors experienced from autumn 2008 through autumn 2009 (Table 6).
(3) The presence of necessary food chain species Scores for the metrics "percent top carnivores, ".percent omnivores," "number of top carnivore species,"
"number of centrarchid species," and "average number per run" were similar between sites.
"Number of top carnivore species" and "number of centrarchid species" recorded the highest possible scores (5) at both sites. "Percent top carnivores" scored 4 out of a possible 5 at both sites for both portions of the metric (Table 6).
Averages of percent omnivores (electrofishing and gill netting) were low to moderate at both sites (25%
upstream; 32% downstream). This metric scored 4 out of 5 at the upstream site and 3 out of 5 at the downstream site (Table 6).
The average number of fish per run for gill netting was similar at both sites (14 upstream; 15.5 downstream), resulting in moderate scores (1.5 out of 2.5). The electrofishing portion of the metric "average number per run" scored slightly lower at the downstream site than the upstream site (Table 6).
Given the higher numbers of top carnivore and centrarchid species at the downstream site and the similar percentages of top carnivores and omnivores and average numbers per run between sites, it was determined that the downstream site was similar to the upstream site with respect to the presence of necessary food chain species during autumn 2009.
9
(4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species During autumn 2009, 3 benthic invertivores were collected at both the downstream and upstream sites resulting in scores of 1 at both sites (Table 6). Eight benthic invertivore species were needed to attain a score of 5 (Table 2).
Four intolerant species were collected at both the downstream and upstream sites resulting in scores of 3 at both sites (Table 6).
The percentages of tolerant individuals (averages of electrofishing and gill netting) were high at both sites (56.3% downstream; 49.5% upstream); bluegill was the dominant tolerant species in the electrofishing portions at both sites (Table 6).
Given these results, the downstream site was determined to be similar to the upstream site with respect to domination by pollution-tolerant species.
(5) Indigenous In autumn 2009, twenty-three indigenous and 3 non-indigenous.species (common carp, yellow perch, and inland silverside) were collected at the downstream site compared to 28 indigenous and 3 non-indigenous species (same 3 species) at the upstream site (Table 7 and 8).
Percentages of non-indigenous species collected in the electrofishing sample were high at both sites (5.3% downstream; 4.3% upstream), with inland silverside being the dominant non-indigenous species.
The percentage of non-indigenous species collected in the gill netting portion was 0.6% (yellow perch only) at the upstream site; no non-indigenous species were collected in the gill netting portion at the downstream site (Table 6).
Compared to the upstream site, the downstream site was similar with respect to the indigenousness of its fish communities.
Fish Community Summary In conclusion, analysis of the five characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics indicated the downstream site was similar to the upstream site and that a balanced fish community was present at the site downstream of SQN in autumn 2009.
Six of the RFAI metrics received the same scores at both sites. Of the six metrics that scored differently, "percent tolerant individuals," "percent dominance by one species," "percent non-indigenous species,"
"percent omnivores," and "average number per run," five recorded a lower score at the downstream site, while one metric ("percent anomalies") scored higher at the downstream site (Table 6).
Twenty-nine indigenous species were collected at the upstream site, while 23 were collected at the downstream site. Thirty-two resident important species were collected at the upstream site compared to twenty-six resident important species at the downstream stations (Tables 9 and 10). Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC 1977).
The same two aquatic nuisance species (common carp and inland silverside) were collected at both sites (Tables 9 and 10).
There was one species collected at the downstream site (spotted sucker) which is intolerant of thermal pollution. Three thermally sensitive species were collected at the upstream site (spotted sucker, emerald 10
shiner, and logperch) (Tables 9 and 10). Water temperatures greater than 32.2°C (907F) are known to be lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006).
Four commercially valuable species were collected at downstream site, while five were collected at the upstream site. Twenty-two recreationally valuable species were collected at the upstream site, five more than the downstream site (Tables 9 and 10).
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; 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 should be noted that the upstream site is scored with transition criteria and the downstream site is scored using forebay criteria (Table 2). 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 communitiesf (e.g. species diversity is often higher in a transition than a forebay zone).
Over the eleven sample years, the upstream site has averaged a score of 45 ("Good") while the downstream site has averaged a score of 41 ("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. During 2009, the upstream site rebounded 7 points from a historic low score of 34 in 2008. The downstream site scored 1 point lower in 2009 than in 2008 (Table 11). 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. The average RFAI scores at these three sites among all sampling years have remained in the "Good" range (Table 11).
Individual metric scores and overall RFAI scores for the upstream and downstream sampling sites of SQN for sample years 1999-2008 are listed in Appendix A (1-10). Species collected and catch per effort during electrofishing and gill netting at the upstream and downstream sampling sites of SQN for sample years 1999-2008 are listed in Appendix B (1-20).
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Benthic macroinvertebrate data collected during autumn 2009 from TRM 482.0 downstream of SQN and from TRM 490.5 upstream of SQN resulted in a RBI scores of 23 ("Fair") and 27 ("Good"), respectively (Table 12). A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites; therefore, the downstream site was considered similar to the upstream site and BIP was maintained.
Average number of taxa - An average of 4.2 taxa was collected at the downstream site resulting in a metric score of 3. The upstream site recorded a metric score of 5 due to an average number of taxa (5.0)
(Table 12). Only two other samples (3.7 in 2000 and 4.1 in 2007) have recorded lower average numbers 11
of taxa at the downstream site; each received metric scores of 3 (Table 13). The observed value at the downstream site was within the range of variability of those recorded from 2000-2008.
Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms - The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" (Corbicula, Hexagenia, mussels, and snails) scored 2 points lower at the downstream site compared to the upstream site. Eighty percent of samples collected at the upstream site contained at least one long-lived organism, while 70% of samples contained a long-lived organism at the downstream site (Table 12). Three other samples years recorded observed values (each were 0.6) at the downstream site that were lower than that of 2009 (Table 13). The observed value at the downstream site was within the range of variability of those recorded from 2000-2008.
Average number of EPT taxa - The average number of EPT taxa present in each sample was similar between sites (0.5 downstream and 0.6 upstream) and resulted metric scores of 3 at each site (Table 12).
Average proportion of oligochaete individuals - The average proportion of oligochaete individuals in each sample was low at each site (4.4% downstream and 7.2% upstream), and therefore, recorded metric scores of 5 for both sites (Table 12).
Proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa - The proportion of total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa was similar between sites. At the downstream site, 83.9% of the total abundance was comprised of the two most abundant taxa (chironomids and Corbicula) resulting in a score of 3. At the upstream site, the total abundance comprised of the two most abundant taxa (chironomids and sphaeriids [fingernail clams]) was 81.2%, which also resulted in a metric score of 3 (Tables 12 and 14).
Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes - Average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were low (104.4 downstream and 81.7 upstream) resulting in metric scores of 1 at both sites.
Observed values at both sites have declined at both sites since the period from 2003 to 2005 when observed values for this metric were highest (Table 13).
Proportion of samples containing no organisms - There were no samples at either site which were void of any organism. Therefore, both sites recorded the highest possible score of 5 (Table 12).
In conclusion, two metrics ("average number of taxa" and "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms") scored lower at the downstream site compared to the upstream site, resulting in the 4-point difference. All other metric scores were equal between sites (Table 12). Although scores for each of these metrics were lower at the downstream site, the observed values were similar and within the range of variability observed at the downstream site from 2000 through 2008.
RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Hiwassee River embayment sites are included to provide additional information on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Chickamauga Reservoir (Table 15). RBI scores have averaged "Good" for the inflow and forebay sites and "Fair" for the Hiwassee River embayment over all sample years.
Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN Total average daily flows from Watts Bar Dam, Ocoee No. 1 Dam, and Apalchia Dam from October 2008 to October 2009 are shown in Figure 6. Daily average flows were similar (total daily average flows averaged 0.6% less) to historical daily average flows from 1976 through 2008.
12
Daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of the SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge, October 2008 through October 2009, are shown in Figure 7. Water temperatures remained within permitted limits throughout the year.
13
Literature Cited EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC.
Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. (1993) The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 pp.
Hickman, G. D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index-A potential measure of reservoir quality. In: D. DeVries (Ed.) Reservoir symposium-Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97.
Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American 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.
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA.
Reynolds, J. B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors.
Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
TWRC 2006. Strategic Plan, 2006-2012. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Nashville, TN.
March 2006. pp 124-125. http://tennessee.gov/twra/pdfs/StratPlan06-12.pdf Yoder, C.O., B.J. Armitage, and E.T. Rankin. 2006. Re-evaluation of the Technical Justification for Existing Ohio River Mainstem Temperature Criteria. Midwest Biodiversity Institute,
- Columbus, Ohio.
14
Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria.
Metric Scoring Criteria Score Cover Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic 5
vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 to 75 % of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25 % or > 75 % of the drawdown zone 3
Stable Cover in < 10 % of the drawdown zone 1
Substrate Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 5
Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 1,0 and 3
40 Erosion Canopy Cover Riparian Zone Percent substrate gravel < 10 Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody vegetation.
