ML12166A137
| ML12166A137 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/2012 |
| From: | John Carlin Tennessee Valley Authority |
| To: | Cromer P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of TN, Dept of Environmental & Conservation, Div of Water Supply |
| References | |
| TN0026450 | |
| Download: ML12166A137 (124) | |
Text
Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Soddy Daisy, Tennessee 37384-2000 June 12, 2012 State of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Water Pollution Control Enforcement & Compliance Section 6 th Floor, L & C Annex 401 Church Street Nashville, Tennessee 37243-1534
Dear Mr. Patrick Cromer:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (TVA) - SEQUOYAH NUCLEAR PLANT (SQN) - NPDES PERMIT NO. TN0026450 - 2011 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT Enclosed is the "Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer and Autumn 2011" report. This report is submitted in accordance with Part III, Section F of the TVA - Sequoyah Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. TN0026450. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brad Love at (423) 843-6714 or by e-mail at bmlove@tva.gov of Sequoyah's Environmental staff.
/ certify underpenalty of law that this document and all attachments were preparedunder my direction or supervision in accordancewith a system designed to assure that qualifiedpersonnel properly gatherand evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those personsdirectly responsible for gatheringthe information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significantpenalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
r.ely, 4Sing Siite resident Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Enclosures cc (Enclosures):
Chattanooga Environmental Field Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division of Water Pollution Control Attn: Document Control Desk State Office Building, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20555 540 McCallie Avenue Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2013
Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer and Autumn 2011 May 2012 Tennessee Valley Authority Biological and Water Resources Knoxville, Tennessee
Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ vi A cronym s and Abbreviations ............. I.................................................................................. V iii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Plant Description ............................................................................................................................. 2 M ethods ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Shoreline A quatic H abitat Assessm ent ....................................................................................... 2 River Bottom Habitat ............................................................................................................. 3 Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN. ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Traditional Analyses ................................................... 8 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Dow nstream of SQN ....................... .......................................................................... 9 Plankton Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN ..................................................................................................................... 11 Phytoplankton .............................................................................................................................. 11 Zooplankton ....................................................... 12 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 12 Visual Encounter Surveys (O bservations of W ildlife) .............................................................. 12 Chickam auga Reservoir Flow and SQN Tem perature .................................................................... 1 Therm al Plum e Characterization .................................................................. ....... ......... 1 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples ................................. 2 Results and D iscussion ........................................................................................................... 2 Aquatic H abitat in the V icinity of SQN ..................................................................................... 2 Shoreline A quatic H abitat A ssessm ent ....................................................................................... 2 River Bottom H abitat .............................................................................................................. 3 Fish Comm unity .............................................................................................................................. 3 Traditional Analyses ........................................................................................................................ 9 Benthic M acroinvertebrate Com m unity .................................................................................. 12 Plankton Com m unity .................................................................................................................... 15 Plankton Sum m ary ......................................................................................................................... 18 Review of Previous Plankton Studies ....................................................................................... 19 Visual Encounter Survey/W ildlife Observations .................................................................... 20 Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN .................................................... 21 i
Therm al Plum e Characterization ............................................................................................. 21 Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites During RFAI Samples .............................. 22 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 23 Tables ............................................................................................................................................ 25 Figures ........................................................................................................................................... 77
List of Tables Table 1. Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI) metrics and scoring criteria ...................... 26 Table 2. Expected values for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition and forebay zones ................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of fish species, bound by confidence intervals (95%), expected in upper mainstemn Tennessee River reservoir transition and forebay zones and proportions and numbers of species observed during summ er and autumn 2011 .............................................................................................. 28 Table 4. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections of upper mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs ................................. 29 Table 5. Scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (lab-processed) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs .......... 30 Table 6. SAHI scores for 16 shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the Upstream RFAI sampling area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, autumn 2009 ................................ 31 Table 7. SAHI Scores for 16 Shoreline Habitat Assessments Conducted within the Downstream RFAI Sampling Area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009 .................... 32 Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (fi) per transect upstream (8 transects) and downstream (8 transects) of SQN ........................................................................... 33 Table 9. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Summer 2011 ............................... 34 Table 10. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of (Sequoyah nuclear) Autumn 2011 ....................................... 38 Table 11. Summer 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer 2011 ..... 42 Table 12. Summer 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer 2011 ............................ 43 Table 13. Autumn 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011 ...... 44 Table 14. Autumn 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011 .............................. 45 Table 15. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, summer 2011 ................................................. 46 Table 16. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run), tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011 ................................................... 47 iii
Table 17. Summary of RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as well as scores from sampling conducted during autumn 1993-2011 as part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir .......... 48 Table 18. Comparison of mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected at upstream and downstream sites near SQN during August and October 2011 ............................... 49 Table 19. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir ................................................. 50 Table 20. Comparison of mean density per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa collected with a Ponar Dredge along Transects Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Summer and Autumn 2011 ................................................... 51 Table 21. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near SQN, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010 ........ 56 Table 22. Mean percent composition of major phytoplankton groups at sites sampled upstream and downstream of SQN in August and October, 2011 ................................................. 57 Table 23. Comparison of the similarity of phytoplankton taxa within paired replicate samples. 57 Table 24. Taxa richness of the main phytoplankton groups ................................................... 57 Table 25. Percent Similarity Index for comparison of phytoplankton communities among sites.
.............................................. .............................................................................................. 57 Table 26. Phytoplankton taxa and density (cells/ml) data for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011.
Abbreviations "R I" and R2" designate replicate samples ............................................ 58 Table 27. Percentage Composition of phytoplankton for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011. 61 Table 28. Concentrations of chlorophyll a (apparent and corrected), phaeophytin a and the chlorophyll/phaeophytin index values for samples collected upstream and downstream of SQN during 2011 ................................................................................................................ 64
,Table 29. Mean percent composition of major zooplankton groups at sites sampled upstream and downstream of SQN in August and October, 2011 ............ ............................ 64 Table 30. Comparison of the similarity of zooplankton taxa within paired replicate samples .... 65 Table 31. Taxa richness of the main zooplankton groups ........................................................ 65 Table 32. Percent Similarity Index for comparison of zooplankton communities among sites.. 65 Table 33: Zooplankton taxa and density (organisms/m3) data for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011. Abbreviations "RI" and R2" designate replicate samples ............................. 66 Table 34. Percentage composition of zooplankton taxa for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011.
