ML12073A365

Enclosure 2, Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2009

ML12073A365
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	05/31/2010
From:	Baxter D, Simmons J, Shaffer G Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML12073A365 (87)

Text

Enclosure 2 Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2009 E2-1

Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge Autumn 2009 Jeffrey W. Simmons Dennis S. Baxter Gregory P. Shaffer May 2010 Tennessee Valley Authority Aquatic Monitoring and Management Chattanooga, Tennessee

Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iii A cronym s and Abbreviations ................................................................................................... iv Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Plant D escription ......................................................................................................................... 2 M ethods ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of WBN.. 2 A quatic H abitat in the V icinity of W BN ................................................................................. 3 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of W BN ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and D ownstream of W BN ........................................................................................ 8 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................................... 9 A quatic H abitat in the V icinity of W BN ................................................................................ 9 Fish Community ......................................................................................................................... 10 Fish Community Sum mary .................................................................................................... 15 Benthic M acroinvertebrate Community ................................................................................ 17 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary ................................................................ 19 Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near WBN ............................................... 20 Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores ....................................................................................... 47 Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List ................................................................................. 61 i

List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria .................... 22 Table 2. RFAI Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar........... 23 Table 3. Scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (field-processed) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs.

Inflow scoring criteria were used for the site downstream of WBN. Forebay scoring criteria were used for the Watts Bar Reservoir site upstream of WBN ........................ 24 Table 4. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reach downstream of WBN in Chickamauga Reservoir inflow, Autumn 2009. Eight shoreline sections were located on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were located on the right descending bank (RD ) ................................................................................................. 25 Table 5. SAHI scores for 8 shoreline transects located within the RFAI sample reach upstream of WBN in Watts Bar Reservoir forebay, Autumn 2009. Eight shoreline sections were located on the left descending bank (LD) and 8 were located on the right descending bank (RD ) .................................................................................................................................. 26 Table 6. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 529.0) and Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 ........... 27 Table 7. Summary of RFAI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir ................. 31 Table 8. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing at Areas Downstream (TRM 529) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic level: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN),

omnivore (OM), parasitic (PS), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TO L), intolerant (IN T) ................................................................................................ 32 Table 9. Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 531) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009 ................................................................ 33 Table 10. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areas downstream (TRM 529) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009.

Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT) ..................................... 34 Table 11. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areas upstream (TRM 531) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009.

Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT) ..................................... 36 Table 12. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Upstream and Downstream Sampling Sites Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Autumn 2009 ............... 38 ii

Table 13. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs, Autumn 2001-2009. *TRM 527.4 was not sampled during 2006; data from TRM 518 was used for the downstream site during 2006 ............................................ 39 Table 14. Comparison of Average Mean Density Per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa Collected at Upstream and Downstream Sites Near WBN, Chickamauga and Watts Bar Reservoirs, Autumn 2008 and Autum n 2009 .................................................................................. 40 Table 15. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted During 1993-2009 as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir ................. 41 List of Figures Figure 1. Map of WBN showing location of SCCW intake and discharge ........................... 42 Figure 2. RFAI electrofishing downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, represented by black sq u ares ............................................................................................................................... 43 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.

Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations. 44 Figure 4. Daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2008 through November 2009 and historic daily flows averaged for the same period 1976 throu gh 2008 ..................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 5. Average hourly water temperatures immediately below Watts Bar Dam, October 2008 to N ovem ber 2009 ......................................................................................................... 46 iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations ATL Alternative Thermal limit BIP Balanced Indigenous Population CWA Clean Water Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System QA Quality Assurance RBI Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index SAHI Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index SCCW Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority VS Vital Signs WBF Watts Bar Fossil Plant WBN Watts Bar Nuclear Plant iv

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) Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) 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. In July 1999, a Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water (SCCW) system went on line at WBN. As required by WBN's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit TNO020168, impacts to aquatic communities in the vicinity of WBN were evaluated. 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 in areas immediately upstream and downstream of WBN during 1999-2009 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. This report presents the results of autumn 2009 RFAI and RBI data collected upstream and downstream of WBN with comparisons to RFAI and RBI data 1

collected at these sites during autumn 1999-2008. Since the WBN discharge is located within Chickamauga Reservoir inflow zone, no upstream control site data are available for comparison.

Watts Bar Reservoir RFAI forebay site (Tennessee River Mile [TRM] 531) is used to document any notable changes in Tennessee River ecological conditions above the WBN discharge but will not be used for upstream/downstream comparisons of RFAI and RBI scores.

Plant Description Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is located on the right descending (west) bank of upper Chickamauga Reservoir near TRM 528. This one-unit nuclear generating plant went into commercial operation on May 27, 1996 and is designed for an electrical output of about 1270 megawatts.

WBN is situated approximately two miles downstream of Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) and one mile downstream of the decommissioned Watts Bar Fossil Plant (WBF) (Figure 1).

In the original design, nearly all the waste heat created by the plant was dissipated in the atmosphere by the cooling towers. A small fraction of the waste heat was dissipated in the Tennessee River by the cooling tower blowdown. Blowdown from the cooling tower is discharged through multi-port diffusers located in the main river channel at TRM 527.9 (Figure 1). Makeup water and other water supply requirements are obtained from an intake channel and pumping station at TRM 528. Intake pumping flow rate is 80 cfs, and maximum diffuser discharge is about 135 cfs.

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

The SCCW system was designed and constructed as a discretionary system and has no significant impact on the original blowdown system, allowing the plant to operate with or without the SCCW system in service.

Methods Fish and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sample Locations Upstream and Downstream of WBN Reservoirs are typically divided into three zones for VS monitoring - inflow, transition, and forebay. The inflow zone is generally in the upper reaches of the reservoir and is riverine in nature; the transition zone or mid-reservoir is the area where water velocity decreases due to increased cross-sectional area; and the forebay is the lacustrine area near the dam. The Chickamauga Reservoir inflow RFAI sample site is located at TRM 529.0 below Watts Bar Dam 2

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

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

Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of WBN An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHI) was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of WBN 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 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (e.g. Etnier and Starnes 1993),

were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high 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-1 (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, which allowed for accurate determination of near-shore aquatic habitat quality. Eight line-of-sight transects were established across the width of Chickamauga Reservoir inflow within the WBN downstream fish community sampling areas (TRM's 527 to 529.7) and across the width of Watts Bar Reservoir forebay fish community sampling areas upstream of WBN (TRM's 530 to 531).

Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the 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.

3

Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of WBN Fish sampling downstream of WBN was conducted by boat electrofishing (Reynolds 1996). Fish sampling upstream of WBN was conducted by boat electrofishing and gill netting (Hubert 1996; Reynolds 1996). Electrofishing methodology consisted of fifteen boat electrofishing 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 upstream of WBN. Gill nets were not used downstream of WBN; inflow areas are not suitable to set gill nets due to higher water velocities.

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

The RFAI uses 12 fish community metrics from four general categories: Species Richness 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 -- Due to 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.

4

(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 species reduce the quality of resident fish communities.

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

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

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

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 - "Number of indigenous species." Determination of reference conditions based on the inflow zones of upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion.

5

(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change:

TVA uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS 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 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 6

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 "relative" approach does not apply to WBN since the upstream site is located upstream of Watts Bar Dam. 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 (+/- 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 WBN 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.

The Quality Assurance (QA) component of VS monitoring 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 sites each year. Previous statistical analyses with the QA component of VS has shown that the comparison of RFAI index scores from 54 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 18 points. Based on these findings, the 7 5 th percentile is 6 and the 90Qth percentile is 12. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95 percent confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. Therefore, a difference of 6 points or less was the value selected for defining "similar" scores between years sampled at the downstream site. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points compared to prior year's score then the fish communities will be considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When this 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

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of WBN Benthic grab samplers were used to collect samples at ten equally-spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 M 2 ) was used for most samples. When heavier substrate was encountered, a Peterson sampler (area per sample 0.11 m2) was used. Collection and processing techniques followed standard VS procedures (OER-ESP-RRES-AMM-21.1 1; Quantitative Sample Collection - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling with a Ponar Dredge). Bottom sediments were washed on a 533 Lscreen; 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 (downstream of WBN) and forebay (upstream of WBN) sample sites. Scoring criteria for 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) Taxa richness-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) EPT-This metric is calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera,and Trichopterataxa present in each sample at a site. Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions.

(3) 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.

(4) Percentage as Oligochaetes-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) Percentage as dominant 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 percentage for that sample. The percentage is then averaged for.the 10 samples at 8

each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site.

This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing 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) 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 no organisms present)-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.

The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over a seven year period ranged from 0 to 14 points; the 7 5 th percentile was 4 and the 9 0 th percentile was 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores was 3.1 points with 95 percent 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 years sampled at the downstream site. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the prior year's score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that WBN has had no effect. The Watts Bar Reservoir RBI forebay site (TRM 533.3) is used to document any notable changes in Tennessee River ecological conditions above the WBN discharge but will not be used for upstream/downstream comparisons of RBI scores. 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 this 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.

Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of WBN The SAHI methodology was used to evaluate the quality of the aquatic habitat along the shoreline of Chickamauga and Watts Bar reservoirs within the WBN downstream and upstream fish community sampling areas. Eight shoreline sections on the left descending and right descending banks were assessed at both the downstream and upstream locations.

9

Within the RFAI sample area downstream from WBN (Chickamauga Reservoir inflow),

shoreline aquatic habitat quality averaged a SAHI rating of 22 "Fair" on the left descending shoreline and a rating of 19 "Fair" on the right descending shoreline (Table 4). Of the eight shoreline sections evaluated on each river bank, 75% scored "Fair" while 25% scored "Poor".

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

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

RFAI data collected at TRM 531, Watts Bar Reservoir forebay, is used to indicate the health of the fish community upstream from WBN, but is not used as an upstream comparison between the sites. In 2009, a fish community RFAI score of 45 ("Good") was observed at this site (Table 6).