Areas of erosion small and infrequent. Potential for increased erosion due to less desirable vegetation cover (grasses) on > 25
% of bank surfaces.
Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along > 30% of shoreline.
Tree or shrub canopy > 60 % along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60 % along adjacent bank Tree or shrub canopy < 30 % along adjacent bank Width buffered > 18 meters Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters Width buffered < 6 meters 15
Table 1. (Continued)
Metric Scoring Criteria Score Habitat Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native 5
vegetation, boulders, gravel) present in proportions characteristic of high quality, sufficient to support all life history aspects of target species. Ready access to deeper sanctuary areas present.
Habitat diversity less than optimum. Most major habitats present, but 3
proportion of one is less than desirable, reducing species diversity.
No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas.
Habitat diversity is nearly lacking. One habitat dominates, leading to 1
lower species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas.
Gradient Drawdown zone gradient abrupt (> 1 meter per 10 meters). Less than 5
10 percent of shoreline with abrupt gradient due to dredging.
Drawdown zone gradient abrupt. (> 1 meter per 10 meters) in 10 to 3
40 % of the shoreline resulting from dredging. Rip-rap used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline.
Drawdown zone gradient abrupt in > 40 % of the shoreline resulting 1
from dredging. Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline.
16
Table 2. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickaiack. Tellico. and Watts Bar.
Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1
3 5
1 3
5 1
3 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5-Total species Total Centrarchid species Total benthic invertivores Total intolerant species Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Total top carnivore species
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Combined Combined Combined Combined Electrofishing Gill netting Electrofishing Gill netting Electrofishing Gill netting Combined Electrofishing Gill netting Electrofishing Gill netting Electrofishing Gill netting Electrofishing Gill netting
<14
<2
<4
<2
>62%
>28%
>50%
>29%
>4%
>16%
<4
<5%
<25%
>49%
>34%
<121
<12
>5%
>5%
14-27 2-4 4-7 2-4 31-62%
14-28%
25-50%
15-29%
2-4%
8-16%
4-7 5-10%
25-50%
24-49%
17-34%
121-241 12-24 2-5%
2-5%
>27
>4
>7
>4
<31%
<14%
<25%
<15%
<2%
<8%
>7
$10%
>50%
<24%
<17%
>241
>24
<2%
<2%
<15
<2
<4
<2
>62%
>32%
>40%
>28%
>6%
>9%
<4
<6%
<26%
>44%
>46%
<105
<12
>5%
>5%
15-29 2-4 4-7 2-4 31-62%
16-32%
20-40%
14-28%
3-6%
5-9%
4-7 6-11%
26-52%
2244%
23-46%
105-210 12-24 2-5%
2-5%
>29
>4
>7
>4
<31%
<16%
<20%
<14%
<3%
<5%
>7
>11%
>52%
<22%
<23%
>210
>24
<2%
<2%
<14
<3
<3
<2
>58%
14-27 3-4 3-6 2-4 29-58%
>27
>4
>6
>4
<29%
>46%
23-46%
<23%
>17%
8-17%
<8%
<3
<11%
3-6 11-22%
>6
>22%
>55%
27-55%
<27%
<51 51-102
>102
>5%
2-5%
<2%
17
Table 3. RBI scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community (field-processed samples) for forebay, transition zone, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream reservoirs in the Tennessee River system. Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar. TRM 482 was scored with forebay criteria and TRM 490.5 was scored with transition criteria Upper Mainstem Reservoirs Benthic Community Forebay Transition Zone Inflow Metrics 1
3 5
1 3
5 1
3 5
Average number of taxa
<2.4 2.5-4.7
>_4.8
- <2.1 2.2-4.3
>Ž4.4
_<2.8 2.9-5.7
_>5.8 Proportion of samples with long-lived
- <0.4 0.5-0.7
>_0.8
- 0.3 0.4-0.7
>0.8
- 0.3 0.4-0.7
>_0.8 organisms Average number of EPT
- <0.3 0.4-0.7
Ž_0.8
- 0.3 0.4-0.7
Ž_0.8
- <0.3 0.4-0.7
Ž_0.8 Average proportion of oligochaete
- <118 119-235
Ž-236
Ž28.0 14.0-27.9
- 13.9
Ž_40.0 20.1-39.9
- <20.0 individuals Average proportion of total abundance
Ž_29.7 14.9-29.6
- <14.8
Ž>87.8 78.8-87.7
- <78.7
Ž>85.0 78.8-84.9
- <78.7 comprised by the two most abundant taxa Average density excluding chironomids and
Ž90.7 81.4-90.6
- <81.3
_<291 292-580
>Ž581
- <568 569-1152
Ž1153 oligochaetes Zero-samples - proportion of samples
>Ž0.2 0.1 0
>_0.2 0.1 0
Ž_0.2 0.1 0
containing no organisms 18
Table 4. SAHI scores for 16 shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the upstream RFAI sampling area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, autumn 2009. Scores are shown for eight shoreline sections on the left descending bank (LD) and eight shoreline sections along the right descending bank (RD). Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35).
1(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD)
Avg.
Latitude 35.26755 35.27312 35.27784 35.28179 35.28669 35.29674 35.20021 35.3037 Longitude
-85.09749
-85.09602
-85.09093
-85.08571
-85.0741
-85.06678
-85.06367
-85.06049 Aquatic Macrophytes 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SAHI Variables Cover 1
1 5
1 5
1 1
3 2
Substrate 5
1 1
1 3
5 3
5 3
Erosion 1
5 1
5 5
3 1
3 3
Canopy Cover 5
5 5
5 1
5 5
5 5
Riparian Zone 5
5 5
5 1
5 5
5 5
Habitat 1
1 3
1 3
1 1
3 Slope 1
1 1
1 3
3 3
3 2
Total 19 19 21 19 21 23 19 27 22 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair I(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD)
Avg.
Latitude 35.26823 35.27665 35.28347 35.28747 35.29329 35.30095 35.30458 35.3092 Longitude
-85.108
-85.10484
-85.09809
-85.09035
-85.08268
-85.07718
-85.07455
-85.07194 Aquatic Macrophytes 0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SAHI Variables Cover 3
1 5
5 3
3 5
1 3
Substrate 5
5 5
5 1
5 1
1 4
Erosion 1
1 5
5 5
5 5
3 4
Canopy Cover 5
5
-1 3
5 3
3 1
3 Riparian Zone 5
5 1
1 5
1 1
1 3
Habitat 1
3 3
3 1
3 3
1 2
Slope 1
1 1
1 1
3 1
3 2
Total 21 21 21 23 21 23 19 11 21 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair 19
Table 5. SAHI Scores for 16 Shoreline Habitat Assessments Conducted within the Downstream RFAI Sampling Area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009. Scores are Shown for Eight Shoreline Sections on the Left Descending Bank (LD) and Eight Shoreline Sections Along the Right Descending Bank (RD). Scoring Criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and good (27-35).
I(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD)
Avg.
Latitude 35.19455 35.20021 35.20443 35.20584 35.20617 35.2061 35.20865 35.21104 Longitude
-85.11967
-85.11858
-85.11671
-85.11346
-85.10754
-85.10212
-85.09711
-85.09188 Aquatic Macrophytes 0%
0%
15%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
2%
SAHI Variables Cover 5
5 5
5 3
1 1
3 4
Substrate 1
1 1
3 1
1 1
1 1
Erosion 3
5 3
3 3
1 3
5 3
Canopy Cover 5
3 5
5 5
5 1
1 4
Riparian Zone 5
3 5
5 5
5 1
3 4
Habitat 3
3 3
3 1
1 3
1 2
Slope 3
5 5
3 5
5 1
1 4
Total 25 25 27 27 23 19 11 15 22 Rating Fair Fair Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair I(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD)
Avg.
Latitude 35.19718 35.20069 35.20722 35.20967 35.21449 35.21521 35.21565 35.2159 Longitude
-85.12923
-85.12331
-85.12156
-85.11884
-85.1115
-85:10953
-85.10047 * -85.09368 Aquatic Macrophytes 0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
5%
25%
0%
5%
SAHI Variables Cover 3
5 5
3 1
3 5
3 4
Substrate 3
1 3
3 1
1 1
1 2
Erosion 5
5 5
5 3
3 1
5 4
Canopy Cover 5
5 5
1 1
1 5
1 3
Riparian Zone 5
5 5
1 1
1 3
5 3
Habitat 1
3 3
3
- 1.
1 3
1 2
Slope 3
1 3
1 5
5 5
5 4
Total 25 25 29 17 13 15 23 21 22 Rating Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair 20
Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482.0) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Downstream site (TRM 482) scored with forebay criteria, while upstream site (TRM 490.5) scored with transition criteria.