..................... ........................................................................................................................ 68 Table 35. Wildlife Visual Encounter Survey Results of Shoreline Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant during August (Summer) and October (Autumn) 2011. (RDB =
right descending bank, LDB = Left Descending Bank) ................................................. 70 iv
Table 36. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%,
90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 486.7 (ambient), TRM 483.4 (discharge), TRM 481.1 (middle of plume), TRM 480.0 (downstream limit of plume), and TRM 478.3 (below plume) on August 25, 2011 (Summer) ....................... 71 Table 37. Water temperature (°F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%,
90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 487 (ambient), TRM 483.4 (discharge), TRM 482.2 (below discharge), TRM 481.0 (downstream limit of plume), and TRM 478.3 (below plume) on September 14, 2011 (Autumn).................. 72 Table 38. Seasonal water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles downstream (TRM 482) and upstream (TRM 490.5) of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River. Abbreviations: 'C -Temperature in degrees Celsius, 'F
- Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond - Conductivity, DO - Dissolved Oxygen ..... 73 v
List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map for Sequoyah Nuclear plant depicting Chickamauga and Watts Bar Dam locations and water supply intakes downstream of the plant thermal discharge ........... 78 Figure 2. Site map for Sequoyah Nuclear plant showing condenser cooling water intake structure, skimmer wall, and NPDES-permitted discharge Outfall No. 101 .................. 79 Figure 3. Biological monitoring stations upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant ...................... 80 Figure 4. Biological monitoring stations downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, including mixing zone and thermal plume from SQN CCW discharge ......................................... 81 Figure 5. Benthic and shoreline habitat transects within the fish community sampling area upstream and downstream of SQN ................................................................................ 82 Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge during October 2010 through November 2011 ......................................................................................... 83 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (1 and 2) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN ........................................................................... 84 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (3 and 4) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN ........................................................................... 85 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (5 and 6) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN ........................................................................... 86 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (7 and 8) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN ........................................................................... 87 Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (1 and 2) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN ................................................................................ 88 Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (3 and 4) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN ................................................................................ 89 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (5 and 6) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN ................................................................................ 90 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (7 and 8) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN ................................................................................ 91 Figure 15. Number of indigenous fish species collected during RFAI samples downstream of SQN (TRM 482) during 1996 and 1999 through 2011 ................................................... 92 Figure 16. Number of indigenous fish species collected during RFAI samples upstream of SQN (TRM 490.5) during 1993 to 1997 and 1999 through 2011 ........................................... 92 Figure 17. Proportions of selected benthic taxa from Ponar dredge sampling at locations upstream and downstream of SQN, summer and autumn 2011 ..................................... 93 Figure 18. Mean phytoplankton densities (cells/ml) for samples collected August 25, 2011 ..... 94 Figure 19. Mean phytoplankton biovolume (Am3/ml) for samples collected August 25, 2011.. 94 Figure 20. Mean phytoplankton densities (cells/ml) for samples collected October 10, 2011 ..... 94 Figure 21. Mean phytoplankton biovolume (Am3/ml) for samples collected October 10, 2011. 94 Figure 22. Mean chlorophyll a concentrations for samples collected August 25 and October 10, 20 11 ..................................................................................................................................... 95 vi
Figure 23. Mean zooplankton densities (number/m3) for samples collected August 25, 2011... 95 Figure 24. Mean zooplankton densities (number/m3) for samples collected October 10, 2011 .. 95 Figure 25. Dendrogram of phytoplankton community (taxa density, loglo+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected August 25, 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr =
0.89) .................................................................................................................................... 96 Figure 26. Dendrogram of phytoplankton community (taxa density, loglo+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected October 10, 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr =
0.78) .................................................................................................................................... 97 Figure 27. Dendrogram of zooplankton community (taxa density, log0o+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected August 25, 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr =
0.87) .................................................................................................................................... 98 Figure 28. Dendrogram of zooplankton community (taxa density, loglo+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected October 10, 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr =
0.78) ..................................................................................................................................... 99 Figure 29. Average hourly discharge from Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee #1 dams, August 23 through August 25, 2011 ...................................................................... 100 Figure 30. Average hourly discharge from Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee #1 dams, October 8 through October 10, 2011 ...................................................................... 100 Figure 31. Total daily average releases (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee 1 dams, October 2010 through November 2011 and historic daily average flows averaged for the same period 1976 through 2010 ............................................................. 101 Figure 32. Daily average water temperatures (°F) at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake (Station 14) and downstream of SQN discharge (Station 8), October 2009 through N ovember 2010 ................................................................................................... 102 vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations BIP Balanced Indigenous Population CCW Condenser cooling water CFS Cubic feet per second MW Megawatts NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System QA Quality Assurance RBI Reservoir Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index RFAI Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index SAHI Shoreline Assessment Habitat Index SQN Sequoyah Nuclear Plant TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority VS Vital Signs viii
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 Prior to 1999, the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Sequoyah Nuclear Plant (SQN) was operating under a 316(a) ATL that had been continued with each permit renewal based on studies conducted in the mid-1970s. In 1999, EPA Region IV began requesting additional data in conjunction with NPDES permit renewal applications to verify that BIP was being maintained at TVA's thermal plants with ATLs. TVA proposed that its existing Vital Signs (VS) monitoring program, supplemented with additional fish and benthic macroinvertebrate community monitoring upstream and downstream of thermal plants with ATLs, was appropriate for that purpose. The VS monitoring program began in 1990 in the Tennessee River System. This program was implemented to evaluate ecological health conditions in major reservoirs as part of TVA's stewardship role. One of the 5 indicators used in the VS program to evaluate reservoir health is the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index (RFAI) methodology. RFAI has been thoroughly tested on TVA and other reservoirs and published in peer-reviewed literature (Jennings, et al.,
1995; Hickman and McDonough, 1996; McDonough and Hickman, 1999). Fish communities are used to evaluate ecological conditions because of their importance in the aquatic food web and because fish life cycles are long enough to integrate conditions over time. Benthic macroinvertebrate populations are assessed using the Reservoir Benthic Index (RBI) methodology. Because benthic macroinvertebrates are relatively immobile, negative impacts to aquatic ecosystems can be detected earlier in benthic macroinvertebrate communities than in fish communities. These data are used to supplement RFAI results to provide a more thorough examination of differences in aquatic communities upstream and downstream of thermal discharges.
TVA initiated a study to evaluate fish and benthic macroinvertebrate communities in areas immediately upstream and downstream of SQN during autumn 1999-2011 using RFAI and RBI multi-metric evaluation techniques. Beginning in 2011, evaluations of plankton and wildlife communities were included as well. This report presents the results of summer and autumn 2011 RFAI, RBI, plankton, and wildlife data collected upstream and downstream of SQN.
I
Plant Description Sequoyah Nuclear Power Plant (SQN) is located on the right (west) bank of Chickamauga Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 484.5 approximately 18 miles northeast of Chattanooga, Tennessee, and 7 miles southwest of Soddy-Daisy, Tennessee. SQN is situated approximately 54.5 river miles downstream from Watts Bar Dam and 13.5 river miles upstream from Chickamauga Dam (Figure 1).