This was a 9 point increase from the previous year (Table 7). When compared to the 2008 sample, the 2009 sample contained one additional indigenous species, two additional benthic invertivores, 1 additional intolerant species, a lower percentage of tolerant individuals, a lower percentage of dominance by one species, a higher percentage of non-native species (predominantly inland silversides), a lower percentage of omnivores, and a higher average number of fish per run (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). This site showed much improvement from the previous year.

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

(1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score)

During 2009, 31 indigenous species were collected, which resulted in the highest score for this metric (Tables 6 and 8). During 2008, 28 indigenous species were collected from this site, which also resulted in the highest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A, 2-A). Eight indigenous species were encountered in 2009 that were not collected during 2008 (longnose gar, bluntnose minnow, white crappie, threadfin shad, steelcolor shiner, white bass, sauger, and freshwater drum) (Table 10

8; Appendix 2-A). Compared to 5 indigenous species were encountered during 2008 that were not collected during 2009 (bullhead minnow, largescale stoneroller, northern hogsucker, blue catfish, and logperch).

Total number of centrarchidspecies (> 4 required for highest score)

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

Total number of benthic invertivore species (> 6 required for highest score)

During 2008 and 2009, this site received the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Four benthic invertivore species were collected during 2009, while 5 were collected during 2008. Logperch and northern hogsucker were collected during 2008 but not during 2009, while freshwater drum was collected during 2009 but not during 2008 (Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

Total number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)

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

Total number of top carnivorespecies (> 6 required for highest score)

During 2008 and 2009, this site received the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). Eleven top carnivore species were collected during 2009, while 7 were collected during 2008. Longnose gar, white bass, white crappie, and sauger where collected during 2009 but not during 2008 (Table 8; Appendix 2-A).

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

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score)

During 2009, 28 indigenous species were collected, which resulted in the highest score for this metric (Tables 6 and 9). During 2008, 27 indigenous species were collected, which resulted in the mid-range score for this metric (Appendices 1-A and 2-B). Eight indigenous species were encountered in 2009 that were not collected during 2008 (longnose gar, golden shiner, bluntnose minnow, black redhorse, emerald shiner, steelcolor shiner, golden redhorse, and sauger) (Table 9; Appendix 2-B). Conversely, 4 indigenous species were encountered during 2008 that were not collected during 2009 (bullhead minnow, paddlefish, blue catfish, and logperch).

Total number of centrarchidspecies (> 4 required for highest score)

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

11

Total number of benthic invertivorespecies (> 7 required for highest score)

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

Total number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)

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

Total number of top carnivorespecies (> 7 required for highest score)

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

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

(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Percentageof anomalies (< 2 % required for highest score)

The percentage of anomalies (i.e. visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections, parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) in the autumn sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle.

During 2008 and 2009, the percentage of anomalies was very low (2008- 0.9 %; 2009- 1.7 %)

And this site received the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

Average number offish collectedper electrofishing run (> 102 required for highest score)

During 2009, 149 fish were collected per electrofishing run, compared to 94 fish per run during 2008 (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

This site received the highest score for these 2 fish abundance and health metrics during 2009.

During 2008, this site received the mid-range score for average number of fish per run due to a lower catch rate.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Percentageof anomalies (< 2 % in gill net and electrofishing samples required for highest score)

During 2008 and 2009, the percentage of anomalies was very low (2008 and 2009 electrofishing 0.4 %; 2008 and 2009 gill net 0.9 %), resulting in the highest score for this metric (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

12

Average number offish collectedper electrofishingrun (> 241 in electrofishing samples; > 24 in gill net samples required for highest score)

During 2009, 91 fish were collected per electrofishing run, compared to 86 fish per run during 2008, resulting in the lowest score for both samples (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). During 2009, 22 fish were collected per gill net, compared to 21 during 2008, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric for both sample years.

(3) The presence of necessary food chain species Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Percentageof top carnivores(> 22 % required for highest score)

Although the diversity of top carnivore species was high (11 species), abundance in relation to the overall fish community composition was low (7.2 %) during 2009 (Table 6). During 2008, 7 top carnivore species were collected and abundance in relation to the overall fish community composition was almost half (3.7 %) compared to 2009 (Appendix 1-A). This metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009. The major factor which negatively skewed the percentage of top carnivores during 2009 was the collection of a large number of inland silversides (constituted 52.7 % of the entire sample) and during 2008, the collection of a large number of bluegill (constituted 63 % of the entire sample) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A).

Percentage of omnivores (< 27 % required for highest score)

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

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

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Percentage of top carnivores(> 10 % in electrofishing samples; > 50 % in gill net samples required for highest score)

Although the diversity of top carnivore species was high during 2008 and 2009 (9 species),

abundance in relation to the overall fish community composition in the electrofishing sample was low (2.7 % during 2008; 4.7 % during 2009) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). This portion of the metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009. The major factor which negatively skewed the percentage of top carnivores during 2008 and 2009 was the collection of a large number of bluegill (constituted 72.6 % of the entire electrofishing sample during 2008) and during 2009, the collection of a large number of bluegill (constituted 34.5% of the entire electrofishing sample) and inland silversides (constituted 33.5 % of the entire electrofishing sample) (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). During 2009, the percentage of top carnivore species in gill net samples was high (66.2%), resulting in the highest score for this portion of the metric (Table 6). The percentage of top carnivore species in the 2008 gill net sample was almost half (33.6%)

(Appendix 1-A).

Percentage of omnivores (< 24% in electrofishing samples; < 17% in gill net samples required for highest score) 13

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

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

(4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Percentageof tolerant individuals (< 29% required for highest score)

During 2009, 33.8% of the fish collected were tolerant individuals, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6). A majority of these individuals consisted of bluegill (21.08%),

followed by gizzard shad (5.86%). During 2008, 82.3% of individuals were tolerant, predominantly due to large numbers of bluegill (63%), resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A).

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

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

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Percentageof tolerantindividuals (< 31% in electrofishing samples; < 14% in gill net samples required for highest score)

During 2009, 54.8% of the fish collected during electrofishing were tolerant individuals, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6). A majority of these individuals consisted of bluegill (34.49%), followed by spotfin shiner (7.52%). During 2008, 93.8% of individuals were tolerant, predominantly due to large numbers of bluegill (72.6%), resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Appendix 1-A). During 2009, 23.7% of the fish collected during gill netting were tolerant individuals, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 6).

A majority of these individuals consisted of gizzard shad (15.98%), followed by largemouth bass (6.39%). During 2008, 58.8% of individuals were tolerant, predominantly due to large numbers of gizzard shad (49.8%), resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Appendix I-A).

As discussed above, this site received the highest score for the number of intolerant species during 2009 (5 species) and received the mid-range score during 2008 (4 species) (Table 6; 14

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

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

(5) Indigenous Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Percentageof non-indigenousspecies (< 2% required for highest score)

During 2009, 31 indigenous and 2 non-indigenous species (common carp, 0.09% and inland silverside, 52.64%) were collected compared to 28 indigenous and 1 non-indigenous species (inland silverside, 3.2%) during 2008 (Table 6; Appendix I-A). During 2009, this site received the lowest score due to collection of large numbers of inland silversides.

Inland silversides have successfully invaded the entire mainstem Tennessee River. They were first collected in Chickamauga Reservoir during 2004, and have been observed at much lower densities until 2009. Inland silversides and common carp are considered aquatic nuisance species (Table 10).

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Percentageof non-indigenousspecies (< 2 % in electrofishing samples; < 8 % in gill net samples required for highest score)

During 2009, 28 indigenous and 3 non-indigenous species (common carp, 0.04%, inland silverside, 33.53%, and striped bass, 2.7%) were collected compared to 27 indigenous and 2 non-indigenous species (common carp, 2.1% and striped bass, 3.3%) during 2008 (Table 6; Appendix 1-A). During 2009, this site received the lowest score for the electrofishing portion due to collection of large numbers of inland silversides. This species was first collected in Watts Bar Reservoir during 2002, and have been observed at much lower densities until 2009.

Fish Community Summary Site downstream of WBN (TRM 529- Chickamaugainflow)

Analysis of the five characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics indicated the site downstream of WBN was similar to the previous year and that this portion of Chickamauga Reservoir supported a balanced fish community during 2009. The 2009 sample contained three additional indigenous species, had a lower percentage of tolerant individuals, and had a higher average of fish collected per electrofishing run. The only metric that scored lower than the previous year was the percentage of non-native species due to a large number of inland silversides.

Thirty-one indigenous species and 33 representative important species were collected at the doxwrnstream site (Table 10). Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, 15

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

Two species were collected at the downstream site (spotted sucker and emerald shiner) which are considered thermally-sensitive (Table 10). Water temperatures greater than 32.2 0 C (90'F) are known to be lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006). Three commercially valuable species and 19 recreationally valuable species were also collected at this site during 2009 (Table 10).

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.

RFAI scores for the inflow site downstream from the WBN thermal discharge have averaged a score of 45 during the 16 sample years from 1993 to 2009 (Table 7). Scores from every sample year were > 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 indicating that BIP had been maintained.

The greatest score difference between consecutive sample years at this site was six points, which has been observed twice throughout the duration of RFAI sampling at this site (Table 7).

Individual metric scores and overall RFAI scores from 1999 to 2008 for both sites are listed in Appendix 1-A to Appendix 1-J. Species collected, trophic level, native and tolerance classification, and catch per unit effort during 1999 to 2008 at both sites are listed in Appendix 2-A to 2-T.

Site upstream of WBN (TRM 531- Watts Barforebay)

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

Twenty-eight indigenous species and 31 representative important species were collected at the downstream site (Table 11). Two species were collected at this site (spotted sucker and logperch) which are considered thermally-sensitive (Table 11). Water temperatures greater than 32.2°C (90'F) are known to be lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006). Four commercially valuable species and 19 recreationally valuable species were also collected at this site during 2009 (Table 11).