Autumn 2009 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species (Tables 7 and 8) 21 Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus)
- 3. Number of benthic invertivore Species 23 3
29 3
5 Black crappie Bluegill Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish 3
Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Spotted sucker 4
Brook silverside Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 6
Black crappie Bluegill Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth 3
Freshwater drum Logperch Spotted sucker 4
Brook silverside Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 5
1
- 4. Number of intolerant species 3
21
Table 6. (Continued)
Autumn 2009 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 75.4%
Bluegill 51.07%
Bluntnose minnow 0.85%
Common carp 0.32%
Gizzard shad 10.98%
Golden shiner 0.75%
Largemouth bass 6.18%
Redbreast sunfish 3.62%
Spotfin shiner 1.60%
37.1%
Bluegill 4.29%
Gizzard shad 25.0%
Golden shiner 4.29%
Largemouth bass 3.57%
69.3%
Bluegill 39.78%
Bluntnose minnow 1.10%
Common carp 0.3 1%
Gizzard shad 15.37%
Golden shiner 1.19%
Largemouth bass 5.02%
Redbreast sunfish 3.88%
Spotfin shiner 2.60%
29.7%
Bluegill 1.29%
Gizzard shad 25.16%
0.5 Golden shiner 0.65%
Largemouth bass 1.94%
Longnose gar 0.65%
0.5 Gill Netting 1.5
- 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing 51.1%
Bluegill 39.8%
0.5 Bluegill 1.5 25.0%
Gizzard shad 25.2%
1.5 Gizzard shad 1.5
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species 5.3%
Common carp 0.32%
Inland silverside 4.48%
Yellow perch 0.53%
4.3%
Common carp 0.3 1%
0.5 Inland silverside 3.57%
Yellow perch 0.40%
1.5 22
Table 6 (Continued)
Autumn 2009 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting 0.0%
- 8. Number of top carnivore species 8
Black crappie Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted gar White bass Yellow bass 0.6%
2.5 Yellow perch 0.65%
10 Black crappie Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Longnose gar 5
Sauger Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted gar White bass Yellow bass 13.0%
Black crappie 4.14%
Flathead catfish 0.40%
Hybrid bass 0.13%
Largemouth bass 5.02%
2.5 Smallmouth bass 0.62%
Spotted bass 1.94%
Spotted gar 0.44%
White bass 0.04%
Yellow bass 0.22%
2.5 5
B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent topecamivores Electrofishing 14.0%
Black crappie 2.56%
Flathead catfish 0.21%
Largemouth bass 6.18%
Smallmouth bass 1.17%
Spotted bass2.77%
Spotted gar 0.96%
White bass 0.11%
2.5 23
Table 6. (Continued)
Autumn 2009 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score Gill Netting
- 10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 33.6%
Black crappie 7.86%
Largemouth bass 3.57%
Smallmouth bass 0.7 1%
Spotted bass 12.14%
Spotted gar 0.7 1%
White bass 1.43%
Yellow bass 7.14%
14.2%
Bluntnose minnow 0.85%
Channel catfish 1.28%
Common carp 0.32%
Gizzard shad 10.98%
Golden shiner 0.75%
50.7%
Blue catfish 13.57%
Channel catfish 7.86%
Gizzard shad 25.0%
Golden shiner 4.29%
43.9%
Black crappie 5.16%
Flathead catfish 1.94%
Largemouth bass 1.94%
1.5 Longnose gar 0.65%
Sauger 3.23%
Spotted bass 10.32%
White bass 0.65%
Yellow bass 20.0%
18.8%
Bluntnose minnow 1.10%
Channel catfish 0.84%
2.5 Common carp 0.3 1%
Gizzard shad 15.37%
Golden shiner 1.19%
31.0%
Blue catfish 1.94%
0.5 Channel catfish 3.23%
Gizzard shad 25.16%
Golden shiner 0.65%
1.5 2.5 Gill Netting 1.5 24
Table 6. (Continued)
Autumn 2009 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 62.5 0.5 151.3 1.5 Gill Netting 14 1.5 15.5 1.5
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.2%
2.5 2.0%
1.5 Gill Netting 0.7%
2.5 0.0%
2.5 Overall RFAI Score 37 41 Fair Good
- TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 2).
RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent")
25
Table 7. Species Listing, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance classification along with Catch per unit Effort during Fall Electrofishing and Gill netting (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill netting Effort = net-nights) at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, Autumn 2009.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per al Gill Totlish Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
TOL 6.87 31.69 103 3.50 35 138 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.20 0.92 3
3 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X
TOL 0.47 2.15 7
0.60 6
13 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X
TOL 1.00 4.62 15 15 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X
TOL 0.53 2.46 8
8 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X
X TOL 2.27 10.46 34 34 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X
X TOL 31.93 147.38 479 0.60 6
485 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X
TOL 3.87 17.85 58 0.50 5
63 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X
INT 0.27 1.23 4
4 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X
X TNT 0.13 0.62 2
2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X
INT 0.73 3.38 11 0.10 1
12 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X
INT 0.27 1.23 4
4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X
0.60 2.77 9
0.10 1
10 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK X
0.20 0.92 3
3 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X
0.10 1
1 Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM X
1.90 19 19 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X
0.80 3.69 12 1.10 11 23 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X
0.13 0.62 2
2 White bass Morone chrysops TC X
0.07 0.31 1
0.20 2
3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X
1.00 10 10 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X
X 5.33 24.62 80 1.20 12 92 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X
1.73 8.00 26 1.70 17 43 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X
X 1.60 7.38 24 1.10 11 35 Yellow perch Perca flavescens IN 0.33 1.54 5
5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X
0.40 1.85 6
0.30 3
9 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 2.80 12.92 42 42 Total 62.53 288.61 938 14.00 140 1,078 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 15 26
Table 8. Species Listing, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance classification along with Catch per unit Effort during Fall Electrofishing and Gill netting (Electrofishing Effort = 300 Meters of Shoreline and Gill netting Effort = net-nights) at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, Autumn 2009.
Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting To TrophicTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per fish Catch Rate Per level species species Run hour EF n
Run Hour Net Night TC X
TOL 0.10 tal Gill Total fish et fish Combined Common Name Longnose gar Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Hybrid bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Chestnut lamprey Total Number Samples Species Collected Scientific name Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepbmis auritus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Hybrid micropterus sp.
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Perca flavescens Percina caprodes Stizostedion canadense Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM OM OM IN OM IN IN TC BI IN TC TN TC PK IN OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC TC IN BI TC BI TN PS TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT 23.27 0.47 1.80 3.93 1.67 5.87 60.20 7.60 0.20 2.20 0.93 1.53 0.67 13.67 0.27 1.27 0.60 0.07 0.33 0.47 7.67 2.93 0.20 6.27 0.60 0.07 1.07 5.40 0.13 151.36 15 29 74.41 1.49 5.76 12.58 5.33 18.76 192.54 24.31 0.64 7.04 2.99 4:90 2.13 43.71 0.85 4.05 1.92 0.21 1.07 1.49 24.52 9.38 0.64 20.04 1.92 0.21 3.41 17.27 0.43 484.00 349 7
27 59 25 88 903 114 3
33 14 23 10 205 4
19 9
1 5
7 115 44 3
94 9
1 16 81 2
2,270 3.90 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.10 0.30 0.50 0.30 0.10 3.10 3.30 1.60 0.80 0.10 0.50 0.20 15.50 10 17 1
.1 39 388 7
28 59 25 88 2
905 3
117 4
33 14 23 10 205 4
3 3
5 24 3
12 1
2 31 36 7
33 148 16 60 3
8 102 1
10 1
5 5
2 18 81 2
155 2,425 27
Table 9. Fish Species Collected Including Provisions for the Identification of the Representative Important Species at Areas Upstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: Benthic Invertivore (1I), Insectivore (IN),
Omnivore (OM), Parasitic (PS), Planktivore (PK), Top Carnivore (TC). Tolerance: Tolerant (TOL), Intolerant (INT)
Ind s Representative AThermally Threatened or Commercially Recreationally Importa Nuisance (Pollution)
Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable Common Name Scientific name species S
Species Federal Status Species Species Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
X TO X
X Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM X
X TO Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X
X TO Spotfin shiner Cyprinella.spiloptera IN X
X TO Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X
X TO Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritis IN X
X TO X
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X
X TO X
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X
X TO X
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X
X TNT X
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X
X INT X
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X
X INT X
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X
X INT X
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X
X Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK X
X X
X Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X
X Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus OM X
X X
X Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X
X X
X Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X
X X
White bass Morone chrysops TC X
X X
Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X
X X
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X
X X
Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus TC X
X X
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X
X X
Yellow perch Perca flavescens MN X
X X
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X
X Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN X
X Totals 23 26 2
1 0
4 17 28
Table 10. Fish Species Collected Including Provisions for the Identification of the Representative Important Species at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: Benthic Invertivore (1I), Insectivore (IN),
Omnivore (OM), Parasitic (PS), Planktivore (PK), Top Carnivore (TC). Tolerance: Tolerant (TOL), Intolerant (INT).