SQN Unit 1 began commercial operation on July 1, 1981, and Unit 2 on June 1, 1982. Net operating capacity is about 2,400 MW of electricity. Waste heat load is about 4,800 MW of thermal energy. Waste heat is transferred to the condenser cooling water (CCW), pumped from the river at TRM 484.8 (Figure 2). This heat is then'dissipated either to the atmosphere using two natural-draft cooling towers, to the river through a two-leg submerged multiport diffuser located at TRM 483.6, or by a combination of the two. With both units operating at maximum power, maximum CCW water demand is 2,558 cfs.
Methods Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of SQN Shoreline and river bottom habitat data presented in this report were collected during autumn 2009. TVA assumes habitat data to be valid for three years, barring any major changes to the river/reservoir (e.g., flood). Since no significant changes have occurred in the river system from the initial characterization, habitat will be sampled again during the next autumn sampling event.
In the event of a major change to the river/reservoir, habitat would be re-sampled the following autumn.
ShorelineAquatic HabitatAssessment An integrative multi-metric index (Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index or SAHI), including several habitat parameters important to resident fish species, was used to measure existing fish habitat quality in the vicinity of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Using the general format developed by Plafkin et al. (1989), seven metrics were established to characterize selected physical habitat attributes important to resident fish populations which rely heavily on the littoral or shoreline zone for reproductive success, juvenile development, and/or adult feeding (Table 1). Habitat Suitability Indices (US Fish and Wildlife Service), along with other sources of information on biology and habitat requirements (Etnier and Starnes 1993), were consulted to develop "reference" criteria or "expected" conditions from a high quality environment for each parameter. Some generalizations were necessary in setting up scoring criteria to cover the various requirements of all species into one index.
Individual metrics are scored through comparison of observed conditions with these "reference" conditions and assigned a corresponding value: good-5; fair-3; or poor-I (Table 1). The scores for each metric are summed to obtain the 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).
2
The quality of shoreline aquatic habitat was assessed while traveling parallel to the shoreline in a boat and evaluating the habitat within 10 vertical feet of full pool. This was much easier to accomplish when the reservoir was at least 10 feet below full pool during the assessment allowing accurate determination of near-shore aquatic habitat quality. To sample river bottom habitat, eight line-of-sight transects were established across the width of Chickamauga reservoir within the SQN downstream (TRMs 481.1 to 483.6) and upstream (TRMs 487.9 to 491.1) fish community sampling areas (Figure 5). Near-shore aquatic habitat was assessed along sections of shoreline corresponding to the left descending (LDB) and right descending (RDB) bank locations for each of the eight line-of-sight transects. These individual sections (8 on the LDB and 8 on the RDB for a total of 16 shoreline assessments) were scored using SAHI criteria. Percentages of aquatic macrophytes in the littoral areas of the 8 LDB and 8 RDB shoreline sections were also estimated.
River Bottom Habitat Along each of the 8 line-of-sight transects described above, 10 benthic grab samples were collected with a Ponar sampler at equally spaced points from the LDB to RDB. Substrate material collected with the Ponar was dumped into a screen and substrate percentages were estimated to determine existing benthic habitat across the width of the river. Water depths at each sample location were recorded (feet). If no substrate was collected after multiple Ponar drops, it was assumed that the substrate was bedrock. For example, when the Ponar was pulled shut, collectors could feel substrate consistency; if it shut easily and was not embedded in the substrate on numerous drops within the same location, substrate was recorded as bedrock.
Fish Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN Two sample locations, one upstream and one downstream of the plant discharge were selected in Chickamauga Reservoir. The SQN discharge enters the Tennessee River at TRM 483.6 (Figure 2). The upstream monitoring site was centered at TRM 490.5 (Figure 3) and the downstream site was centered at TRM 482.0 (Figure 4).
Fish sampling methods included 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 was approximately 4,500 meters (15,000 feet).
Experimental gill nets (so called because of their use for research as opposed to commercial fishing) were 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 toward the main channel of the reservoir. Ten overnight experimental gill net sets were used at each area.
3
Fish collected were identified by species, counted, and examined for anomalies (such as disease, deformations, parasites, 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 described 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.
(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.
4
(8) Number of top carnivore species -- Higher diversity of piscivores is indicative of the availability of diverse and plentiful forage species and the presence of suitable habitat.
Trophic Composition (9) Percentage of individuals as top carnivores -- A measure of the functional aspect of top carnivores which feed on major planktivore populations.
(10) Percentage of individuals as omnivores -- Omnivores are less sensitive to environmental stresses due to their ability to vary their diets. As trophic links are disrupted due to degraded conditions, specialist species such as insectivores decline while opportunistic omnivorous species increase in relative abundance.
Abundance (11) Average number per run -- (number of individuals) -- This metric is based upon the assumption that high quality fish assemblages support large numbers of individuals.
Fish Health (12) Percentage of individuals with anomalies -- Incidence of diseases, lesions, tumors, external parasites, deformities, blindness, and natural hybridization are noted for all fish measured, with higher incidence indicating less favorable environmental conditions.
RFAI methodology addresses all four attributes or characteristics of a "balanced indigenous population" defined by the CWA, as described below:
(1.) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion: Diversity is addressed by the metrics in the Species Richness and Composition category, especially metric 1 - "total number of indigenous species." Determination of reference conditions based on the forebay and transition zones of upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (as described below) ensures appropriate species expectations for the ecoregion.
(2.) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change: TVA uses an autumn data collection period for biological indicators, both VS and upstream/downstream monitoring. Autumn monitoring is used to document community 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 insight 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 insight into how well the community can be expected to withstand stressors through winter. Further, multiple sampling years during the permit renewal cycle add to the evidence of whether or not the autumn 5
monitoring approach has correctly demonstrated the ability of the community to sustain itself through repeated seasonal changes.
Summer sampling was conducted during August 2011. This time of year is considered a stressful time for the biotic community. Summer sampling was conducted to collect data on the biotic community during a high stress period near SQN plant. These data were compared with data collected during summer 2010.
(3.) The presence of necessary food chain species: Integrity of the food chain is measuredby the Trophic Composition metrics, with support from the Abundance metric and Species Richniess 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.
Three dominant fish trophic levels exist within Tennessee River reservoirs; insectivores, omnivores, and top carnivores. To determine the presence of necessary food chain species, these three groups should be well represented within the overall fish community. Other fish trophic levels include benthic invertivores, planktivores, herbivores, and parasitic species. Insectivores include most sunfish, minnows, and silversides. Omnivores include gizzard shad, common carp, carpsuckers, buffalo, channel catfish, and blue catfish. Top carnivores include black bass, gar, skipjack herring, crappie, flathead catfish, sauger, and walleye. Benthic invertivores include freshwater drum, suckers, and darters. Planktivores include alewife, threadfin shad, and paddlefish. Herbivores include largescale stonerollers. Lampreys in the genus Ichthyomyzon are the only parasitic species occurring in Tennessee River reservoirs.