16

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

Other sites within ChickamaugaReservoir Other RFAI samples in Chickamauga Reservoir (transition, forebay {2 sites}, and embayment) have averaged scores > 42 from 1993 to 2009 which are > 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 indicating that BIP had been maintained throughout Chickamauga Reservoir (Table 7).

Lower scores at some sites have been observed in recent years, most notably during 2007 and 2008. This period was a severe drought period which may have stressed fish communities at sites within the transition and forebay zones of the reservoir. This was also observed in Watts Bar Reservoir forebay upstream of the WBN thermal discharge (Table 7). RFAI scores at the Chickamauga Reservoir inflow site in the vicinity of WBN did not noticeably change during this drought period. Long term trends in RFAI scores do not indicate that overall fish community health, diversity, and structure has declined in the vicinity of WBN or throughout Chickamauga Reservoir.

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

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

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

Site downstream of WBN (Inflow scoring criteria)

Average number of taxa (> 5.8 required for highest score)

An average of 4.2 taxa was collected during 2009, compared to 5.1 during 2008, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric during both years (Table 13).

Proportionofsamples with long-lived organisms (which includes Corbicula,Hexagenia mayflies, mussels, and snails; > 0.8 required for highest score)

The metric received the highest score during 2009 and the mid-range score during 2008. All samples collected at this site during 2009 contained at least one long-lived organism, while 40%

of 2008 samples contained a long-lived organism (Table 13). Mean density per m 2 of Corbicula and freshwater mussels was much higher in 2009 than during 2008 (Table 14).

17

Average number ofEPT taxa (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies; > 0.8 required for highest score)

No EPT taxa were collected during 2009, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 12).

During 2008, mean density per m was of EPT was low (2 Ephemeroptera {mayfly}

individuals), which also resulted in the lowest score for this metric (Tables 13 and 14).

Average proportionof oligochaete individuals (< 20 required for highest score)

The average proportion of oligochaete individuals in each sample was low during both 2009 (0.6%) and 2008 (10.4%), resulting in the highest score for this metric during both years (Table 13). Oligochaetes are considered tolerant of poor water quality conditions; a low proportion of Oligochaetes in the samples are an indication of good water quality conditions.

Proportionof total abundance comprisedby two dominant taxa (< 78.7 required for highest score)

During 2009, the proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa was 92%, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 12). The two most dominant taxa were Corbicula and amphipods (Table 14). Corbiculaare long-lived and large numbers can indicate good water quality conditions. Amphipods are not typically tolerant of polluted waters, and are sometimes used as bio-indicators in water quality assessments. During 2008, the proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa was 66.4%, resulting in the highest score for this metric (Table 13). Observed densities of Corbiculaand amphipods were much lower during 2008 and no one particular taxa dominated the samples (Table 14).

Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 1153 required for highest score)

Many taxa of chironomids and oligochaetes are very tolerant of poor water quality conditions; a dominance of these taxa could indicate water quality degradation. During 2009, densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were average, resulting in the mid-range score for this metric (Table 12). This was an improvement from 2008, when this metric received the lowest score for this metric (Table 13).

Proportionof samples containingno organisms (no samples lacking organisms required for highest score)

There were no samples which were void of organisms during 2008 or 2009 (Table 13).

Therefore, both sites received the highest score for this metric.

Site upstream of WBN (Forebayscoring criteria)

Average number of taxa (> 4.8 required for highest score)

An average of 2.2 taxa was collected during 2009, compared to 2.5 during 2008, resulting in the lowest score for this metric during 2009 and the mid-range score during 2008 (Table 13).

Proportionof samples with long-lived organisms (which includes Corbicula,Hexagenia mayflies, mussels, and snails; > 0.8 required for highest score)

This metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009 (Table 13). No 2008 samples, contained long-lived organisms, while 20% 2009 of samples contained long-lived organisms (snails and Corbicula) (Tables 13 and 14).

18

Average number ofEPT taxa (mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies; > 0.8 required for highest score)

No EPT taxa were collected during 2008 or 2009, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 13).

Average proportionof oligochaete individuals(< 14.8 required for highest score)

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

Proportionof total abundance comprised by two dominant taxa (< 81.3 required for highest score)

During 2008 and 2009, the proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most dominant taxa was 100% and 96.8%, respectively, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 13).

The only 2 taxa collected during 2008 were oligochaetes and chironomids (Table 14). During 2009, 5 taxa were collected but were dominated by chironomids and leeches (Table 14).

Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes (> 236 required for highest score)

This metric received the lowest score during 2008 and 2009 (Table 13). Only oligochaetes and chironomids were collected during 2008, while relatively low densities of 4 additional taxa were collected during 2009 (Table 14).

Proportionof samples containingno organisms (no samples lacking organisms required for highest score)

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

Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summary Site downstream of WBN (TRM 527.4- Chickamaugainflow)

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

Site upstream of WBN (TRM 533.3- Watts Barforebay) 19

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

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

Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near WBN Average daily flows from Watts Bar Dam from October 2008 to October 2009 are shown in Figure 4. Daily average flows were similar (daily average flows averaged 2% less) to historical daily average flows from 1976 through 2008.

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

20

Literature Cited EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear 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 p.

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

Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R.

Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2 nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

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

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

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

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, 2 nd 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.

21

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

Metric Scoring Criteria Score Cover Stable cover (boulders, rootwads, brush, logs, aquatic vegetation, artificial structures) in 25 5 to 75 % of the drawdown zone Stable cover in 10 to 25 % or > 75 % of the drawdown zone 3 Stable Cover in < 10 % of the drawdown zone 1 Substrate Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate > 40 5 Percent of drawdown zone with gravel substrate between 10 and 40 3 Percent substrate gravel < 10 1 Erosion Little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure. Most bank surfaces stabilized by woody 5 vegetation.

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

Areas of erosion extensive, exposed or collapsing banks occur along > 30% of shoreline. 1 Canopy Cover Tree or shrub canopy > 60 % along adjacent bank 5 Tree or shrub canopy 30 to 60 % along adjacent bank 3 Tree or shrub canopy < 30 % along adjacent bank 1 Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters 5 Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters 3 Width buffered < 6 meters 1 Habitat Habitat diversity optimum. All major habitats (logs, brush, native vegetation, boulders, 5 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 proportion of one is 3 less than desirable, reducing species diversity. No ready access to deeper sanctuary areas.

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

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

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

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

22

Table 2. RFAI Scoring criteria (2002) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of Upper Mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs.

Upper Mainstream reservoirs include Chickamauga, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, Nickajack, Tellico, and Watts Bar.

Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5

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

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

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

4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 24 >4 <2 2-4 >4

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

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

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing >50% 25-50% <25% >40% 20-40% <20% >46% 23-46% <23%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Average number per run Electrofishing <121 121-241 >241 <105 105-210 >210 <51 51-102 >102 Gill netting <12 12-24 >24 <12 12-24 >24

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

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

23

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

Forebay scoring criteria were used for the Watts Bar Reservoir site upstream of WBN.

Benthic Community Forebay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number oftaxa *2.4 2.5-4.7 Ž4.8 *2.1 2.2-4.3 Ž4.4 *2.8 2.9-5.7 Ž>5.8 Proportion of samples with long-lived *0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž0.8 *0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž0.8 <0.3 0.4-0.7 _>0.8 organisms Average number of EPT *0.4 0.5-0.7 Ž0.8 *0.3 0.4-0.7 _>0.8 *0.3 0.4-0.7 Ž>0.8 (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera)

Average proportion of oligochaete Ž29.7 14.9-29.6 *<14.8 Ž>28.0 14.0-27.9 *13.9 Ž>40.0 20.1-39.9 <20.0 individuals Average proportion of total abundance Ž90.7 81.4-90.6 *<81.3 ->87.8 78.8-87.7 *<78.7 _>85.0 78.8-84.9 <78.7 comprised by the two most abundant taxa Average density excluding chironomids _<118 119-235 Ž>236 *<291 292-580 _>581 *<568 569-1152 _>1153 and oligochaetes Zero-samples - proportion of samples _>0.2 0.1 0 _>0.2 0.1 0 _>0.2 0.1 0 containing no organisms 24

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

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

Latitude 35.58826 35.59048 35.5924 35.59687 35.60293 35.60751 35.61227 35.61712 Longitude -84.79591 -84.78782 -84.78342 -84.77759 -84.77477 -84.77464 -84.7752 -84.77593 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SAHI Variables Cover 3 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 3 Substrate 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 Erosion 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 4 Habitat 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 2 Slope 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 Total 25 25 19 23 25 21 11 11 22 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair 1(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.

Latitude 35.59074 35.5931 35.59475 35.59838 35.60309 35.60717 35.61166 35.61521 Longitude -84.79699 -84.78904 -84.78563 -84.78133 -84.77867 -84.77826 -84.779 -84.78058 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SAHI Variables Cover 5 3 3 3 5 3 5 1 4 Substrate . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Erosion 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 4 Riparian Zone 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 2 Habitat 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 Slope 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Total 23 17 21 19 21 19 15 11 19 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair Scoring criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and Good (27-35).

25

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

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

Latitude 35.62819 35.62909 35.62393 35.63842 35.64143 35.65411 35.66239 35.6668 Longitude -84.77888 -84.79279 -84.79553 -84.79329 -84.80098 -84.77146 -84.79468 -84.77029 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SAHI Variables Cover 1 5 5 3 1 5 5 3 4 Substrate 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 Erosion 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 1 3 Canopy Cover 3 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 4 Riparian Zone 3 5 5 5 1 5 1 5 4 Habitat 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 Slope 3 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Total 15 27 25 21 9 25 17 19 21 Rating Poor Good Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair 1(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.