TrophicoulevelrendigenousAquatic Tolerance Thermally Threatened or Commercially Recreationally Common NameeSientifcenal species Important NuiSensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable Common Name Scientific name Species Nuisance (Pollution)
Species Federal Status Species Species Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X
X TO Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
X TO X
X Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Hybrid bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Chestnut lamprey Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritis Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictalurus furcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Hybrid micropterus sp.
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Perca flavescens Percina caprodes Stizostedion canadense Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM OM IN OM IN IN TC BI IN TC IN TC PK IN OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC TC IN BI TC BI IN PS x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x.
x x
x x
TO TO TO TO TO TO TO INT INT TNT 1NT x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x Totals 29 32 2
3 0
5 22 29
Table 11. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir
- TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 2).
RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent")
Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average Inflow Transition SQN Upstream TRM529.0 52
- 52.
48 42 44 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 42 42 44 44 TRMI490.5 51 40 48 44 39 45 46 45 51 42 49 46 47 44 34 41 Forebay SQN TRM482.0 47 41 48 46 43 45
- 41.
39 35 38 38 37 Downstream 45 45 42 44 42 Forebay TRM472.3 43 44 47 40 45 45 48 46 43 43 46 43 41 41 42 Hiwassee River HiRM 8.5 46 39 39 40 43 43 47 36 42 45 41 42 Embayment 30
Table 12. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009.
Downstream Upstream TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating
- 1. Average number of taxa 4.2 3
5 5
- 2. Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms 0.7 3
0.8 5
- 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.5 3
0.6 3
- 4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 4.4 5
7.2 5
- 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two 83.9 3
81.2 3
most abundant taxa
- 6. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes 104.4 1
81.7 1
- 7. Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no organisms Benthic Index Score 23 27 Fair Good
- TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 3).
Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"),
30-35 ("Excellent")
31
Table 13. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2009.
Downstream (TRM 2000 2001 2002 2003
'1. 2004 2005 200611
-2007 201018 2009 482.0) i Metric
'O*sis Score, Ohs Score Obs Score, Ohs Score Obs Score. Ohs Score iiQbs.Score Obs Score Obs Score: Obs Score Avg No. Taxa 3.7 3-6.2 5
5.4 i5 5.7 5
6.3 5
6.6 5
4.9 5
4.1 3
,-Si f 5 1 5
4.2 3
% Long-Lived (9~
5 0.8 5
1 0.6 3
1 5
0.9 5
0 5
0.6 3
0.6 3
0.7 3
Avg. No. EPT taxa 0.3 1
0.6 3
0.3 1
0.5 3
0.7 3
0.7 3
0.5 3
0.6 31 0.5 3
% Oligochaetes 27.9 3
27.1 3
9.4 5
8.8 5
15 3
17.3 3
6.3 5
21.7 4.4 5
%Dominant Taxa 87.6 3
80.8 5
79.8 5
68.4
. 79 5
78.1 5
90.6 3
iS.i3.
i
... 3-i 83.9 3
Density excl chiro and oligo 348.3 5
365 5
580 5
5 63.3) 5'573.3 5
265 5
125 3
166.7
.3.
104.4 1
Zero Samples 5i+
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 50, 0
5 0
5 0
5 0*+
5 0
5 Overall Score 23 31 29 29
%'i 334 31' 31 25 25 23 Upstream (TRM 2000 2001 2002 2003 i2004 2005 i2006 2007 2008 2009 4 90.5)++++t+i+t+i++
++ +"
++++++++++++++
- iiii i iiii iii +i Metric Ohs Score Ohs Score Obs -Scorei Ohs Score Obs' Score' Ohs Score Ohs' Score Ohs Score !Obs Score Ohs Score AvgNo. Taxa 4.7' ii 6
5 6.4 5
7.4 5
7 5
6.8 5
- 05.
5*4 4.7 5
5.4 i5 5 5
%Long-Lived 0.9
'5 0.9 5
ii5 0.9 5
- .0.9. i 5 0.9
- 5.
- 0. 8 5
0.5 3
0.3 1
0.8 5
Avg. No. EPTtaxa 03
-1 0.4 3
().2 0.7 3
07 3
0.9 5
0.5 3
0.3 1
.0.1 1
0.6 3
% Oligochaetes 77.'
14.8 3
i i.4 I0.7 5
64 5
4.4 5
"2.5 5
5.2 5
16.7 3
7.2 5
% Dominant Taxa 884*4 79.4 3
85 3
71 5
79.8 3
83.1 3
93.4 1
95 1
81.2 3
Densityiion l!8.3,1 230 1
168c6 18 341.7 3
571.7 3
479.2 3
223.3 1
56.7 1
31.7 1
81.7 1
and oligo Zero Samples 5
0 5
0 5
0 5
0 0
5 0
5 0
0 5
Overall Score 23
+
25 25 31 31 ii 31 27 21 17 27 32
Table 14. Comparison of Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2008 and Autumn 2009.
2009 2008 Downstream Upstream Downstream Upstream Taxa TRM 482 TRM 490.5 TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae 5
Oligocheata Oligochaetes 15 18 133 93 Hirudinea 7
35 3
Crustacea Amphipoda 57 12 Isopoda Insecta Ephemeroptera Mayflies other than Hexagenia 3
Ephemeridae Hexagenia(*<10 mm) 2 2
8 Hexagenia (>10 mm) 37 18 7
2 Trichoptera
- Caddisflies 15 Chironomidae Chironomids 164 285 238 352 Gastropoda Snails 13 5
17 3
Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Mussels 2
2 Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula (S 10mm) 40 5
48 2
Corbicula (>1Omm) 11 12 13 Sphaeriidae
.Fingernail clams 26 27 8
20 Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha 9
3 8---
Density of organisms per meter2 348 296 507 711 Number of samples 10 10 10 10 Total area sampled (meter 2) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 33
Table 15. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1994-2009 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 2009 Average Inflow TRM 527.4 29 27 33 35 31 23 23 23 28 Inflow TRM 518.0 19
.31 25 21 23 29 23
- 27.
35 29 33 25 31 27 Transition SQnstrea TRM 490.5 33 29 31 31 23 25 25 31 31 31 27 21 17 27 27 SQN Upstream Forebay TRM 482.0 23 31 29 29 33 31 31 25 25 23 28 SQN Downstream Forebay TRM472.3 31 27 29 25 27 27 21 27 29 27 29 19
.25 23 26 Hiwassee River Hiwassee HiRM 8.5 17 27 25 21 21 31 25 13 19 22 Embayment
- TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 3).
Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12
("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")
34
5Wats Bar Dame Watts Bar Dam 0
- 1.
i..
1 5 36Mie Chickarnauge Late Soddy-Daisy Sequoyph Nuclear Power, Plant Middle ValleN Ki:
Cleteland 0
Red Batik4 Chcaag a
Nickael-kcAke Chattanooga 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.
35
+
ikimmer wal CCW discharge to diffuser on reservoir bottom Figure 2. Map of SQN showing location of CCW intake and discharge.
36
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 N35 12.800 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.
37
Electrofishing locations Gill net locations 340 N35 16.138 W85 05.848 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 18.371 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 electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red diamonds represent gill net locations.
38
Figure 5. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) intake and downstream of SQN discharge during October 2008 through November 2009. Station 14 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the SQN intake and was located at TRM 490.4. Station 8 was used for temperatures downstream of SQN discharge and was located at TRM 483.4.
39
100000 90000
=
FY 2009 Daily Average 80000
-Historic Daily Average 1976-2008 70000 60000 4i-50000 0
L 40000 30000 20000 10000 Date Figure 6. Total daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from WattsBar, Apalachia, and Ocoee 1 Dams, October 2008 through November 2009 and historic total daily average flows averaged for the same period 1976 through 2008.
40
100 90 80 7-60 M
50 CL 40 E
I*
30
-Upstream of SQN 20 Downstream of SQN 10 0
Date Figure 7. Daily average water temperatures (°F) at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake (Station 14) and
- downstream of SQN discharge (Station 8), October 2008 through November 2009.