To establish expected proportions of each trophic guild and the expected number of species included in each guild occurring in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, and Fort Loudon reservoirs), data collected from 1993 to 2010 during autumn were analyzed for each reservoir zone where upstream and downstream sample stations were established to monitor effects of the SQN discharge (forebay- downstream of SQN and transition- upstream of SQN). Samples collected in the downstream vicinity of thermal discharges were not included in this analysis so that accurate expectations could be calculated with the assumption that these data represent what should occur in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs absent from point source effects (i.e. power plant discharges). Therefore, data from the monitoring site downstream of SQN at TRM 482 were not included in this analysis.
Data from 900 electrofishing runs (a total of 270,000 meters of shoreline sampled) and from 600 overnight experimental gill net sets were included in this analysis for forebay areas in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. For upper mainstem Tennessee River transition zones, data from 750 electrofishing runs and 500 overnight experimental gill net sets were included.
From these data, the range of proportional values for each trophic level and the range of the number of species included in each trophic level were trisected. This trisection is intended to show less than expected, expected and above expected values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Table 2). These data were also averaged and bound by confidence intervals (95%) to further 6
evaluate expected values for proportions of each trophic level and the number of species expected for each trophic level by reservoir zone (Table 3).
(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").
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 forebay and 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 are shown in Table 4.
If a metric was calculated as a percentage (e.g., "Percentage of tolerant individuals"), data from electrofishing and gill netting were scored separately and allotted half the total score for that individual metric. Individual metric scores for a sampling area (e.g., upstream or downstream) are summed to obtain the RFAI score for the area.
TVA uses RFAI results to determine maintenance of BIP using two approaches. One is "absolute" in that it compares the RFAI scores and individual metrics to predetermined values.
The other is "relative" in that it compares RFAI scores attained downstream to the upstream control site. The "absolute" approach is based on Jennings et al. (1995) who suggested that favorable comparisons of the attained RFAI score from the potential impact zone to a predetermined criterion can be used to identify the presence of normal community structure and function and hence existence of BIP. For multi-metric indices, TVA uses two criteria to ensure a conservative screening of BIP. First, if an RFAI score reaches 70% of the highest attainable score of 60 (adjusted upward to include sample variability as described below), and second, if fewer than half of RFAI metrics receive a low (1) or moderate (3) score, then normal community structure and function would be present indicating that BIP had been maintained, thus no further evaluation would be needed.
RFAI scores range from 12 to 60. Ecological health ratings (12-21 ["Very Poor"], 22-31
["Poor"], 32-40 ["Fair"], 41-50 ["Good"], or 51-60 ["Excellent"]) are then applied to scores. As discussed in detail below, the average variation for RFAI scores in TVA reservoirs is 6 (. 3).
Therefore, any location that attains an RFAI score of 45 or higher would be considered to have BIP. It must be stressed that scores below this threshold do not necessarily reflect an adversely impacted fish community. The threshold is used to serve as a conservative screening level; i.e.,
any fish community that meets these criteria is obviously not adversely impacted. RFAI scores below this level would require a more in-depth look to determine if BIP exists. An inspection of individual RFAI metric results and species of fish used in each metric would be an initial step to help identify if operation of SQN is a contributing factor. This approach is appropriate because a validated multi-metric index is being used and scoring criteria applicable to the zone of study are available.
7
A difference in RFAI scores attained at the downstream area compared to the upstream (control) area is used as one basis for determining presence or absence of impacts on the resident fish community from SQN's operations. The definition of "similar" is integral to accepting the validity of these interpretations. The Quality Assurance (QA) component of the Vital Signs monitoring program deals with how well the RFAI scores can be repeated and is accomplished by collecting a second set of samples at 15%-20% of the areas each year. Comparison of paired-sample QA data collected over seven years shows that the difference in RFAI index scores ranges from 0 to 18 points. The mean difference between these 54 paired scores is 4.6 points with 95% confidence limits of 3.4 and 5.8. The 7 5th percentile of the sample differences is 6, and the 9 0 th percentile is 12. Based on these results, a difference of 6 points or less in the overall RFAI scores is the value selected for defining "similar" scores between upstream and downstream fish communities. That is, if the downstream RFAI score is within 6 points of the upstream score and if there are no major differences in overall fish community composition, then the two locations are considered similar. It is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 6 points can be expected simply due to method variation (i.e., 25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded a difference of 6). An examination of the 12 metrics (with emphases on fish species used for each metric) is conducted to determine any difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
TraditonalAnalyses In addition to RFAI analyses, data were analyzed using traditional statistical methods. Data from the survey were used to calculate catch per unit effort (CPUE), which was expressed as number of fish per electrofishing run or fish per net night. CPUE values were calculated by pollution tolerance, trophic guilds (e.g., benthic invertivores, top carnivores, etc.), thermal sensitivity (Yoder et al. 2006), and indigenousness. CPUE, species richness, and diversity values were computed for each electrofishing effort (to maximize sample size; n = 30) and compared upstream and downstream to assess potential effects of power plant discharges.
Diversity was quantified using two commonly used diversity indices: Shannon diversity index (Shannon 1948) and Simpson diversity index (Simpson 1949). Both indices account for the number of species present, as well as the relative abundance of each species.
Shannon diversity index values were computed using the formula:
H'= (-1iln (--)
1=1 where:
S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the ith species The Simpson diversity index was calculated as follows:
8
sD where:
S = total number of species N = total number of individuals ni = total number of individuals in the iff species An independent two-sample t-test was used to test for differences in CPUE, species richness, and diversity values upstream and downstream of SQN (a = 0.05). Before statistical tests were performed using this method, data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965) and homogeneity of variance using Levene's test (Levene, 1960).
Non-normal count data or data with unequal variances were transformed using square root conversion; the transformation In(x+1) was used for CPUE data without a normal distribution or unequal variance. Transformed data was reanalyzed for normal distribution and equal variances.
If transformation normalized the data and/ or resulted in homogeneous variances, transformed data were tested using an independent two-sample t-test. If transformed data were not normally distributed or had unequal variances, statistical analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (Mann and Whitney, 1947; Wilcoxon, 1945).
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN During summer 2011, benthic macroinvertebrate data were collected along transects established across the full width of the reservoir at TRMs 481.3 and 483.4 downstream of SQN (Figure 3) and TRMs 488.0 and 490.5 upstream of SQN (Figure 4). Autumn 2011 sites included only TRM 481.3, TRM 483.4 and TRM 490.5. TRM 488.0 was not used as a collection site in autumn 2011 because TRM 490.5 is a long-term data collection site for the autumn seasons. Historically, the benthic macroinvertebrate community downstream of SQN was sampled at TRM 482.0; however during summer and autumn 2011, benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled at two transects (TRM 481.3 and TRM 483.4) to more accurately depict the health of the downstream benthic community.