Latitude 35.6328 35.62579 35.6227 35.63424 35.63902 35.65653 35.65813 35.66878 Longitude -84.78064 -84.79022 -84.79298 -84.79388 -84.80306 -84.79766 -84.79785 -84.78266 Aquatic Macrophytes 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

SAHI Variables Cover 3 5 5 1 1 5 5 5 4 Substrate 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 Erosion 3 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 5 4 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 5 1 1 3 4 Habitat 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 Slope 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 Total 21 25 23 17 21 15 19 21 21 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Fair Scoring criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and Good (27-35).

26

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

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of indigenous species 31 5 28 5 (refer to Tables 7 and 8)

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

3. Number of benthic invertivore species 4 5 Black redhorse Freshwater drum Freshwater drum Logperch Golden redhorse 3 Northern hog sucker 3 Spotted sucker River redhorse Spotted sucker

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 Black redhorse Brook silverside Brook silverside Northern hog sucker 5 5 Longear sunfish -River redhorse Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 27

Table 6. (Continued)

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 33.8% 54.8%

Bluegill 21.08% Bluegill 34.49%

Bluntnose minnow 0.27% Bluntnose minnow 1.40%

Common carp 0.09% Common carp 0.44%

Gizzard shad 5.86% Gizzard shad 3.91%

Golden shiner 0.63% Green sunfish 2.2 1%

Green sunfish 0.49% 3 Largemouth bass 3.10% 1.5 Largemouth bass 2.73% Redbreast sunfish 1.77%

Longnose gar 0.31% Spotfin shiner 7.52%

Redbreast sunfish 0.81%

Spotfin shiner 1.48%

White crappie 0.04%

Gill Netting 23.7%

Gizzard shad 15.98%

Largemouth bass 6.39% 1.5 White crappie 1.37%

6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 52.7% 34.5%

Inland silverside 1 Bluegill 1.5 Gill Netting 33.8%

Yellow bass 0.5

7. Percent non-indigenous species Electrofishing 52.8% 34.0%

Common carp 0.09% Common carp 0.44%

0.5 Inland silverside 52.64% Inland silverside 33.53%

Gill Netting 3.2%

Hybrid striped bass 0.46%

2.5 Striped bass 2.74%

28

Table 6. (Continued)

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

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

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 7.2% 4.7%

Black crappie 0.40% Black crappie 0.07%

Flathead catfish 0.22% Flathead catfish 0.37%

Hybrid bass 0.09% Largemouth bass 3.10%

Largemouth bass 2.73% Smallmouth bass 1.11%

Longnose gar 0.31% Spotted gar 0.07%

Sauger 0.04%

Smallmouth bass 0.67% I 0.5 Spotted bass 1.57%

Spotted gar 0.04%

White bass 0.04%

White crappie 0.04%

Yellow bass 0.99%

Gill Netting 66.2%

Black crappie 11.87%

Flathead catfish 4.57%

Hybrid striped bass 0.46%

Largemouth bass 6.39%

2.5 Sauger 3.20%

Striped bass 2.74%

White bass 1.83%

White crappie 1.37%

Yellow bass 33.79%

29

Table 6. (Continued)

Autumn 2009 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 8.5% 6.2%

Bluntnose minnow 0.27% Bluntnose minnow 1.40%

Channel catfish 1.57% Channel catfish 0.37%

Common carp 0.09% Common carp 0.44%

2.5 Gizzard shad 5.87% Gizzard shad 3.91%

Golden shiner 0.63% Smallmouth buffalo 0.07%

Smallmouth buffalo 0.04%

Gill Netting 25.1%

Blue catfish 5.94%

Channel catfish 2.28%

1.5 Gizzard shad 15.98%

Hybrid shad 0.46%

Smallmouth buffalo 0.46%

C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 148.7 5 90.5 0.5 Gill Netting 21.9 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.7% 5 0.4% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.9% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 44 45 Good Good 30

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

Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average WBNUpstream TRM 531.0 44 48 --- 43 --- 41 36 44 39 39 45 43 46 42 36 36 45 42 Forebay WBN Downstream 52 52 48 42 44 -- 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 42 42 44 44 -

Inflow TRM 529.0 Transition TRM 490.5 51 40 48 44 39 --- 45 46 45 51 42 49 46 47 44 34 41 45 Forebay TRM 482.0 ...

--- .. . 47 --- --- 41 48 46 43 45 41 39 35 38 38 37 42 Forebay TRM 472.3 43 44 47 -- 40 --- 45 45 48 46 43 43 46 43 41 41 42 44 Hiwassee River HiRM 8.5 46 39 39 --- 40 --- 43 43 47 --- 36 42 45 --- 41 --- 42 42 Embayment S-P 2r( 4o5c RIFAJ Scores: 12-2 1 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 4 1-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent").

31

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

Sunfish Indigenous Tolerance EF Catch Rate EF Catch Rate Total fish Trophic level Common Name Scientific name species species Per Run Per Hour EF Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC TO 0.47 1.91 7 Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM TO 8.73 35.69 131 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TO 0.13 0.54 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM TO 0.93 3.81 14 Spotfm shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN TO 2.2 8.99 33 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM TO 0.4 1.63 6 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x TO 1.2 4.9 18 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x TO 0.73 3 11 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x TO 31.4 128.34 471 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC TO 4.07 16.62 61 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x TO 0.07 0.27 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI INT 0.13 0.54 2 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI INT 0.33 1.36 5 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN x INT 0.8 3.27 12 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC INT 1 4.09 15 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN INT 1.33 5.45 20 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC 0.07 0.27 1 Threadfm shad Dorosomapetenense PK 2.07 8.45 31 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN 0.07 0.27 1 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinellawhipplei IN 0.27 1.09 4 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM 0.07 0.27 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI 0.2 0.82 3 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM 2.33 9.54 35 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC 0.33 1.36 5 White bass Morone chrysops TC 0.07 0.27 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC 1.47 5.99 22 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x 0.73 3 11 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x 5.2 21.25 78 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN x 0.07 0.27 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC 2.33 9.54 35 Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC 0.13 0.54 2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x 0.6 2.45 9 Sauger Sander canadense TC 0.07 0.27 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI 0.33 1.36 5 mianmi silversioe Menidia beryllina IIN -- /-6--7.4 320U.44 1176 Total 148.73 607.86 2231 Number of Samples 15 Indigenous Species Collected 31 (Excluding hybrids) 32

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

Trophic Sunfish Indigenous EF Catch Rate EF Catch Rate Total fish GN Catch Rate Total Gill Total fish Tolerance Common Name Scientific name level species species Per Run Per Hour EF Per Net Night net fish Combined Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM x TO 3.53 15.5 53 3.5 35 88 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TO 0.4 1.75 6 0 0 6 Spotfm shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN x TO 6.73 29.53 101 0 0 101 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM x TO 1.27 5.56 19 0 0 19 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN x x TO 1.6 7.02 24 0 0 24 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN x x TO 2 8.77 30 0 0 30 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN x x TO 31.2 136.84 468 0 0 468 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC x TO 2.8 12.28 42 1.4 14 56 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC x x TO 0 0 0 0.3 3 3 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI x INT 0.07 0.29 1 0 0 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI x INT 0.2 0.88 3 1 10 13 River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum BI x INT 0 0 0 0.1 1 1 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC x INT 1 4.39 15 0 0 15 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN x INT 0.47 2.05 7 0 0 7 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC x 0.07 0.29 1 0 0 1 Threadfm shad Dorosomapetenense PK x 4.4 19.3 66 0 0 66 Hybrid shad Hybrid dorosoma OM x 0 0 0 0.1 1 1 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinellawhipplei IN x 0.07 0.29 1 0 0 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM x 0.07 0.29 1 0.1 1 2 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM x 0 0 0 1.3 13 13 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM x 0.33 1.46 5 0.5 5 10 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x 0.33 1.46 5 1 10 15 White bass Morone chrysops TC x 0 0 0 0.4 4 4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x 0 0 0 7.4 74 74 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0 0 0 0.6 6 6 Hybrid striped x white bass Hybrid morone TC 0 0 0 0.1 1 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x x 0.13 0.58 2 0.1 1 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x x 2.8 12.28 42 0.1 1 43 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x x 0.07 0.29 1 2.6 26 27 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI x 0.27 1.17 4 0 0 4 Sauger Sander canadense TC x 0 0 0 0.7 7 7 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI x 0.33 1.46 5 0.6 6 11 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 30.33 133.04 455 0 0 455 Total 90.47 396.8 1357 21.9 219 1576 Number of Samples 15 10 Indigenous Species Collected 19 24 (Excluding hybrids) 33

Table 10. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areas downstream (TRM 529) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN),

omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT)

Trophic Indigenous Rersnaie Representative Aquatic Tolerance Thermally Sensitive Endangered Threatened/ Valuable Commercially Valuable Recreationally Common Name Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution)

Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC TO Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM TO x x Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM x TO Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM TO Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN TO Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM TO Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN TO x Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN TO x Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TO x Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC TO x White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TO x Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI INT x Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI INT Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT x Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC INT x Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN INT Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK x x Emerald shiner Notropisatherinoides IN x Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM x x Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x White bass Morone chrysops TC x Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN x 34

Table 10. (Continued)

Trophic Indigenous RersnaieAquatic Representative Tolerance Thermally Sensitive Endangered Threatened/ Valuable Commercially Valuable Recreationally Common Name Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution) S Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X X ...............- X Hybrid bass Hybrid micropterus sp. TC X .....................

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X ...............- X Sauger Sander canadense TC X X ...............- X Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X ---............ X Inlan d s ilv e r s id e Me n idia b eryllin a IN --- X X ....... ........