41
Appendix A Historical RFAI Scores Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Areas Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2008 42
Table A-1. 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 indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species (less Micropterus) 30 species 7 species Bluegill Redbreast sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie White crappie 3 species Spotted sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 5
27 species 8 species Green sunfish Bluegill Redbreast sunfish 5
Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Black crappie White crappie 3 species Spotted sucker Freshwater drum Logperch 3 species Spotted sucker 5
Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass 3
5
- 3. Number of benthic invertivore species 1
- 4. Number of intolerant species 5 species Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Mooneye 3
43
Appendix A-1 (Continued)
Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 80.7%
Bluegill 58.2%
Gizzard shad 9.0%
Redbreast sunfish 7.8%
Largemouth bass 1.8%
Spotfin shiner 1.7%
Bluntnose minnow 1.2%
Golden shiner 0.9%
Common carp 0.2%
41.9%
Gizzard shad 38.2%
Largemouth bass 2.1%
White crappie 0.5%
Longnose gar 0.5%
86.7%
Bluegill 54.0%
Gizzard shad 27.6%
Redbreast sunfish 1.9%
0.5 Largemouth bass 1.6%
Spotfin shiner 0.5%
Golden shiner 1.1%
Green sunfish 0.2%
47.5%
Gizzard shad 44.2%
0.5 Largemouth bass 2.8%
White crappie 0.6%
0.5 Gill Netting 0.5
- 6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing Gill Netting 58.2%
Bluegill 53.9%
0.5 Bluegill 0.5 38.2%
Gizzard shad 44.2%
0.5 Gizzard shad.
0.5
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 2.3%
Inland silverside 1.9%
Yellow perch 0.2%
Common carp 0.2%
4%
Inland silverside 3.9%
Yellow perch 0.08%
1.5 2.5 Gill Netting 0%
2.5 0%
44
Appendix A-1 (Continued)
Autumn 2008 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores 11 species Spotted gar Longnose gar Largemouth bass Spotted bass Smallmouth bass White bass Yellow bass Flathead catfish White crappie Black crappie Sauger 9 species Spotted gar Largemouth bass Spotted bass Smallmouth bass 5
White bass Yellow bass Flathead catfish White crappie Black crappie 5
Electrofishing Gill Netting 4.7%
Largernouth bass 1.8%
Spotted bass 1.7%
Smallmouth bass 0.2%
Spotted gar 0.8%
Black crappie 0.3%
47.1%
Largemouth bass 2.1%
Spotted bass 23.0%
White bass 1.6%
Yellow bass 7.3%
Flathead catfish 1.0%
White crappie 0.5%
Black crappie 10.5%
Sauger 0.5%
Longnose gar 0.5%
5.4%
Largemouth bass 1.6%
Spotted bass 1.1%
Smallmouth bass 0.6%
Spotted gar 0.9%
Black crappie 0.6%
Flathead catfish 0.6%
40.3%
Largemouth bass 2.8%
Spotted bass 1.1%
White bass 1.1%
1.5 Yellow bass 20.4%
Flathead catfish 2.2%
White crappie 0.6%
Black crappie 12.2%
0.5 1.5 45
Appendix A-1 (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%
Golden shiner 0.9%
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 1.1. 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")
46
Table A-2. 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 indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species/
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 26 6
3 4
75.7 37.7 36.3 31.6 0.7 0.4 9
6.4 40.4 22 51.3 37.3 22.8 1.4 1.3 3
5 1
3 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 31 8
3 4
76.5 29 29.7 27.7 1
0 11 10.7 62 33.9 27.7 54.9 32.1 1.6 0.6 5
5 1
3 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 38 44 Fair Good 47
Table A-3. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2006 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Ohs Score Ohs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing
'Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 26 6
3 3
72.4 29.6 33.6 22.5 4.2 0
8 6.5 40.8 24.6 47.9 60.9 14.2 0.4 3.5 3
5 1
3 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 31 7
4 5
70.1 30 35.3 25.2 0
0 10 8.3 51.2 37.2 27.2 49.1 25 0.3 0.4 5
5 3
5 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 35 47 Fair Good I-48
Table A-4. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2005 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 27 7
3 5
70.2 43.4 25.1 41 0.2 0
9 7.3 34 26 58 58.5 21.5 0.9 0
3 5
1 5
0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 29 7
4 7
76.2 23 39.4 19.8 0.8 0
9 14.2 45.2 19.9 37.3 41.8 12.6 0.8 0
3 5
3 5
0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 39 46 Fair Good 49
Table A-5. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2004 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting, Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 27 6
3 5
58.8 45.9 30.4 29.6 0.9 0.6 9
9.6 39.6 19.4 48.4 60.8 15.9 1.5 0
3 5
1 5
1.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 32 8
4 5
55.1 22.9 29.6 20.7 0.8 0.5 11 19.9 50.5 15.0 33.0 49.3 18.8 1.2 0.5 5
5 3
5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 41 49 Good Good 50
Table A-6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and
'Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2003 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 25 6
3 5
54.7 26.4 24.8 19.6 0.3 0.7 11 11.2 37.2 20.4 39.2 45.7 14.8 0:3 0.7 3
5 1
5 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 29 8
3 5
67.0 29.7 31.2 28.1 1.1 0.8 10 11.8 31.3 20.8 44.2 41.3 24.9 1.0 6.4 3
5 1
5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 0.5
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Overall RFAI Score 45 42 Good Good 51
Table A-7. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2002 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Ohs Score Ohs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species 24 3
30 5
- 2. Number of centrarchid species 7
5 8
5
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores 3
1 5
3
- 4. Number of intolerant species 5
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 1 species Electrofishing 30.6 1.5 32.0 1.5 Gill Netting 42.0 0.5 34.8 0.5
- 7. Percent non-indigenous 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 0o 2.5 0
2.5 Overall RFAI Score 43 51 Good Excellent
'52
Table A-8. 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 indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 29 7
3 5
67.7 29.5 45.4 23.6 0.1 0
11 7.4 56.8 11.4 32.4 59.5 35.2 1.5 1.7 5
5 1
5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
1.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 31 8
3 5
60 34 17.5 28.1 2
0.2 10 13.5 49.4 28.6 32.9 37 44.1 2.5 0
5 5
I 5
1.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 46 45 Good Good 53
t Table A-9. 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 indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 28 7
2 5
66.5 4.9 37.5 23 0.2 1.6 9
11.2 57.4 21.4 14.8 55.3 6.1 1.7 1.6.
5 5
1 5
0.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 23 7
2 5
54.4 8
25.1 25.5 4.5 3.6 10 23.3 78.1 20.5 4.4 22.1 13.7 3
1.5 3
5 1
5 1.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 5
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 48 46 Good Good 54
Table A-10. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Sites Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.
Downstream Upstream Autumn 2000 TRM 482.0 TRM 490.5 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species
- 2. Number of centrarchid species
- 3. Number of benthic invertivores
- 4. Number of intolerant species
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals
- 6. Percent dominance by 1 species
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species
- 8. Number of top carnivore species B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores
- 10. Percent omnivores C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting Electrofishing Gill Netting 25 5
.3 5
26.3 45.3 21 42 7.4 0
9 9.9 27.1 15.6 59.7 16.2 18.1 0.8 0.6 3
5 1
5 2.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 5
1.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 2.5 2.5 28 6
4 5
38 49.2 16.3 48.4 2.4 0
10 17.8 38.1 17.8 51.2 13.9 24.4 2.9 0
3 5
3 5
1.5 0.5 2.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 5
2.5 1.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 1.5 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 41 45 Good Good 55
Appendix B 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.
56
Table B-i. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per 1Gil Ttlfs Common Name Scientific name level speciesspecies Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X
TOL 0.10.
1 1
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
TOL 7.20 30.08 108 7.30 73 181 Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Mooneye Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Emerald shiner Spotted gar Threadfin shad Steelcolor shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Hybrid bass Black crappie Yellow perch Freshwater drum Sauger Logperch Inland silverside Total Number Samples Species Collected Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Hiodon tergisus Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Notropis atherinoides Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Cyprinella whipplei Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris
.Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Hybrid micropterus sp.
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Aplodinotus grunniens Sander canadensis Percina caprodes Menidia beryllina OM OM IN OM IN IN TC TC IN BI IN TC IN IN TC PK IN OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC TC IN BI TC BI x
- x
- x x
x x
x
- x x
x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x
x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x X
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TNT INT TNT INT TNT TOL 0.13 0.73 1.33 0.93 6.20 46.33 1.40 0.33 1.27 0.13 0.07 0.27 0.60 1.47 0.07 0.27 1.20 0.07 5.73 1.33 0.07 0.20 0.13 0.40 0.27 0.56 3.06 5.57 3.90 25.91 193.59 5.85 1.39 5.29 0.56 0.28 1.11 2.51 6.13 0.28 1.11 5.01 2
11 20 14 93 695 21 5
19 2
1 4
9 22 1
4 18 0.10 0.40 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 1.20 0.50 0.20 0.30 1.40.
4.40 2.00 0.70 0.10 2
11 20 14 94 695 25 1
1 6
19 2
1 4
9 23 1
16 23 2
3 14 1
86 64 1
23 2
13 1
4 0.28 23.96 5.57 0.28 0.84 0.56 1.67 1.11 6 41 86 20 1
3 2
6 4
IN 1 53 23 79.66 332.87 1195 19.1 191 1386 15 10 27 17 57
Table B-2. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2008.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous 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 23.80 116.67 357 8.00 80 437 Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Smallmouth buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Freshwater drum TnI-A O
-iA*rtt Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Ictiobus bubalus Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina OM IN IN IN IN TC TC BI IN TC TC PK IN IN OM OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC IN BI BI TKT x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x.
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x X
TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT TNT 0.93 0.40 1.60 0.13 46.53 1.40 0.13 0.07 0.53.