Benthic grab samples were used to collect samples at equally spaced points along the upstream and downstream transects. During summer 2011, benthic grab samples were collected from five points along the two upstream transects. Autumn 2011 samples were collected from ten points along the transect located at TRM 490.5 and five points at TRM 488.0. Samples were collected from ten points along each downstream transect during summer and autumn 2011.
A Ponar sampler (area per sample 0.06 in2 ) 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-2 1.11; Quantitative Sample Collection - Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling with a Ponar Dredge).
Bottom sediments were washed on a 533p screen; organisms were then picked from the screen and any remaining substrate. For each sample, organisms and substrate were placed in a sample 9
jar and fixed in formalin. Samples were sent to an independent consultant who identified each organism collected to the lowest possible taxonomic level.
Benthic community results were evaluated using seven community characteristics or metrics.
Results for each metric were assigned a score of 1, 3, or 5 depending upon how they scored based on reference conditions developed for VS reservoir inflow sample sites. Scoring criteria for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs are shown in Table 5. The scores 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"]) were then applied to scores. The individual metrics are shown below:
(1) Average number of taxa-This metric is calculated by averaging the total number of taxa present in each sample at a site. Taxa generally mean family or order level because samples are processed in the field. For chironomids, taxa refers to obviously different organisms (i.e., separated by body size, head capsule size and shape, color, etc.). Greater taxa richness indicates better conditions than lower taxa richness.
(2) Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms-This is a presence/absence metric which is evaluated based on the proportion of samples with at least one long-lived organism (Corbicula,Hexagenia,mussels, and snails) present. The presence of long-lived taxa is indicative of conditions which allow long-term survival.
(3) Average number of EPT taxa-This metric is calculated by averaging the number of Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,and Trichopterataxa present in each sample at a site.
Higher diversity of these taxa indicates good water quality and better habitat conditions.
(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 poorer 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 each site. Often, the most abundant taxa differed among the 10 samples at a site.
This allows more discretion to identify imbalances at a site than developing an average for a single dominant taxon for all samples a site. This metric is used as an evenness indicator. Dominance of one or two taxa indicates poor conditions.
(6) Average density excluding Chironomids and Oligochaetes-This metric is calculated by first summing the number of organisms, excluding chironomids and oligochaetes, present in each sample and then averaging these densities for the 10 10
samples at a site. This metric examines the community, excluding taxa which often dominate under adverse conditions. A high abundance of non-chironomids and non-oligochaetes indicates good water quality conditions.
(7) Zero-samples: Proportion of samples with containing no organisms-This metric is the proportion of samples at a site which have no organisms present.
"Zero-samples" indicate living conditions unsuitable to support aquatic life (i.e.
toxicity, unsuitable substrate, etc.). Any site having one empty sample was assigned a score of three, and any site with two or more empty samples received a score of one. Sites with no empty samples were assigned a score of five.
A similar or higher benthic index score at the downstream site compared to the upstream site is used as basis for determining absence of impact on the benthic macroinvertebrate community related to SQN's thermal discharge. The QA component of VS monitoring shows that the comparison of benthic index scores from 49 paired sample sets collected over the past seven years range from 0 to 14 points, the 7 5 th percentile is 4, the 9 0 th percentile is 6. The mean difference between these 49 paired scores is 3.1 points with 95% confidence limits of 2.2 and 4.1. Based on these results, a difference of 4 points or less is the value selected for defining "6similar" scores between upstream and downstream benthic communities. That is, if the downstream benthic score is within 4 points of the upstream score, the communities will be considered similar and it will be concluded that SQN has had no effect. Once again, it is important to bear in mind that differences greater than 4 points can be expected simply due to method variation (25% of the QA paired sample sets exceeded that value). When such occurs, a metric-by-metric examination will be conducted to determine what caused the difference in scores and the potential for the difference to be thermally related.
Plankton Community Sampling Methods and Data Analysis for Sites Upstream and Downstream of SQN Samples for analysis of the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities were collected in the mid-channel at four locations, two upstream of SQN at TRM 490.1 and 487.9 and two downstream at TRM 483.4 and 481.1, on August 25 and October 10, 2011. Two replicate samples for both phytoplankton and zooplankton were collected at each site on each sample date.
Phytoplankton A low-volume peristaltic pump and tubing apparatus were used to collect integrated water samples along a vertical gradient from the bottom to the top of the photic zone, which was defined as the zone from the surface to twice the Secchi depth reading or from the surface to four meters, whichever was greater. From each of these water samples, a subsample was removed and preserved in glutaraldehyde for taxonomic identification and enumeration of the phytoplankton community. A second subsample was removed from each water sample for analysis of phytopigment (chlorophyll) concentrations.
11
Zooplankton Samples for taxonomic identification and enumeration of the zooplankton community were collected using a conical net with 80 gim mesh, towed vertically through the water column from two meters off the bottom to the surface of the reservoir. Samples were preserved in 70% ethyl alcohol (EtOH).
DataAnalysis Basic summary statistics were used to compare abundances among sites. Two separate measures of diversity, percent similarity and the Bray-Curtis Index of similarity, were used to examine spatial variability within the plankton communities, taking into account both the taxa richness and the uniformity of distribution of individuals among the taxa. Species or taxa richness is expressed simply as the number of species or distinct taxa in the community.
One measure of spatial variability between plankton communities was the calculation of Percent Similarity (PS). To calculate PS, the number of individuals in each species was calculated as the fractional proportion of the total community. For each species, the proportion in community I was then compared to the proportion in community 2, and the lower of the two values was tabulated. When all taxa had been compared in this manner, the tabulated list (of the lower of each pair of values) was summed, and this sum defined as the PS of the two communities.
Within the plankton community, spatial variability was also analyzed using hierarchical clustering based on the Bray-Curtis index of similarity. Samples were sorted into groups (clusters) based on the overall resemblance to each other. Cluster analyses were interpreted graphically on dendrograms to relate the similarity of communities among the sampling stations.
Before calculating the measures of diversity for the zooplankton data, the immature specimens identified as Cladocera and Bosminidae (one sample each) were removed; the taxa Eurytemora affinis and Eurytemora sp. were combined in one sample; and in October samples, specimens from all taxa under the group Sididae were combined.
Visual Encounter Surveys (Observations of Wildlife)
Two permanent transects were established both upstream and downstream of the SQN thermal discharge. The midpoint of the upstream transect was positioned at the RFAI upstream study area and spanned a distance of 2,100 m within this transect (Figure 3). The downstream transect was collected directly below the power plant and likewise spanned a distance 2,100 m (Figure 4).
The beginning and ending point of each transect were marked with GPS for relocation.