Total 31 33 2 2 0 3 19 (Excluding Hybrids) 35

Table 11. Fish species collected including provisions for the identification of the resident important species at areas upstream (TRM 531) of WBN Discharge, Autumn 2009. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM),

planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT)

Representative Thermally Threatened/ Commercially Recreationally Trophic Indigenous Aquatic Tolerance Sensitive Endangered Valuable Valuable Scientific name level species important Nuisance (Pollution)

Common Name Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM TO x x Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TO Spotfm shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN TO Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM TO Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN TO x Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN TO x Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TO x Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC TO x White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC TO x Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI TO Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI TO x River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum BI INT Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC INT Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN INT Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC INT Threadfm shad Dorosomapetenense PK INT x x Hybrid shad Hybrid dorosoma OM Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM x x Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM x x Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC x White bass Morone chrysops TC x Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC x Striped bass Moronesaxatilis TC x Hybrid striped bass Hybrid morone TC x Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN x Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN x Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC x 36

Table 11. (Continued)

Trophic Indigenous RersnaieAquatic Representative Tolerance Thermally Sensitive Endangered Threatened/ Valuable Commercially Valuable Recreationally Scientific name level species Important Nuisance (Pollution)

Common Name Species Species (Federal Status) Species Species L ogperch P ercinacaprodes BI X X --- X .........

Sauger Sander canadense TC X X ...............- X Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X ... ............- X I n lan d s ilv e rsid e Me n idia be ryllin a IN --- X X . . .. . .. . .. . .. ..

Total 28 31 2 2 0 4 19 (Excluding Hybrids) 37

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

Downstream Upstream TRM 527.4 TRM 533.3 Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating

1. Average number of taxa 4.2 3 2.2 1

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

3. Average number of EPT taxa 0 1 0 1

4. Average proportion of oligochaete individuals 0.6 5 28.5 3

5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the 92 1 96.8 1 two most abundant taxa

6. Average density excluding chironomids and 685 3 31.7 1 oligochaetes

7. Zero-samples - proportion of samples containing no 0 5 0.1 3 organisms Benthic Index Score 23 11 Fair Very Poor Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29

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

38

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

Downstream DwTReM 52001 2002 1 2003 2004 2005 2006* 2007 2008 2009 (TRM 527.4) jOsSoeISe b cr Metric Obs Score Obs Score Ohs Score Score Ohs cor Obs Obs Score' Obs Score Obs Score Avg No. Taxa 6.1 5 5.1 3 6.6 5 11.6 5 6.8 5'--- --- 3 5.1 3 4.2 3

% Long-Lived 0.9 5 1 5 1 5 0.9 5 1 5 -- .--- 0.8 5 0.4 3 1 5 Avg. No. EPT taxa 0.1 1 0.5 3 1 5 2.7 5 0.9 5 -- .--- 0.4 3 0.1 1 0 1

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

%Dominant Taxa 77.3 5 77 5 75.4 5 63.5 5 72 5 ... ...- 86.2 1 166.4 5 92 1 Density excl chiron and! 618.3 3 147.3 1 926.7 3 1538.3 5 480 1 . 168.3 1 165 1 685 3 oligo Zero Samples 0 5 0 5 050 50. 5 --- --- 5 0 5 0 5 Overall Score i 29 27 33 35 31 - 23 23 23 Upstream20 (TRM 533.3) 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006* 70 8 2009 Metric Obs Score Obs Score ObObs Score Obs Score Obs Score Obs Score1 Obs Score Obs Score Avg No. Taxa 3.4 3 4 3 3.8 3 4 3 2.9 3 3.3 3 3.4 3 2.5 3 2.2 1

% Long-Lived 0.1 11 0.1 1 0.1 1 0 1 0.2 1 0.1 1 0 1 0 1 0.2 1 Avg. No. EPTtaxa 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0.1 1 0 1 0 1 J 0 1 0 1

% Oligochaetes 32.3 1 59.2 1 27.4 3 23.9 3 10.2 .5 28.5 3 35.6 1 77.7 1 28.5 3

%Dominant Taxa 198.3 1 98.8 1 96 1 88.3 3 95..4 1 100 1 I 100 1 96.8 1 Density excl chiron and 2.7 23.3 1 oligo 1

' I 76.7 1 38.3 1 121.7 1 16.7 1 0 1 0 11 31.7 1 Zero Samples 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0.1 3 0.1 3 0 5 1 0 5 0.1 3 Overall Score 13 13 15 17 15 13 13: 13 11 39

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

Downstream Upstream TRM 527.4 TRM 533.3 Taxa 2009 2008 2009 2008 Tubellaria Tricladida Planariidae 15 47 Oligocheata Oligochaetes 5 15 --- 250 Hirudinea 23 55 ---

Crustacea Amphipoda 40 3 Isopoda 20 Insecta Ephemeroptera 2 Diptera Chironomidae Chironomids 7 73 70 Gastropoda Snails 15 10 8 Bivalvia Unionoida Unionidae Mussels 13 Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbicula(<10mm) 428 35 7 Corbicula(> 10mm) 158 2 Sphaeriidae Fingernail clams 8 2 Dreissenidae Dreissenapolymorpha 7 23 15 Density of organisms per meter' 690 187 160 320 Number of samples 10 10 10 10 Total area sampled (meter2 ) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 40

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

Station Location 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Aereige Forebay WBNU*pstream TRM533.3 13 --- 11 --- 13 --- 15 13 13 15 17 15 13 13 13 11 13*

Inflow WBN Downstream TRM 527.4 --- --- --- 29 27 33 35 31 --- 23 23 23 28 Inflow TRM 518.0 19 31 --- 25 --- 21 23 29 23 27 35 29 33 25 --- 31 27 Transition TRM 490.5 33 29 --- 31 --- 31 23 25 25 31 31 31 27 21 17 27 27 Forebay TRM 482.0 --- --- .------ --- 23 31 29 29 33 31 31 25 25 23 "28 Forebay TRM 472.3 31 27 --- 29 --- 25 27 27 21 27 29 27 29 19 25 23 26 Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")

41

SCCW Intake Intake Pumping Station Subm 80 Feet Figure 1. Map of WBN showing location of SCCW intake and discharge.

42

Te E1ectrof~hin~ 1ocations~

355 N35 36.927 W84 46.819 356 N35 36.734 W84 46.743 357 N35 36.488 W84 46.682 358 N35 36.184 W84 46.709 359 N35 35.881 W84 46.891 360 N35 35.716 W84 47.073 361 N35 35.562 W84 47.391 362 N35 35.451 W84 47.765 363 N35 37.152 W84 46.738 364 N35 37.142 W84 46.631 365 N35 36.818 W84 46.537 366 N35 36.510 W84 46.491 367 N35 36.060 W84 46.518 368 N35 35.791 W84 46.708 369 N35 35.467 W84 47.156 Figure 2. RFAI electrofishing downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, represented by black squares.

43

Electrofishing Locations Gill Net locations 1482 N35 37.948 W84 46.772 N35 37.800 W84 46.983 1483 N35 37.640 W84 46.772 N35 38.053 W84 47.053 1484 N35 37.815 W84 46.978 N35 38.225 W84 46.943 1485 N35 38.022 W84 47.000 N35 38.337 W84 46.863 1486 N35 38.203 W84 46.980 N35 38.513 W84 46.698 1487 N35 38.329 W84 46.835 N35 38.603 W84 46.627 1488 N35 38.533 W84 46.683 N35 38.828 W84 47.257 1489 N35 37.854 W84 47.570 N35 38.629 W84 47.390 1490 N35 37.748 W84 47.512 N35 38.421 W84 47.505 1491 N35 37.528 W84 47.592 N35 38.302 W84 47.593 1492 N35 37.359 W84 47.7 10 N35 37.927 W84 47.609 1493 N35 37.446 W84 47.508 N35 37.390 W84 46.702 1494 N35 37.515 W84 47.306 1495 N35 37.356 W84 47.170 1496 N35 37.376 W84 46.696 Figure 3. RFAI electrofishing and gill net locations upstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. Black squares represent electrofishing locations; red circles represent gill net locations.

44

90000 80000 -2009 Daily Average 70000 - Historic Daily Average 1976-2008 60000 t 50000 0 40000 n 30 0 0 0 -AY 20000 L

10000 Date Figure 4. Daily average flows (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar Dam, October 2008 through November 2009 and historic daily flows averaged for the same period 1976 through 2008.

45

90 8o 70 60 0.

so E

. 40 30 20 10 0

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

46

ADpendix 1: Historical RFAI Scores Historical Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores for Areas Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2008 47

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

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 28 species 5 27 species 3

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

3. Number of benthic invertivore species 5 species 3 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Logperch Logperch Black redhorse Freshwater drum Golden redhorse Northern hog sucker

4. Number of intolerant species 6 species 4 species Spotted sucker Spotted sucker Brook silverside Brook silverside Longear sunfish 5 Longear sunfish Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Black redhorse Northern hog sucker 48

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 82.3% 93.8%

Bluegill 63.0% Bluegill 72.6%

Gizzard shad 12.7% Gizzard shad 9.7%

Golden shiner 0.6% Common carp 0.2%

Spotfin shiner 1.2% Spotfin shiner 6.1% 0.5 Largemouth bass 1.1% Largemouth bass 1.6%

Green sunfish 1.8% Green sunfish 0.6%

Redbreast sunfish 1.8% Redbreast sunfish 3.0%

Gill Netting 58.8%

Bluegill 0.9%

Gizzard shad 49.8%

0.5 Common carp 1.9%

Largemouth bass 5.7%

White crappie 0.5%

6. Percent dominance by one species Electrofishing 63% 72.6%

Bluegill I Bluegill 0.5 Gill Netting 49.8%

0.5 Gizzard shad

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 3.2% 0.2%

Inland silverside 5 Common carp 2.5 Gill Netting 5.2%

Striped bass 3.3% 2.5 Common carp 1.9%

49

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

8. Number of top carnivore species 9 species 7 species Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Spotted bass Spotted bass 5 Spotted gar 5 Spotted gar Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Yellow bass Yellow bass White bass Black crappie White crappie Black crappie B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 3.7% 2.7%