0.73 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.07 0.20 0.53 4.58 1.96 7.84 0.65 228.10 6.86 0.65 0.33 2.61 3.59 0.98 0.98 2.94 0.33 0.98 2.61 14 6
24 2
698 21 2
1 8
11 3
3 9
1 3
8 1
42 14 8
1 4
2 0.50 0.10 0.70 0.20 0:40 0.20 3.70 1.30 0.20 2.20 0.60 5
7 2
4 2
37 13 2
22 14 6
24 2
698 26 1
2 1
8 11 3
3 9
1 7
5 12 2
37 1
55 16 30 1
4 8
0.07 2.80 0.93 0.53 0.07 0.27 0.13 1 AO 0.33 13.73 4.58 2.61 0.33 1.31 0.65 1Ir f~7 6
Total 86.25
.422.87 1294 18.1 181 1475 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 12 58
Table B-3. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Gill Netting Tot ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per al Gill Total fish Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X
TOL 0.10 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 Pimephales notatus 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 Micropterus salmoides
. 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 Dorosoma petenense PK X
0.13 0.63 2
0.10 1
3 Hybrid shad Hybrid dorosoma OM X
0.30 3
3 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X
2.67 12.66 40 40 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax 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 Ictalurus punctatus 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 microlophus IN X
X "2.67 12.66 40 0.30 3
43 Spotted bass Micropterus punctulatus 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 Aplodinotus grunniens 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 59
Table B-4. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2007.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per.net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Le isosteus osseus TC X
TOL 0.10 1
1 Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Smallmouth buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Hybrid bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Freshwater drum Inland silverside Chestnut lamprey Total Number Samples Species Collected Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Microplerus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pirnephales vigilax Ictiobus bubalus Ictalurusfurcalus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punclulatus Hybrid micropterus sp.
Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina Ichthvomvzon castaneus OM OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI IN TC TC PK IN IN OM OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC TC IN BI BI IN x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL 1NT INT INT INT 16.33 0.27 1.67 0.60 0.20 6.27 0.33 15.20 1.13 0.13 0.87 0.33 1.67 0.07 2.40 0.07 0.07 0.07 1.07 0.13 0.27 2.93 1.27 0.13 0.13 0.07 0.47 0.60 0.20 71.64 1.17 7.31 2.63 0.88 27.49 1.46 66.67 4.97 0.58 3.80 1.46 7.31 0.29 10.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 4.68 0.58 1.17 12.87 5.56 0.58 0.58 0.29 2.05 2.63 0.88 245 4
25 9
3 94 5
228
.17 7.70 0.20 2
13 5
25 1
36 1
1 1
16 2
4 44 19 2
2 1
7 9
3 0.30 0.90 0.10 3.20 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.70 0.20 0.10 0.20 8.90 1.20 0.70 5.60 1.40 n 1n 77 322 4
2 27 9
3 94 5
3 231 9
26 1
1 32 32 3
5 13 5
1 26 36 1
2 7
7 2
3 1
17 2
2 89 91 4
12 56 7
26 2
56 58 I
7 14 23 3
1 I
PS x
010 1
1 54.95 240.93 824 32.10 321 1,145 15 10 29 20 60
Table B-5. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2006.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per IS Catch Rate Per al Gill Totlish level species spce u
or EF net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X
TOL 0.20 2
2 Gizzard shad Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Western mosquitofish Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Spotted gar Threadfin shad Hybrid shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Inland silverside Total Number Samples Species Collected Dorosoma cepedianum Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Gambusia affinis Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Hybrid dorosoma Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone mississippiensis Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina OM OM IN OM IN IN IN IN TC TC BI IN TC PK OM IN IN OM OM TC TC IN TC TC BI BI 1N x
- x
- x x x xx x
x x
x x
x
- x xx x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
- x x
x
- x x
x
- x
- x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT TNT INT 12.53 0.27 2.53 2.00 0.07 4.67 0.07 20.47 1.53 0.13 0.73 0.13 0.33 1.73 0.13 0.20 0.13 7.47 2.00 0.13 1.00 0.13 2.53 60.91 54.65 1.16 11.05 8.72 0.29 20.35 0.29 89.24 6.69 0.58 3.20 0.58 1.45 7.56 0.58 0.87 0.58 32.56 8.72 0.58 4.36 0.58 11.05 265.69 188 4
38 30 1
70 1
307 23 2
11 2
5 26 2
3 2
112 30 2
15 2
38 914 3.20 0.20 0.50 0.10 2.10 0.10 0.50 1.50 1.40 0.30 0.90 0.70 0.90 1.30 0.30 14.20 10 16 32 220 2
6 38 30 70 5
312 1
24 21 21 1
3 11 2
5 5
5 26 2
15 15 14 17 3
5 9
9 7
119 9
39 13 15 15 3
5 38 142 1,056 15 23 61
Table B-6. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous 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 Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total Gill Netting ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per al Gill Total fish level species pecies Run Hour EF Net Night net fish' Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
TOL 17.33 84.14 260 6.30 63 323 Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Chestnut lamprey Total Number Samples Species Collected Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notalus Lepomis aurilus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris Hypentelium nigricans Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinolus grunniens Menidia beryllina Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC BI BI IN TC TC PK IN IN OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC BI TC BI IN PS x
x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x'
x
- x x
x
- x.
x
- x X
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT 0.60 0.40 0.07 4.33 0.07 11.40 0.27 0.07 0.33 1.00 1.13 0.07 3.87 1.53 0.07 0.27 020 2.91 1.94 0.32 21.04 0.32 55.34 1.29 0.32 1.62 4.85 5.50 0.32 18.77 7.44 0.32 1.29 0.97 0.32 S13.59 7.77 3.88 1.29 0.97 1.94 238.46 9
6 1
65 1
171 4
1 5
15 17 1
58 23 1
4 3
0.80 0.40 3.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.80 5.50 3.70 1.00 1.80 0.10 0.60 0.10 25.00 10 17 8
4 31 4
8 55 37 10 18 10 6
1 250 9
6 1
65 1
179 8
31 1
6 15 18 1
59 23 1
1 8
3 8
55 1
79 34 30 4
1 9
6 1
987 0.07 2.80 1.60 0.80 0.27 0.20 0.40 49.15 15 25 42 24 12 4
3 6
737 62 62
Table B-7. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2005.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish C nulevel species s
Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X
TOL 0.10 11 Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Inland ý; h--r;,A.
Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Pimephales notalus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictalurusfurcatus lctalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina OM OM OM OM IN IN IN TC TC BI IN TC IN PK IN OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC BI BI TM x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL.
INT INT INT INT INT i3.53 0.13 1.07 0.07 10.13 0.13 14.67 1.33 0.20 0.80 0.07 0.40 1.73 4.73 0.40 0.33 0.13 0.13 5.40 2.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 n 11 70.98 0.70 5.59 0.35 53.15 0.70 76.92 6.99 1.05 4.20 0.35 2.10 9.09 24.83 2.10 1.75 0.70 0.70 28.32 10.49 2.10 2.10 1.05 (I M7 203 2
16 1
152 2
220 20 3
12 1
6 26 71 6
5 2
2 81 30 6
6 3
8.70 87 0.20 0.20 1.70 0.10 2
2 17.
1 290 2
16 1
152 2
222 22 17 4
12 1
6 26 71 23 19 13 3
20 2
90 51 8
6 8
2.30 1.30 0.80 0.30 1.80 0.90 2.10 0.20 0.50 23 13 8
3 18 9
21 2
5 Total
-58.51 307.01 878 21.20 212 1,090 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 15 63
Table B-8. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous 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 Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Trophi cS iesh ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate PerTt Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night n
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X
TOL 8.07 42.61 121 2.40 24 145 Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Mooneye Spotted sucker Black redhorse Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Hybrid sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepoinis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris Hiodon tergisus Minytrema melanops Moxostoma duquesnei Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Hybrid lepomis spp.
Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC IN BI BI IN TC IN TC PK IN OM OM TC TC IN IN IN TC' TC BI TC BI TNT x
- x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x x
- x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
- x.
x x
x x*
x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT TNT INT INT INT 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 4.33 0.33 16.47 2.33 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.70 22.89 1.76 86.97 12.32 2
65 5
247 35 0.50 0.70 0.10 0.20 5
7 1
2 0.33 0.07 0.80 1.60 0.33 0.13 0.47 1.40 0.20 0.07 2.13 0.13 1.47 0.20 0.20 0.13 A T'7 1.76 0.35 4.23 8.45 1.76 0.70 2.46 7.39 1.06 0.35 11.27 0.70 7.75 1.06 1.06 0.70 1 Al 5
1 12 24 5
2 7
21 3
32 2
22 3
3 2
A 1.70 0.60 0.20 2.50 0.80 1.80 0.40 0.10 0.60 17 6
2 25 8
18 4
1 6
2 65 5
252 35 7
1 7
1 12 24 5
2 7
21 17 6
5 25 1
40 2
40 7
3 1
8 A
IN 0 2-7 Total 41.80 220.76 627.