Transects were positioned approximately 30 m offshore and parallel to the shoreline occurring on both right and left descending banks. Visual Encounter Surveys were conducted to provide a representative sampling of wildlife present during summer (August) and autumn (October).
Each transect was surveyed by steadily traversing the length by boat and simultaneously recording observations of wildlife. Sampling frame of each transect generally followed the strip or belt transect concept with all individual species enumerated that crossed the center-line of each transect landward to an area that included the shoreline and riparian zone (i.e., belt width generally averages 60 m where vision is not obscured). Information recorded was identified to 12
the lowest taxonomic trophic level that was observed visually and a direct count of individuals observed per trophic level. If flocks of a species or mixed flock of a group of species were observed, an estimate of the number of individuals present was generated. Time was recorded at the start and end points of each transect to provide a general measure of effort expended. If times varied among transects, it was primarily due to the difficulty in approaching some wildlife species without inadvertently flushing them from basking or perching sites. To compensate for the variation of effort expended per transect, observations were standardized to numbers per minute or numbers per hectare in preparation for analysis.
The principal objective and purpose behind the surveys were to provide a preliminary set of observations to verify trophic levels of birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have not been affected by thermal effects from the SQN discharge. If trophic levels were not represented, further investigations will be used to target specific species and/or species groups (guilds) in an attempt to determine the cause.
Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and SQN Temperature Total daily average discharge from Watts Bar, Apalachia (Hiwassee River), and Ocoee 1 (Ocoee River) dams was used to describe the volume of water flowing past SQN and was obtained from TVA's River Operations database.
Water temperature data were also obtained from TVA's River Operations database. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge are depicted in Figure 6. Station 14 (TRM 490.4) was used to measure the ambient temperature upstream of the SQN intake. Station 8 (TRM 483.4) was used to measure temperatures downstream of SQN discharge. Water temperatures at both stations were computed as the average of temperatures measured at the 3-, 5-, and 7-ft depths.
Thermal Plume Characterization Physical measurements were taken to characterize and map the SQN thermal plume concurrent with biological field sampling during both summer and fall sampling events. The plume was characterized under representative thermal maxima and seasonally expected low flow conditions.
Measurements were collected during periods of high power production from SQN, as reasonably practicable, to capture maximum extent of the thermal plume under existing river flow/reservoir elevation conditions. This effort allowed general delineation of the "Primary Study Area" per the EPA (1977) draft guidance defined as the "entiregeographicarea boundedannually by the locus of the 2'C above ambient surface isotherms as these isotherms are distributedthroughout an annualperioda',ensuring placement of the biological sampling locations within thermally influenced areas.
However, it is important to emphasize that the >2°C isopleth boundary is not a bright line; it is dynamic, changing geometrically in response to changes in ambient river flows and temperatures and SQN operations. As such, samples collected outside of, but generally proximate to the Primary Study Area boundary should not be discounted as non-thermally influenced. Every 1
effort was made to collect biological samples in thermally affected areas as guided by the Primary Study Area definition.
Field activities included measurement of surface to bottom temperature profiles along transects across the plume. One transect was located proximate to the thermal discharge point; subsequent downstream transects were concentrated in the near field area of the plume where the change in plume temperature was expected to be most rapid. The distance between transects in the remainder of the Primary Study Area increased with distance downstream or away from the discharge point. The farthest downstream transect was just outside of the Primary Study Area.
A transect upstream of the discharge that is not affected by the thermal plume was included for determining ambient temperature conditions. The total number of transects needed to fully characterize and delineate the plume were determined in the field.
Temperature profile measurement (surface to bottom) points along a given transect were spaced equally across the river channel. Points began at or near the shoreline from which the discharge originated and continued across the plume [based on surface (0.1 m or 0.3 ft depth) measurements] until the far shore was reached. Measurements along transects were conducted at points 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% from the originating shoreline. The distances between transects and measurement points depended on the size of the discharge plume.
The temperature measurement instrument (Hydrolab) was calibrated to a thermometer whose calibration is traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Temperature data were compiled and analyzed to present the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the SQN thermal plume, which was used to demonstrate the existence of a zone of passage under and/or around the plume.
Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites during RFAI Samples Water quality conditions were measured using a Hydrolab which provided readings for dissolved oxygen (ppm), water temperature (°C and 'F), conductivity (jis/cm), and pH.
Readings were taken along a vertical gradient from just above the bottom of the river to approximately 0.3 in from the surface at 1- to. 2-m intervals. Readings were conducted in the mid-channel at the most downstream and upstream boundaries of the electrofishing sample area at stations upstream and downstream of SQN.
Results and Discussion Aquatic Habitat in the Vicinity of SQN ShorelineAquatic HabitatAssessment Of the sixteen shoreline sections sampled upstream of SQN, 6% (1 transect) rated "Good," 88%
(14 transects) rated "Fair," and 6% (1 transect) rated "Poor." The average scores for transects on the left and right descending banks were similar at 22 ("Fair") and 21 ("Fair"), respectively. No aquatic macrophytes were present on either shoreline (Table 6).
2
Of the sixteen shoreline transects sampled downstream of SQN, 19% (3 transects) rated "Good,"
56% (9 transects) rated "Fair," and 25% (4 transects) rated "Poor" (Table 7). The average scores for transects on the left and right descending banks were identical at 22 ("Fair"). Aquatic macrophyte coverage averaged 2% on the left descending bank and 5%on the right descending bank (Table 7).
River Bottom Habitat Figures 7-10 display substrate percentages as well as water depth at each sample point along each of the 8 transects downstream of SQN. Figures 11-14 display substrate percentages as well as water depth at each sample point along each of the 8 transects upstream of SQN.
The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the 8 transects downstream of SQN were mollusk shell (27.6%), silt (19.9%) and clay (16.4%). The three most dominant substrate types encountered along the 8 transects upstream of SQN were silt (51.2%), mollusk shell (18.4%), and bedrock (8.8%). Overall average water depth was similar upstream and downstream of SQN (Table 8).
Fish Community During summer 2011, RFAI scores of 41 ("Good") and 38 ("Fair") were recorded for the downstream and upstream sites, respectively (Table 9). Given the downstream site scored higher than the upstream (control), it was concluded that BIP was maintained at the downstream site during summer 2011.
During autumn 2011, an RFAI score of 35 ("Fair") was recorded at both the downstream and upstream sites (Table 10). Because both sites received the same score, it can be concluded that BIP was maintained at the downstream site during autumn 2011.
For each season, the upstream and downstream sites were compared using the four characteristics of BIP. For the discussion of each characteristic, the downstream site was compared to the upstream site (control) using the RFAI metrics applicable to each characteristic.