Largemouth bass 1.1% Largemouth bass 1.6%

Smallmouth bass 0.1% Smallmouth bass 0.5%

Spotted bass 0.9% Spotted bass 0.08%

1 0.5 Spotted gar 0.5% Spotted gar 0.2%

Flathead catfish 0.7% Flathead catfish 0.4%

Yellow bass 0.07% White bass 0.08%

Black crappie 0.4%

Gill Netting 33.6%

Yellow bass 12.3%

Largemouth bass 5.7%

Flathead catfish 4.3%

Striped bass 3.3%

1.5 Black crappie 3.3%

White bass 2.8%

Spotted bass 0.9%

Smallmouth bass 0.5%

White crappie 0.5%

50

Appendix 1-A. (Continued)

Autumn 2008 TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 14.6% 10.3%

Gizzard shad 12.7% Gizzard shad 9.7%

Smallmouth buffalo 0.07% 5 Smallmouth buffalo 0.2% 2.5 Channel catfish 1.1% Channel catfish 0.2%

Blue catfish 0.1% Common carp 0.2%

Golden shiner 0.6%

Gill Netting 61.6%

Gizzard shad 49.8%

Blue catfish 4.3%

0.5 Common carp 1.9%

Channel catfish 1.4%

Smallmouth buffalo 3.3%

Hybrid shad 0.9%

C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 94.3 3 85.8 0.5 Gill Netting 21.1 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.9% 5 0.4% 2.5 Gill Netting 0.9% 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 44 36 Good Fair 51

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

Autumn 2007 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 26 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3 2 1

4. Number of intolerant species 6 5 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 75.6 1 85.1 0.5 Gill Netting 46.8 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 51.9 1 52.2 0.5 Gill Netting 41.4 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.3 5 2.6 1.5 Gill Netting 3.4 2.5

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

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 12 3 9.5 1.5 Gill Netting 45.8 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 16.1 5 22.5 2.5 Gill Netting 50.2 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 51.6 3 35.9 0.5 Gill Netting 29.5 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 3.2 3 1.3 2.5 Gill Netting ---. I A '"7

'+.l 1.,

Overall RFAI Score 42 36 Good Fair 52

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

Autumn 2006 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 28 5 29 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores .5 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 6 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 82.3 1 85.2 0.5 Gill Netting 34.8 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 63 1 37.9 1.5 Gill Netting 26.1 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 3.2 5 1.1 2.5 Gill Netting 2.5 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 7 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 3.7 1 6 1.5 Gill Netting 54 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 14.6 5 30.5 1.5 Gill Netting 32.9 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 94.3 3 85.3 0.5 Gill Netting 16.1 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.9 5 0.2 2.5

~..--- Ifd~il U Z. D Overall RFAI Score 44 44 Good Good 53

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

Autumn 2005 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 31 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 6 5 8 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 6 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 58.6 1 81.9 0.5 Gill Netting 11.9 2.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 30.5 3 48.3 1.5 Gill Netting 34.9 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 1 5 0.8 2.5 Gill Netting 2.3 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 7 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 16.7 3 5 1.5 Gill Netting 80.7 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 33.3 3 19.5 2.5 Gill Netting 10.1 2.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 67 3 74.5 0.5 Gill Netting 21.8 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 2.2 3 0.8 2.5 Gill Netting IL ______________________________

U Overall RFAI Score 42 47 Good Good 54

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

Autumn 2004 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 29 5 28 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 64.8 1.0 81.8 0.5 Gill Netting 26.6 1.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 50.0 1.0 36.8 1.5 Gill Netting 23.4 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.5 5.0 1.4 2.5 Gill Netting 1.3 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 10 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 16.9 3.0 6.5 1.5 Gill Netting 57.1 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 51.2 3.0 35.1 1.5 Gill Netting 31.8 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 99.9 3.0 66.6 0.5 Gill Netting 15.4 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.3 5.0 1.6 2.5 A*

Gill Netting ---. I U Overall RFAI Score 42 43 Good Good 55

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

Autumn 2003 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 30 5 29 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 8 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 5 5 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 57.7 3 78.8 0.5 Gill Netting 27.9 1.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 34.2 3 48.5 1.5 Gill Netting 28.4 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.6 5 1.0 2.5 Gill Netting 5.3 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 10 5 11 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 10.2 1 5.9 1.5 Gill Netting 56.8 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 18.7 5 20.0 2.5 Gill Netting 32.6 1.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 69.1 3 57.6 0.5 Gill Netting 19.0 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.7 5 0.8 2.5

'3 1 1.1X X'Lffl iii .... 2. 1 1 .,)

Overall RFAI Score 48 45 Good Good 56

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

Autumn 2002 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 26 3 27 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 5 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 6 5 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 37.5 3 78.0 0.5 Gill Netting 33.9 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 29.4 3 60.0 0.5 Gill Netting 26.2 1.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.8 5 1.7 2.5 Gill Netting 4.7 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 7 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 12.1 3 9.7 1.5 Gill Netting 56.7 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 13.2 5 10.2 2.5 Gill Netting 35.6 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 85.7 3 28.2 0.5 Gill Netting 23.3 1.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.5 5 0.9 2.5

";11 NTýt+;n

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

Overall RFAI Score 48 39 Good Fair 57

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

Autumn 2001 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 29 5 27 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 6 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 6 3 4 3

4. Number of intolerant species 6 5 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 51.8 3 75.9 0.5 Gill Netting 37.5 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 29.5 3 44.7 1.5 Gill Netting 33.1 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.4 5 2.2 1.5 Gill Netting 2.5 2.5

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

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 8.4 1 4.7 0.5 Gill Netting 48.4 1.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 12.8, 5 6.6 2.5 Gill Netting 39.6 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 37.5 1 39.3 0.5 Gill Netting 27.5 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.2 5 0.7 2.5.

ill LMttln "IiL+/-1. ' *tlhl*5 .... U.A+.

Overall RFAI Score 46 39 Good Fair 58

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

Autumn 2000 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 24 3 31 5

2. Number of centrarchid species 7 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 4 3 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 5 5

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 62.5 1 81 0.5 Gill Netting 43.5 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 38.5 3 46.7 1.5 Gill Netting 31.8 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 4.2 5 1.6 2.5 Gill Netting 4.7 2.5

8. Number of top carnivore species 7 5 10 5 B. Trophic composition

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 20.6 3 8.7 1.5 Gill Netting 51.8 2.5

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 14.7 5 15.3 2.5 Gill Netting 39.4 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 61.5 3 47 0.5 Gill Netting .34 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.1 5 1.4 2.5 A

Gill Netting +/-I ________________________

U Z.J Overall RFAI Score 44 44 Good Good 59

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

Autumn 1999 Downstream Upstream TRM 529.0 TRM 531.0 Metric Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition

1. Number of species 27 3 26 3

2. Number of centrarchid species 5 5 7 5

3. Number of benthic invertivores 7 5 3 1

4. Number of intolerant species 4 3 4 3

5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing 25.1 5 71 0.5 Gill Netting 61.4 0.5

6. Percent dominance by 1 species Electrofishing 46.9 1 29.7 1.5 Gill Netting 58 0.5

7. Percent non-native species Electrofishing 0.7 5 8.4 0.5 Gill Netting 2 2.5

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

9. Percent top carnivores Electrofishing 7.9 1 14.2 2.5 Gill Netting 19.4 0.5 Sw

10. Percent omnivores Electrofishing 11.1 25.8 1.5 Gill Netting 71 0.5 C. Fish abundance and health

11. Average number per run Electrofishing 37.1 1 10.3 0.5 Gill Netting 44.8 2.5

12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 2.7 3 1.3 2.5 Gill Netting A' 11 C*

I ______________________________

U Overall RFAI Score 42 36 Good Fair 60

Appendix 2: Historical Fish Species List Species Collected and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing (TRM 529 and 531) and gill netting (TRM 531) at Areas Upstream and Downstream of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, 1999-2008.

61

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF level species species Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 12.00 55.90 180 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.53 2.48 8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.13 5.28 17 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.73 8.07 26 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 1.73 8.07 26 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 59.47 277.02 892 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.00 4.66 15 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.31 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.07 0.31 1 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.20 0.93 3 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 1.27 5.90 19 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.13 0.62 2 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X INT 0.13 0.62 2 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.47 2.17 7 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB X 0.07 0.31 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.33 1.55 5 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.07 0.31 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.31 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.47 2.17 7 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.13 0.62 2 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.07 4.97 16 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.67 3.11 10 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.07 0.31 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.80 3.73 12 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 6.20 28.88 93 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.87 4.04 13 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.33 1.55 5 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.27 1.24 4 Inland silverside Menidia bervllina IN 3.00 13.98 45 Total 94.35 439.42 1,415 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 29 62

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total Total.fishTotalGilTtlfs f Gill Netting _

TrophicSunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined level species species Run Hour Net Night Common Name Scientific name Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 8.33 39.06 125 10.5 105 230 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.63 2 0.40 4 6 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 5.27 24.69 79 79 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 2.53 11.88 38 38 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.53 2.5 8 8 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 62.33 292.19 935 0.20 2 937 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.33 6.25 20 1.20 12 32 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.13 0.63 2 0.30 3 5 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.53 2.50 8 8 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.40 1.88 6 0.10 1 7 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.13 0.63 2 2 Paddlefish Polyodon spathula PK X 0.10 1 1 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.63 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.13 0.63 2 2 Hybrid shad HybridDorosoma OM X 0.20 2 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.40 1.88 6 6 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.63 2 0.70 7 9 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.90 9 9 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.20 0.94 3 0.30 3 6 Flathead catfish Pylodictisolivaris TC X 0.33 1.56 5 0.90 9 14 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.31 0.60 6 7 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.60 26 26 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.70 7 7 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.07 0.31 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.20 10.31 33 0.10 1 34 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.31 1 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.07 0.31 1 0.20 2 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.70 7 7 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.20 0.94 3 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus ,zrunniens BI X 0.13 0.63 2 0.30 3 5 Total 85.77 402.23 1287 21.1 211 1498 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 20 63