12.60 126 753 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 14 64
Table B-9. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.
Common Name Scientific name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Smalimouth buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Striped bass Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Chestnut lamprey Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus'crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictiobus bubalus Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone mississippiensis Morone saxatilis Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens Ichthyomyzon castaneus Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species.
ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per ae Gill Totlish species species Run Hour Net Night net fish Combined OM X
TOL 9.80 49.16 147 4.70 47 194 OM TOL 0.53 2.68 8
8 OM X
TOL 0.20 1.00 3
1.50 15 18 IN X
TOL 0.07 0.33 1
1.
OM X
TOL 0.20 1.00 3
3 IN X
X TOL 3.73 18.73 56 56 IN X
X TOL 18.47 92.64 277 0.50 5
282 TC X
TOL 2.73 13.71 41 0.40 4
45 TC X
X TOL 0.20 2
2 TC X
INT 1.50 15 15 BI X
INT 0.40 2.01 6
0.10 1
7 IN X
X INT 0.47 2.34 7
7 TC X
INT 0.33 1.67 5
5 IN X
INT 0.67 3.34 10 10 TC X
0.53 2.68 8
8 PK X
1.07 5.35 16 16 IN X
12.20 61.20 183 183 OM X
0.07 0.33 1
1 OM X
0.80 8
8 OM X
1.00 5.02 15 0.70 7
22 TC X
0.20 2
2 TC X
1.70 17 17 TC 0.10 1
1 IN X
X 5.07 25.42 76 0.80 8
84 TC X
1.93 9.70
.29 1.80 18 47 TC X
X 0.33 1.67 5
0.40 4
9 BI X
0.07 0.33 1
1.
BI X
0.87 4.35 13 0.50 5
18 PS X
0.07 0.33 1
1 60.81 304.99 912 15.90 159 1,071 15 10 23 16 Total Number Samples Species Collected 65
Table B-10. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2004.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous 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 0.10 1
1 Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Golden redhorse Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Striped bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Inland silverside Chestnut lamprey Total Number Samples Species Collected Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Moxostoma erythrurum Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone mississippiensis Morone saxatilis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Microplerus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens Menidia beryllina Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI IN TC IN TC PK IN BI OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC IN BI TC BI IN PS x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT TNT 5.73 0.27 0,40 0.13 0.33 2.87 0.07 14.60 2.67 0.13 0.20 0.87 1.20 0.87 0.53
- 0.33 4,13 0.07 0.67 0.40 0.07 0.53 5,07 3.27 1.53 0.13 0,20 1.27 0.67 0.13 49.34 15 30 29.35 1.37 2.05 0.68 1.71 14.68 0.34 74.74 13.65 0.68 1.02 4.44 6.14 4.44 2.73 1.71 21.16 0.34 3.41
.2.05 0.34 2.73 25.94 16.72 7.85 0.68 1.02 6.48 3.41 0.68 252.54 86 4
6 2
5 43 1
219 40 2
3 13 18 13 8
5 62 1
10 6
1 8
76 49 23 2
3 19 10 2
740 3.90 0.10 0.20 2.80 0.20 0.10 1.50 0.70 0.40 3.10 0.10 0.20 1.90 1.80 1.00 0.20 0.50 18.80 10 18 39 125 4
1 7
2 5
43 1
2 221 40 2
28 28 2
5 13 18 13 8
5 62 1
2 15 15 7
17 4
10 31 32 1
1 2
10 19 95 18 67 10 33 2
3 2
2 5
24 10 2
188 928 66
Table B-11. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit-Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish
.Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Trol sufiesh ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per F
catch Rate Per Tt Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night I
i 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 1
7 Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera 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
1NT 0.70 7
7 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops 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 Ictalurus punctatus 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 Micropterus punctulatus TC X
2.80 15.11 42 0.80 8
50 Black crappie Pomoxis 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 67
Table B-12. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2003.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per level species species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined OM X
TOL 5.60 28.38 84 7.00 70 154 Common Name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow f Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Lake sturgeon Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Total Number Samples Species Collected Scientific name Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris
.Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Acipenserfulvescens Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone mississippiensis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI IN TC IN IN TC PK IN OM OM TC TC IN IN TC TC IN BI TC BI x
- x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x x
x
- x x
x x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x
- x X
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT TNT INT 0.40 1.67 1.27 0.80 3.87 0.20 12.87 1.00 0.40 1.80 0.80 0.67 0.07 1.13 1.00 0.13 0.33 0.93 3.00 1.40 1.27 0.07 0.27 0.33 41.28 15 25 2.03 8.45 6.42 4.05 19.59 1.01 65.20 5.07 2.03 9.12 4.05 3.38 0.34 5.74 5.07 0.68 1.69 4.73 15.20 7.09 6.42 0.34 1.35 1.69 209.12 6
25 19 12 58 3
193 15 6
27 12 10 1
17 15 2
5 14 45 21 19 1
4 5
619 0.30 0.10 2.10 0.30 0.10 0.10 2.60 1.40 0.40 3.30 4.70 0.70 0.80 0.20 0.10 0.70 24.9 10 17 3
1 21 26 14 4
33 47 7
8 2
1 7
249 6
25 19 12 58 3
193 18 1
21 9
27 12 10 18 15 26 16 9
33 14 92 28 27 3
4 1
12 868 68
Table B-13. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2002.
Common Name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Redbreast sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Emerald shiner Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Scientific name Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Lepomis auritus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Notropis atherinoides Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Morone saxatilis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per levelspecies Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined OM X
TOL 11.33 71.13 170 0.30 3
173 OM
".TOL 0.20 1.26 3
3 OM X
TOL 0.07 0.42 1
1 IN X
X TOL 1.67 10.46 25 25 IN X
X TOL 11.87 74.48 178 178 TC X
X TOL 0.20 2
2 TC X
INT 0.30 3
3 BI X
INT 0.33 2.09 5
0.30 3
8 IN X
X INT 0.53 3.35 8
8 TC X
INT 0.53 3.35 8
0.20 2
10 IN X
INT 0.73 4.60 11 11 IN X
1.27 7.95 19 19 OM X
0.53 3.35 8
0.20 2
10 OM X
0.87 5.44 13 0.90 9
22 TC X
0.20 1.26 3
0.30 3
6 TC X
0.07 0.42 1
1 TC X
0.07 0.42 1
0.10 1
2 TC 0.3 0 3
3 IN X
X 0.27 1.67 4
0.10 1
5 IN X
X 3.33 20.92 50 0.20 2
52 TC X
2.33 14.64 35 3.40 34 69 TC X
X 0.20 1.26 3
0.10 1
4 BI X
0.13 0.84 2
2 TC X
0.60 6
6 BI X
0.13 0.84 2
0.60 6
8 38.79 243.54 582 8.10 81 663 Total Total Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 22 16 69
Table B-14. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous 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 Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total Gill Netting ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catlfish Gil PNet
- Catch Rate PerToaGil otlfs level species species Run Hour.
EF Net Night net fish Combined OM X
TOL 10.87 61.51 163 1.20 12.00 175 Common Name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Northern hog sucker Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Golden redhorse Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Hybrid striped x white bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Sauger Freshwater drum Chestnut lamprey Scientific name Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Hypentelium nigricans Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Moxostoma erythrurum Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Morone saxatilis Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax)
Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM OM TN IN IN IN TC TC TC BI BI IN TC IN PK IN IN BI OM TC TC TC.
TC TC IN IN TC TC IN BI TC BI PS x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
- x
- x X
TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TNT INT INT INT INT INT 0.47 1.07 0.47 2.67 0.27 24.07 3.73 0.07 0.27 0.93 1.93 0.87 8.93 3.60 0.07 0.07 1.13 0.13 1.20 1.60 4.73 4.07 1.13 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.47 0.20 75.29 15 29 2.64 6.04 2.64 15.09 1.51 136.23 21.13 0.38 1.51 5.28 10.94 4.91 50.57 20.38 0.38 0.38 6.42 0.75 6.79
.9.06 26.79 23.02 6.42 0.75 0.38 0.38 2.64 1.13 426.05 7
16 7
40 4
361 56 4
4 14 29 13 134 54 1
1 17 2
18 24 71 61 17 2
1 1
7 3
1,129 0.10 1.50 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.40 4.60 0.20 0.10 0.60 2.10 0.80 0.40 0.30 13.20 10 16 1.00 15.00 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 4.00 46.00 2.00 1.00 6.00 21.00 8.00 4.00 3.00 132 7
16 7
40 4
361 56 1
15 1
4 14 31 13 134 54 2
2 20 5
4 64 2
1 24 77 82 25 2
1 5
10 3
75.29 15 29 x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
Total Number Samples Species Collected 70
Table B-15. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per 1 Gill Totbish Common Name Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Ne.t Night net fish Combined Longnose gar Gizzard shad Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Smallmouth buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Redear sunfish Hybrid sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch Freshwater drum Total Number Samples Species Collected Lepisosteus osseus Dorosoma cepedianum Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictiobus bubalus Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis microlophus Hybrid lepomis spp.
Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens TC X
TOL 0.30 1 3 3
OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI IN TC IN TC PK IN OM OM OM TC TC TC IN IN TC TC IN BI BI x
x
- x
- x
- x.
x x
x x
x
- x x
x
- x x
x x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x
x
- x x
- X X
x X
x TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT 5.07 0.73 2.73 0.27 2.47 0.07 27.00 1.93 0.07 0.13 3.13 0.27 0.40 0.33 0.07 6.53 0.07 0.13 0.53 0.07 26.57 3.85 14.34 1.40 12.94 0.35 141.61 10.14 0.35 0.70 16.43 1.40 2.10 1.75 0.35 34.27 0.35 0.70 2.80 0.35 26.92 1.05 9.09 0.35 1.75 0.35 76 11 41 4
37 1
405 29 1
2 47 4
6 5
1 98 1
2 8
1 8.30 0.80 83 8
0.20 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.60 0.80 0.20 0.20 0.10 1.80 0.40 0.10 0.30 8.00 2.00 7.00 3.20 2
3 3
2 6
8 2
2 18 4
1 3
80 20 70 32 1
352 159 19 41 4
39 1
408 32 3
6 10 49 4
6 5
3 98 2
20 12 2
3 80 97 3
96 32 1
5 2
1,245 5.13 0.20 1.73 0.07 0.33 0.07 59.53 15 26 77 3
26 312.26 1
0.10 893 35.20 10 21 71
Table B-16. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per species species Run Hour Net Night OM X
TOL 6.20 32.63 93 11.50 115 208 Common Name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass White crappie Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Smallmouth buffalo Black buffalo Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Hybrid striped x white bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Hybrid sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Logperch Freshwater drum Total Number Samples Species Collected Scientific name Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Pomoxis annularis Alosa chrysochloris Minytrema melanops
'Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Ictiobus bubalus Ictiobus niger Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Hybrid morone (chrysops x sax)
Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Hybrid Lepomis spp.
Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percina caprodes Aplodinotus grunniens OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC TC BI IN TC IN TC PK IN IN OM OM OM OM TC TC TC TC IN IN IN TC TC BI BI x
x
- x x
x x
x x
x
- x x
x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x*
x x
x x
x
- x x
x X
x x
TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT 0.73 0.73 1.40 1.40 2.53 0.67 6.47 2.07 0.60 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.27 0.13 4.60 0.07 0.20 0.20 1.13 0.20 0.07 0.13 1.67 0.47 1.47 0.40 1.53 0.13 37.00 15 29 3.86 3.86 7.37 7.37 13.33 3.51 34.04 10.88 3.16 2.81 2.81 2.46 1.40 0.70 24.21 0.35 1.05 1.05 5.96 1.05 0.35 0.70 8.77 2.46 7.72 2.11 8.07 0.70 194.74 11 11 21 21 38 10 97 31 9
8 8
7 4
2 69 1
3 3
17 3
2 2
25 7
22 6
23 2
555 0.20 2.30
.1.00 3.90 0.10 0.10 0.40 0.20 1.70 1.10 0.30 0.40 12.40 0.10 3.90
.2.70 0.50 1.30 44.10 10 19 2
23 10 39 1
4 2
17 11 3
4 124 1
39 27 5
13 441 11 13 21 21 38 10 120 31 10 39 10 8
9 7
8 4
69 1
3 3
17 28 6
5 124 1
2
.64 7
49 11 23 15 996 72
Table B-17. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous 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 luigen Elecrofishing Electrofishing Total fish GAiNetling Total Gill - Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per 1 Gill Totlish Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shiner Spotfin shiner Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill.
Largernouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Brook silverside Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Bullhead minnow Blue catfish Channel catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Striped bass Warmouth Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Sauger Freshwater drum Chestnut lamprey Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Cyprinella spiloptera Pimephales notatus Lepomis auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris.
Minyirema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Labidesthes sicculus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Pimephales vigilax Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctatus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Morone saxatilis Lepomis gulosus Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Sander canadensis Aplodinotus grunniens Ichthyomyzon castaneus OM X
TOL 9.00 54.22 135 135 OM OM IN OM IN IN IN TC TC BI IN TC IN PK IN IN OM OM.
TC TC TC TC IN IN TC TC IN TC BI x
- x xx x
- x x
x x
x
- x x x x
x x
- x
- x
- x.
- x X.
x X
x X
x X
x x
x x
x x
X x
x x
X x
TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL INT INT INT INT INT 0.07 0.73 1.20 0.80 2.00 0.13 20.73 2.07 0.07 3.00 0.47 0.13 0.40 4.42 7.23 4.82 12.05 0.80 124.90 12.45 0.40 18.07 2.81 0.80 33.33 0.40 4.02 3.21 2.41 1.61 24.10 18.88 0.80 0.40 11 18 12 30 2
311 31 1
45 7
2 0.30 0.30 0.80 0.10 3
3 8
5.53 0.07 0.67 0.53 0.40 0.27 4.00 3.13 0.13 0.07 83 10 0.80 8
0.10 0.10 0.10 6
0.90 0.10 4
0.10 60 0.30 47 1.40 2
0.20 1
I 0.30 0.20 11 18 12 30 2
314 31 3.
9 45 8
2 0
83 1
18 9
1 1
15 1
5 63 61 4
1 3
2 8
9 1
3 14 3
2
^,^
PS X
U.07 U.4U 1
1 Total 55.27 332.93 829 6.10 61 890 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 16 73
Table B-18. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2000.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish tGil Ttl fish levelous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum 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 Dorosoma petenense PK X
0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X
1.73 10.24 26 26 Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus OM X
1.40 8.27 21 21 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X
0.10 1
1 White bass Morone chrysops 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 Micropterus punctulatus 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 74
Table B-19. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 1999.
Trophic Sunfish Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species 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.
1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis aurilus 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 TN 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
TNT 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
TNT 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 Micropterus dolomieu TC X
TNT 0.07 0.38 1
1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X
0.40 2.31 6
6 Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense PK X
1.00 5.77 15 0.50 5
20 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides TN 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 Ictalurus punctatus OM X
0.27 1.54 4
1.60 16 20 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X
0.10 1
1 White bass Morone chrysops 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 Micropterus punctulatus TC X
0.80 4.62 12 0.50 5
17 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.47 2.69 7
7 Logperch 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
.1I Total 16.23 93.44 243 18.10 181 424 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 17 75
Table B-20. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Indigenous 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 Indigen Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish ous Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per species species Run Hour Net Night OM X
TOL 1.87 10.81 28 11.80 118 146 Common Name Gizzard shad Common carp Golden shin~f Bluntnose minnow Redbreast sunfish Green sunfish Bluegill Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Mooneye Spotted sucker Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Threadfin shad Emerald shiner Smallmouth buffalo Golden redhorse Blue catfish Channel.catfish Flathead catfish White bass Yellow bass Redear sunfish Spotted bass Black crappie Yellow perch Logperch
- Sauger Hybrid walleye x sauger Freshwater drum Total Number Samples Species Collected Scientific name Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas Pimephales notalus Lepomis* auritus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis macrochirus Micropterus salmoides Alosa chrysochloris Hiodon tergisus Minytrema melanops Lepomis megalotis Micropterus dolomieu Lepisosteus oculatus Dorosoma petenense Notropis atherinoides Ictiobus bubalus Moxostoma erythrurum Ictalurusfurcatus Ictalurus punctalus Pylodictis olivaris Morone chrysops Morone mississippiensis Lepomis microlophus Micropterus punctulatus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Percaflavescens Percina caprodes Sander canadensis Hybrid Sander Aplodinotus grunniens OM OM OM IN IN IN TC TC IN BI IN TC TC PK IN OM BI OM OM TC TC TC IN TC TC IN BI TC TC BI x
- x x
x x
x x
x x
- x
- x
- x x
x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x
- x x
x x x x
x x
- x x
TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL TOL 1NT INT INT INT INT 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.73 0.07 1.93 0.33 0.27 0.27 0.87 0.13 0.67 1.80 0.13 0.33 0.13 0.07 1.16 0.39 0.39 4.25 0.39 11.20 1.93 1.54 1.54 5.02 0.77 3.86 10.42 0.77 1.93 0.77 0.39 13.13 5.02 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 2.70 80.33 3
11 29 5
4 4
13 2
10 27 2
5 2
1 34 13 1
1 1
1 1
7 208 0.10 0.10 3.50 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.30 5.00 0.80 0.10 0.10 0.20 1.30 24.40 3
1 30 1
6 35 35 2
2 4
4 13 2
2 12 27 2
5 4
4 3
5 1
3 3
50 50 8
42 1
14 1
2 1
2 3
1 13 20 244 452 2.27 0.87 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.47 13.90 15 26 10 15 76