(1) A biotic community characterized by diversity appropriate to the ecoregion Summer 2011 Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score for the site downstream of SQN; > 29 required for highest score for the site upstream of SQN)
Twenty-eight indigenous species were collected at the downstream site, while 29 indigenous species were collected at the upstream site, resulting in the highest score for the downstream site and a mid-range score for the upstream site for this metric (Table 9). River redhorse and sauger were collected at the upstream site only, while white bass were only collected at the downstream site; all other species were collected at both sites (Tables 11 and 12).
Total number of centrarchidspecies (> 4 required for highest score) 3
Both upstream and downstream sites received the highest possible score for the metric "Number of centrarchid species." The same eight sunfish species were collected at both sites (Tables 9, 11, and 12).
Total number of benthic invertivore species (> 7 required for highest score)
Only three benthic invertivore species were collected at the downstream site, resulting in the lowest score (1) for the metric "Number of benthic invertivore species." Freshwater drum, logperch, and spotted sucker were collected at both upstream and downstream sites; river redhorse was only collected at the upstream site. As a result of this one additional species, the upstream site received a moderate score of 3 (Tables 9, 11, and 12).
Total number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)
Both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest score for the metric "Number of intolerant species." Five of the six intolerant species were collected at both sites; river redhorse was collected at the upstream site only (Tables 9, 11, and 12).
Total number of top carnivorespecies (> 6 required for highest score)
Ten top carnivore species were collected at both sites resulting in both sites receiving the highest score (5) for the metric "Number of top carnivore species." White bass were only collected downstream of SQN, while sauger were only collected at the upstream site. All other top carnivore species (black crappie, flathead catfish, largemouth bass, skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, spotted bass, spotted gar, white crappie, and yellow bass) were collected at both sites (Tables 9, 11, and 12).
The overall RFAI score for the downstream site was 41 ("Good") and for the upstream site 38
("Fair"). These similar scores indicated that the species richness and composition for the five previous metrics described above were similar between sites (Table 9).
Autumn 2011 Total number of indigenous species (> 27 required for highest score for site downstream of SQN;
> 29 required for highest score for site upstream of SQN)
Twenty-five indigenous species were collected at the downstream site, while 27 indigenous species were collected at the upstream site resulting in the mid-range score (3) for this metric at both sites. Longear sunfish and golden redhorse were collected at the downstream site, but not at the upstream site. White crappie, largescale stoneroller, yellow perch, logperch, and walleye were collected only at the upstream site (Tables 10, 13, and 14).
Total number of centrarchidspecies (> 4 required for highest score)
Both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest possible score (5) for the metric "Number of centrarchid species." Six of the seven centrarchid species were collected at both sites while white crappie was only collected at the upstream site and longear sunfish only at the downstream site (Tables 10, 13, and 14).
Total number of benthic invertivorespecies (> 7 required for highest score) 4
With only 3 benthic invertivore species each, both sites received the lowest score for the metric "Number of benthic invertivore species." Golden redhorse was collected at the downstream site only and logperch was only collected upstream of SQN (Tables 10, 13, and 14).
Total number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)
Both the upstream and downstream sites received the mid-range score (3) for the metric "Number of intolerant species." Three of the four intolerant species (skipjack herring, smallmouth bass, and spotted sucker) were collected at each site; longear sunfish was collected downstream of SQN only (Tables 10, 13, and 14).
Total number of top carnivore species (> 6 required for highest score)
Nine top carnivore species were collected at the downstream site and 11 at the upstream site.
However, both the upstream and downstream sites received the highest score (5) for this metric.
Walleye and white crappie were only collected at the upstream site; the remaining nine top carnivore species were collected at both sites (Tables 10, 13, and 14).
Both sites received the same overall score (35-"Fair") for the five aforementioned RFAI diversity metrics, indicating that fish community diversity during autumn 201 lwas similar upstream and downstream of SQN (Table 10).
(2) The capacity for the community to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change Autumn RFAI sampling was conducted downstream of SQN during 1996 and from 1999 through 2011. RFAI scores during this period averaged 41 which rated "Good." With the exception of 1998, autumn RFAI sampling was conducted upstream of SQN from 1993 through 2011. RFAI scores during this period averaged 44 ("Good") (Table 17).
The downstream site during summer 2011 received a score of 41 ("Good") and the upstream site scored 38 ("Fair") (Table 9). During autumn 2011, both sites received the same score of 35
("Fair") (Table 10). These scores are below the historical average for these sites, but fall within the historical range of overall RFAI scores (upstream: 34-51; downstream: 35-48) (Table 17).
The composition of the autumn 2011 sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. The numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RFAI samples downstream of SQN during 1996 and from 1999 through 2011 ranged from 23 to 31 and the average was 27 (Figure 15). During the periods from 1993 to 1997 and 1999 to 2011, the numbers of indigenous species collected during autumn RFAI samples upstream of SQN ranged from 20 to 31 and the average number of indigenous species was 28 (Figure 16). Although the long term average of indigenous species was similar between sites, the upstream site has consistently contained a higher number of species.
Regardless, a diverse fish community has continued to persist and has exhibited the ability to sustain itself through cyclic seasonal change at both sites.
During summer 2011, 28 indigenous species were collected downstream of SQN and 29 at the upstream site. During autumn 2011, twenty-five indigenous species were collected downstream, and 27 upstream of SQN. These numbers from both summer and autumn were within the 5
average range for this metric when compared to the historical data (Figures 15, 16), indicating that the indigenous fish community was similar upstream and downstream of SQN.
Percentageof anomalies(< 2 % required for highest score)
The percentage of anomalies (e.g., visible lesions, bacterial and fungal infections parasites, muscular and skeletal deformities, and hybridization) in the summer sample should be indicative of the ability of the fish community to withstand the stressors of an annual seasonal cycle. Both upstream and downstream sites recorded the highest score for this metric during summer 2011 due to a low percentage of observed anomalies (Tables 9 and 10).
(3) The presence of necessary food chain species Summer 2011 Insectivores constituted 52.0%, omnivores 35.2%, top carnivores 11.0%, benthic invertivores 1.7%, and planktivores 0.1% of the overall fish sample downstream of SQN during summer 2011. Proportions of insectivores and omnivores met the expectations calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir forebay areas. Proportions of benthic invertivores and top carnivores were below historical averages. Percentages of planktivores were low which is indicative of a healthy environment. No parasitic species were collected (Tables 2 and 3). Trophic levels were represented with 10 insectivorous species, 10 top carnivore species, 7 omnivorous species, 3 benthic invertivore species, and I planktivore species (Tables 2, 3, and 11). The number of species for each observed trophic guild met or exceeded expectations, which were calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River forebay zones (Tables 2 and 3).