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF level species species Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.07 0.32 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 7.40 '35.02 111 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.32 1 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.32 1 Spotfm shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.80 8.52 27 X X Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.47 6.94 22 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.20 0.95 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN TOL 26.80 126.81 402 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.13 5.36 17 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.32 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.33 1.58 5 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.13 0.63 2 Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris TC X INT 0.07 0.32 1 X X Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.60 2.84 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.27 1.26 4 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.32 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.40 1.89 6 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinellawhipplei IN X 0.07 0.32 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.60 2.84 9 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.80 3.79 12 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 1.87 8.83 28 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.47 2.21 7 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC X X 0.07 0.32 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.40 1.89 6 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 3.60 17.03 54 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.00 9.46 30 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.27 1.26 4 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.33 1.58 5 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 0.95 3 Total 51.63 244.20 774 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 29 64

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing . ... Gill Netting Total level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Ea Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour EF Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 6.87 33.77 103 12.20 122 225 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.30 7 0.10 1 8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.07 5.25 16 16 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.07 0.33 1 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.53 2.62 8 8 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 1.64 5 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 18.73 92.13 281 0.20 2 283 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.40 11.80 36 1.00 10 46 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.07 0.33 1 0.30 3 4 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.40 4 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 0.98 3 0.50 5 8 X X 1 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN INT 0.07 0.33 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.13 0.66 2 0.20 2 4 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.40 1.97 6 6 Hybrid shad HybridDorosoma OM X 1.40 14 14 Bullhead minnow Pimephalesvigilax IN X 0.07 0.33 1 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.27 1.31 4 0.50 5 9 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.13 0.66 2 0.10 1 3 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.30 3 3 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.27 1.31 4 0.20 2 6 Flathead catfish Pylodictisolivaris TC X 0.47 2.30 7 1.40 14 21 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.33 1 0.30 3 4 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 4.60 46 46 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC X X 0.90 9 9 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.13 0.66 2 2 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.07 10.16 31 31 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN 0.13 0.66 2 2 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.27 1.31 4 4 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 4.40 44 44 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 0.98 3 0.50 5 8 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 0.47 2.30 7 7 Total 35.89 176.42 538 29.50 295 833 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 25 19 65

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

Electrofishing ElectrofishingToa fish Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF level species species Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.13 0.58 2 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 17.93 77.52 269 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.07 0.29 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 2.93 12.68 44 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.27 5.48 19 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.20 0.86 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 16.67 72.05 250 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.07 4.61 16 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 0.86 3 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.40 1.73 6 Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris TC X INT 0.07 0.29 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 1.67 7.20 25 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.67 2.88 10 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X TNT 1.00 4.32 15 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.58 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.29 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 1.27 5.48 19 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.80 3.46 12 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.07 0.29 1 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.33 5.76 20 Flathead catfish Pylodictisolivaris TC X 0.47 2.02 7 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.53 2.31 8 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 5.53 23.92 83 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.13 9.22 32 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.33 1.44 5 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 1.47 6.34 22 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 1.27 5.48 19 Inland silverside Menidia bervllina IN 2.00 8.65 30 Total 61.68 266.59 925 Number Samples 15 Snecies Collected 28 66

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting TotalGilTtlfs Common Name Scientific name ..... ...... . .... Run Hour Net Night . . .

Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 23.53 94.39 353 4.20 42 395 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.60 2.41 9 0.40 4 13 Spotfm shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 5.73 22.99 86 86 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 1.40 5.61 21 21 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 5.53 22.19 83 83 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 1.60 6.42 24 24 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 32.33 129.68 485 0.10 1 486 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.00 8.02 30 0.40 4 34 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.50 5 5 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.20 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X JNT 0.53 2.14 8 0.80 8 16 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.40 1.60 6 6 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.73 2.94 11 11 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.20 0.80 3 3 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.53 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.27 1 0.50 5 6 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.20 0.80 3 0.40 4 7 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.07 0.27 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.20 2 2 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.27 1.07 4 0.10 1 5 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.34 5 1.00 10 15 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 1.40 5.61 21 1.10 11 32 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.60 26 26 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC X X 0.13 0.53 2 2 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.13 0.53 2 0.10 1 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN 3.67 14.71 55 55 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.20 0.80 3 3 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.20 0.80 3 2.90 29 32 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.20 0.80 3 3 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.47 1.87 7 7 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.07 0.27 1 0.60 6 7 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 3.20 12.83 48 48 Total 85.32 342.22 1,280 16.10 161 1,441 Number Samples 15 10 Snecies Collected 28 17 67

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Trophic Sunfish Native Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF level species species Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.07 0.34 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 20.47 105.86 307 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.40 2.07 6 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 1.03 3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.27 1.38 4 Striped shiner Luxilus chrysocephalus OM X TOL 0.13 0.69 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.93 10.00 29 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 2.00 10.34 30 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 11.80 61.03 177 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.00 10.34 30 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.34 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.53 2.76 8 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.13 0.69 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 3.07 15.86 46 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X 1NT 1.67 8.62 25 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X TNT 0.07 0.34 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 3.73 19.31 56 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 2.93 15.17 44 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.53 2.76 8 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.13 0.69 2 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.00 5.17 15 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 1.13 5.86 17 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.87 4.48 13 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 5.67 29.31 85 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 3.73 19.31 56 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.73 8.97 26 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.27 1.38 4 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.27 1.38 4 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.03 3 Total 67.00 346.51 1,005 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 29 68

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting To Trophic Sunfish Native tal Gill Total fish Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per level species species Hour EF Net Night et fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 12.73 67.02 191 1.20 12 203 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.46 7 0.30 3 10 Notemigonus crysoleucas X TOL 0.07 0.35 1 1 Golden shiner OM Spotfm shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 6.80 35.79 102 102 0.35 1 1 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.07 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.67 8.77 25 25 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 2.33 12.28 35 35 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 36.00 189.47 540 540 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.93 4.91 14 0.70 7 21 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.40 4 4 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.90 9 9 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.27 1.40 4 1.70 17 21 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.33 1.75 5 5 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.80 4.21 12 0.10 1 13 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X INT 3.47 18.25 52 52 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.33 1.75 5 5 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.33 1.75 5 5 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.13 0.70 2 2 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.70 2 0.10 1 3 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.40 2.11 6 6 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.40 4 4 Channel catfish lctaluruspunctatus OM X 0.67 3.51 10 0.20 2 12 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 1.13 5.96 17 1.10 11 28 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.27 1.40 4 1.40 14 18 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 7.60 76 76 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.35 1 0.20 2 3 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.53 2.81 8 8 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.33 12.28 35 35 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN X X 0.13 0.70 2 2 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.13 0.70 2 2 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.07 0.35 1 5.20 52 53 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.35 1 1 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.20 1.05 3 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.80 4.21 12 0.30 3 15 Inland silverside Menidia beryllina IN 0.87 4.56 13 13 Total 74.53 392.25 1,118 21.80 218 1,336 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 31 16 69

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 1.20 6.21 18 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 50.00 258.62 750 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.40 2.07 6 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.34 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.73 3.79 11 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.07 0.34 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.27 6.55 19 Green sunfish Lepomis eyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 1.72 5 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 5.93 30.69 89 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 4.33 22.41 65 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.40 2.07 6 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X 1NT 0.27 1.38 4 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 2.13 11.03 32 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.67 8.62 25 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.53 2.76 8 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.34 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 13.07 67.59 196 Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB X 0.07 0.34 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.60 3.10 9 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.07 0.34 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI .X 0.13 0.69 2 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.60 3.10 9 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.60 3.10 9 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 2.13 11.03 32 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 1.73 8.97 26 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 4.27 22.07 64 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.34 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 3.27 16.90 49 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.53 7.93 23 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.07 0.34 1 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 1.20 6.21 18 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 1.13 5.86 17 Total 99.94 516.85 1,499 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 32 70

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing .... Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tro picSiesh seies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net Gill Totlish Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.07 0.38 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 22.07 126.34 331 3.60 36 367 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.67 7 0.10 1 8 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.07 6.11 16 16 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X TOL 3.80 21.76 57 57 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X TOL 0.73 4.20 11 11 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X TOL 24.53 140.46 .368 368 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 1.73 9.92 26 0.10 27 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X TOL 0.30 3 3 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X TNT 3.40 34 34 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X TNT 0.93 5.34 14 1.30 13 27 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.73 9.92 26 0.10 13 27 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X TNT 2.40 13.74 36 36 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.38 1 I 1 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.73 4.20 11 11 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.60 3.44 9 0.10 10 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.13 0.76 2 1 2 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.10 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.30 3 3 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.13 0.76 2 0.80 8 10 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.91 5 0.30 3 8 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.38 1 1.70 17 18 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.07 0.38 1 0.50 5 6 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.13 0.76 2 0.10 1 3 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X 0.33 1.91 5 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X 2.80 16.03 42 0.10 I 43 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN X 0.47 2.67 7 7 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.20 1.15 3 0.90 9 12 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X 1.30 13 13 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.33 1.91 5 5 Sauger Sander canadense TC X 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.67 3.82 10 0.20 2 12 Total 66.59 381.30 999 15.40 154 1,153 Number Samples 15 10 Sp~ecies Collected 26 20 71

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish level species specie Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Common Name Scientific name species Run Hour Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.20 1.08 3 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 11.87 63.80 178 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.40 2.15 6 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 1.08 3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.73 3.94 11 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.72 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.47 2.51 7 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.20 1.08 3 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 23.60 126.88 354 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 2.00 10.75 30 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.07 0.36 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.27 1.43 4 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.40 2.15 6 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.20 1.08 3 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.67 3.58 10 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.13 0.72 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 17.67 94.98 265 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.20 1.08 3 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinella whipplei IN X 0.27 1.43 4 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.40 2.15 6 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.33 1.79 5 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.79 5 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.13 0.72 2 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 1.13 6.09 17 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.07 0.36 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 4.07 21.86 61 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN X X 0.13 0.72 2 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.60 8.60 24 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.87 4.66 13 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.07 0.36 1 Walleye Sander vitreus TC X 0.07 0.36 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.08 3 Total 69.08 371.34 1,036 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 32 72

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Gill Netting T.....

Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Gill Totlish Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Net Night Common Name Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 9.93 52.65 149 4.00 40 189 Common carp Cvprinus carpio OM TOL 0.53 2.83 8 0.40 4 12 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.40 2.12 6 6 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 3.33 17.67 50 50 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.71 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.20 6.36 18 18 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 1.07 5.65 16 16 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 27.93 148.06 419 419 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 0.87 4.59 13 0.80 8 21 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.10 1 1 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT 0.20 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.40 2.12 6 1.40 14 20 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.13 0.71 2 2 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.73 3.89 11 0.20 2 13 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 4.67 24.73 70 70 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.71 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.07 0.35 1 0.50 5 6 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.20 1.06 3 0.90 9 12 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.10 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.30 3 3 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.33 1.77 5 0.50 5 10 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.27 1.41 4 1.70 17 21 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.13 0.71 2 0.60 6 8 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 5.40 54 54 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC X X 0.07 0.35 0.60 6 7 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 3.33 17.67 50 50 Hybrid sunfish HybridLepomis sp. IN 0.07 0.35 1 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.80 4.24 12 0.40 4 16 X X Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC 0.40 2.12 6 0.70 7 13 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.13 0.71 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.10 1 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.33 1.77 5 0.10 1 6 Total 57.58 305.31 864 19.00 190 1,054 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 20 73

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 9.20 51.49 138 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.61 7 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 1.12 3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.87 10.45 28 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.27 7.09 19 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.27 1.49 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 1N X X TOL 16.27 91.04 244 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 2.60 14.55 39 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X 1NT 0.07 0.37 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.53 2.99 8 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.13 0.75 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.53 2.99 8 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.07 5.97 16 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X 1NT 1.33 7.46 20 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 25.20 141.04 378 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.13 0.75 2 Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IN X 0.40 2.24 6 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.47 2.61 7 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.47 8.21 22 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.40 2.24 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.60 3.36 9 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.33 13.06 35 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.37 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.33 1.87 5 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 14.73 82.46 221 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.07 11.57 31 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.20 6.72 18 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.13 0.75 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.40 2.24 6 Total 85.74 479.86 1,286 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 29 74

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

fish Gill Netting Total 1 Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total nsh Gill Notal Gil Total fish Tro p cS iesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined level species species Run Hour E Net Night Common Name Scientific name Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.30 3 3 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 1.80 9.22 27 6.10 61 88 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.47 2.39 7 0.30 3 10 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.40 2.05 6 6 Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.68 2 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.93 4.78 14 14 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.47 2.39 7 7 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 16.93 86.69 254 254 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 0.87 4.44 13 1.00 10 23 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.20 2 2 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.34 1 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.40 2.05 6 0.70 7 13 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.40 2.05 6 0.20 2 8 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.27 1.37 4 4 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.34 1 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.10 1 1 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.33 1.71 5 0.30 3 8 Black buffalo Ictiobus niger OM X 0.07 0.34 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 1.10 11 11 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.07 0.34 0.50 5 6 10 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.67 3.41 1.80 18 28 10 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.34 1.80 18 19 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 4.20 42 42 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.50 5 5

• Hybridmorone (chrysopsx Hybrid striped x white bass TC 0.30 3 3 sax)

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.27 1.37 4 4 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.40 12.29 36 36 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.20 1.02 3 3 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.60 3.07 9 0.40 4 13 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.07 0.34 1 2.50 25 26 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.27 1.37 4 1.00 10 14 Total 28.23 144.39 423 23.30 233 656 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 24 19 75

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

Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish Trophic Sunfish Native Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF level species species Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 2.93 12.68 44 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.13 0.58 2 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.20 0.86 3 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 2.07 8.93 31 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.07 0.29 1 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.00 4.32 15 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.73 3.17 11 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 11.07 47.84 166 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 1.13 4.90 17 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.07 0.29 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.40 1.73 6 River redhorse Moxostoma carinatum BI X INT 0.07 0.29 1 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.07 0.29 1 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.13 0.58 2 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.13 0.58 2 Brook silverside Labidesthessicculus IN X INT 1.27 5.48 19 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.07 0.29 1 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.00 0.00 0 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 2.20 9.51 33 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.53 2.31 8 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.73 3.17 11 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.73 3.17 11 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.53 2.31 8 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.07 0.29 1 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.07 0.29 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.07 0.29 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 9.27 40.06 139 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.29 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 1.07 4.61 16 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.20 0.86 3 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.40 1.73 6 Total 37.48 161.99 562 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 30 76

Appendix 2-P. Species Collected, Trophic Level, Native and Tolerance Classification, and Catch Per Unit Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting Upstream (TRM 531.0) of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2001.

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Tro p cSiesh speies Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name species species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 1.67 8.39 25 9.10 91 116 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.53 2.68 8 0.20 2 10 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 6.13 30.87 92 92 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.20 1.01 3 3 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 2.40 12.08 36 36 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.53 2.68 8 8 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 17.60 88.59 264 0.50 5 269 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 0.80 4.03 12 0.50 5 17 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X ]NT 0.20 2 2 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.47 2.35 7 1.20 12 19 Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT 0.40 2.01 6 0.10 1 7 Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT 0.93 4.70 14 14 Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X 0.13 0.67 2 2 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 0.30 3 3 Steelcolor shiner Cyprinellawhipplei IN X 2.07 10.40 31 31 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.67 2 0.10 1 3 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.10 1 Blue catfish lctalurusfurcatus OM X 0.50 5 5 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.07 0.34 1 1.00 10 11 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.20 1.01 3 0.80 8 11 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.13 0.67 2 0.50 5 7 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 7.10 71 71 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.40 4 4 Hybrid morone (chrysops x Hybrid striped x white bass TC 0.10 1 sax)

Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.10 1 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 3.73 18.79 56 56 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.07 0.34 1 0.20 2 3 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.13 0.67 2 3.40 34 36 Yellow perch Percaflavescens IN 0.33 1.68 5 5 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 0.27 1.34 4 4 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.40 2.01 6 1.10 11 17 Total 39.32 197.98 590 27.50 275 865 Number Samples 15 10 St~ecies Collected 23 21 77

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per EF Common Name Scientific name Run our Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL 6.07 34.73 91 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 2.53 14.50 38 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.07 0.38 1 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 1.53 8.78 23 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 1.07 6.11 16 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.27 1.53 4 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 23.67 135.50 355 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 3.13 17.94 47 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.07 0.38 1 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.33 1.91 5 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.60 3.44 9 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 1.27 7.25 19 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 1.80 10.31 27 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.27 1.53 4 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.27 1.53 4 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 0.07 0.38 1 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.20 1.15 3 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 1.91 5 White-bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.40 2.29 6 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 2.27 12.98 34 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.07 0.38 1 Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.60 3.44 9 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 9.13 52.29 137 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.13 0.76 2 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 2.33 13.36 35 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 2.87 16.41 43 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.07 0.38 1 Total 61.42 351.55 921 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 27 78

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

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

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

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

STrophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing Total fish lvlpicSuiesh NativTolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per Scientific name level species species Run Hour EF Common Name Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.13 0.85 2 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 3.07 19.57 46 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.27 1.70 4 Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL 0.40 2.55 6 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.60 3.83 9 Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL 0.13 0.85 2 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.40 2.55 6 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.33 2.13 5" Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 3.47 22.13 52 Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL 0.53 3.40 8 Northern hog sucker Hypentelium nigricans BI X INT 0.27 1.70 4 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.60 3.83 9 Black redhorse Moxostoma duquesnei BI X INT 0.33 2.13 5 Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.20 1.28 3 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 17.40 111.06 261 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.40 2.55 6 Shorthead redhorse Moxostoma macrolepidotum BI X 0.07 0.43 1 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.47 2.98 .7 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 0.27 1.70 4 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.40 2.55 6 White bass Morone chrysops TC X 0.20 1.28 3 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 0.40 2.55 6 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN' X X 4.20 26.81 63 Hybrid sunfish Hybrid lepomis sp. IN X X 0.07 0.43 1 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.73 4.68 11 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.27 1.70 4 Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X 1.27 8.09 19 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.07 0.43 1 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.20 1.28 3 Total 37.15 237.02 557 Number Samples 15 Species Collected 29 80

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

Trophic Sunfish Native Electrofishing Electrofishing . ... Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish level species species Tolerance Catch Rate Per Catch Rate Per F Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Common Name Scientific name Run Hour Net Night Longnose gar Lepisosteus osseus TC X TOL 0.10 1 1 Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL 1.67 10.00 25 26.00 260 285 Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL 0.87 5.20 13 0.60 6 19 Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.40 2.40 6 6 Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X X TOL 0.47 2.80 7 7 Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X X TOL 0.13 0.80 2 2 Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X X TOL 3.07 18.40 46 0.10 1 47 Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL 0.73 4.40 11 0.30 3 14 White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X X TOL 0.40 4 4 Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT . 1.30 13 13 Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT 0.20 2. 2 Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X X INT 0.07 0.40 1 1 Smalimouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X INT 0.33 2.00 5 5 Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X 1.70 17 17 Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IN X 0.40 2.40 6 6 Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X 0.13 0.80 2 0.40 4 6 Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X 0.07 0.40 1 1 Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X 3.70 37 37 Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X 1.10 11 11 Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X 0.33 2.00 5 0.40 4 9 White bass Morone chrysops TC X . 1.00 10 10 Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X 4.50 45 45 Striped bass Morone saxatilis TC 0.30 3 3 Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 1.13 6.80 17 0.10 1 18 Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X 0.07 0.40 1 1 Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.20 2 2 Sauger Sander canadensis TC X 0.20 2 2 Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X 0.47 2.80 7 2.20 22 29 Total 10.34 62.00 155 44.80 448 603 Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 16 20 81