At the upstream site during summer 2011, composition by trophic guild was insectivores 52.0%,
omnivores 36.3%, top carnivores 8.8%, benthic invertivores 2.6%, and planktivores 0.1% of the overall fish sample. Proportions of planktivores and insectivores exceeded the expectations calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition areas, proportions of benthic invertivores met average expectations, proportions of omnivores and top carnivores were less than expected (Tables 2 and 3). Ten insectivorous species, 10 top carnivore species, 7 omnivorous species, 4 benthic invertivore species, and I plantivorous species made up the overall fish sample at the upstream site (Tables 2, 3, and 11). The number of species for each trophic guild, except for omnivores, met or exceeded expectations calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River transition zones. Omnivore species were less than the expected number (Tables 2 and 3).
Overall, trophic guild proportions and composition were similar between sites upstream and downstream of SQN during summer 2011, indicating that the thermal discharge did not affect fish community composition downstream of SQN.
Autumn 2011 Insectivores composed 48.3%, omnivores 29.7%, top carnivores 5.2%, planktivores 16.1%, and benthic invertivores 0.8% of the overall fish sample downstream of SQN. Proportions of insectivores, omnivores, and plantivores either met or exceeded expectations calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir forebay areas. Proportions of top 6
carnivores and benthic invertivores were low and did not meet the average proportional expectations. No parasitic species were collected (Tables 2 and 3). Trophic levels were represented with 8 insectivore species, 9 top carnivore species, 6 omnivore species, 1 planktivore species and 3 benthic invertivore species (Tables 2, 3, and 13). The number of species for each observed trophic guild met or exceeded expectations, which were calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River forebay zones (Tables 2 and 3).
At the upstream site, insectivores constituted 45.6%, omnivores 33.3%, top carnivores 8.2%,
benthic invertivores 1.3%, herbivores 0.7%, and planktivores 1.1% of the overall fish sample.
Proportions of insectivores and omnivores met the expectations calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition areas. Proportions of benthic invertivores and top carnivores were lower than expectations, while proportions of planktivores exceeded historical expectations (Tables 2 and 3). Trophic levels were represented with 8 insectivore species, 11 top carnivore species, 6 omnivore species, 3 benthic invertivore species, I herbivore species, and I plantivorous species (Table 11). The number of species for each observed trophic guild met or exceeded expectations, which were calculated from historical data for upper mainstem Tennessee River transition zones (Tables 2 and 3).
Overall, trophic guild proportions and composition were similar between sites upstream and downstream of SQN, indicating that the thermal discharge did not affect fish community composition downstream of SQN.
(4) A lack of domination by pollution-tolerant species Summer 2011 Number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)
Five pollution intolerant species were collected at the downstream site during summer 2011, while 6 were collected at the upstream site. Both sites received the highest RFAI score for this metric (Table 9).
Percentageof tolerantindividuals (< 31% required for highest electrofishing score upstream and downstream of SQN; < 14% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 16% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN- transition criteria)
Both sites received the lowest RFAI score (0.5) for the electrofishing and gill net portions of this metric. At both sites, this was primarily due to collection of a high percentage of bluegill and gizzard shad in the electrofishing samples and collection of large percentages of gizzard shad in the gill net samples (Table 9).
Percentageof omnivores (< 24% required for highest electrofishing score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 22% required for highest electrofishing score upstream of SQN-transition criteria; < 17% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN; < 23% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN)
Omnivores constituted 31.2% of the electrofishing sample downstream of SQN and 35.1%
upstream of SQN. Although only 3.9% difference, the downstream site received a mid-range score and the upstream site a low score for the metric during summer 2011. Proportions of 7
omnivores in the gill net samples at each site were much higher due to large numbers of gizzard shad, resulting in the lowest score for this portion of the metric for both sites (Table 9). The overall proportion of omnivores (electrofishing and gill net combined) was 36.3% at the upstream site and 35.2% at the downstream site. These proportions met expectations for this trophic guild in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Tables 2 and 3).
Percentdominance by one species (< 25% required for highest electrofishing score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 20% required for highest electrofishing score upstream of SQN-transition criteria; < 15% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN; < 14% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN)
This metric received the lowest RFAI score for the electrofishing sample at the upstream site, while receiving the mid-range score at the downstream site. Both sites received the lowest score for the gill net sample. The electrofishing samples both downstream and upstream of SQN were dominated by bluegill. Gill net samples at both sites were dominated by gizzard shad (Table 9).
Autumn 2011 Number of intolerantspecies (> 4 required for highest score)
Four pollution intolerant species were collected at the downstream site and three at the upstream site during autumn 2011, one more that at the upstream site. Both sites received the mid-range RFAI score for this metric (Table 9).
Percentageof tolerantindividuals (< 31 % required for highest electrofishing score upstream and downstream of SQN; < 14% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 16% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN- transition criteria)
The percentage of tolerant individuals in electrofishing samples was almost twice as large (80.8%) at the upstream site compared to the downstream site (42.6%), resulting in the lowest score for the upstream site and mid-range for the downstream site. The difference was mostly due to higher numbers of bluegill in the electrofishing sample at the upstream site. The gill netting samples contained high percentages of gizzard shad and received the lowest scores at both sites (Table 10).
Percentageofomnivores (< 24% required for highest electrofishing score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 22% required for highest electrofishing score upstream of SQN-transition criteria; < 17% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN; < 23% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN)
Omnivores made up 27.5% of the electrofishing sample downstream of SQN and 31.9%
upstream of SQN, resulting in a mid-range score for this metric at both sites. Proportions of omnivores in the gill net samples at each site were higher due to large numbers of gizzard shad, resulting in the lowest score for this portion of the metric for both sites. The overall proportion of omnivores (electrofishing and gill net combined) at the upstream site was 33.3% and 29.7% at the downstream site (Table 10). These proportions met expectations for this trophic guild in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs (Tables 2 and 3).
8
Percentdominance by one species (< 25% required for highest electrofishing score downstream of SQN-forebay criteria; < 20% required for highest electrofishing score upstream of SQN-transition criteria; < 15% required for highest gill net score downstream of SQN; < 14% required for highest gill net score upstream of SQN)
The downstream site received the mid-range RFAI score for the electrofishing sample and the lowest score for the gill net sample. The upstream site received the lowest score for this metric for both electrofishing and gill net samples. The electrofishing sample downstream of SQN was dominated by Mississippi silversides (non-indigenous), while the electrofishing sample upstream of SQN was dominated by bluegill. Gill net samples at both sites were dominated by gizzard shad (Table 10).
Traditional Analyses Summer 2011 One species richness parameter (number of insectivore species) was statistically (P<0.05) higher upstream than downstream of SQN. Although the differences were not significant, seven of the other nine species richness measures were also higher upstream of the plant (including non-indigenous species). Numbers of omnivore and tolerant species were higher downstream, but the differences were not significant. Of the parameters comparing CPUE, two, total CPUE and CPUE of intolerant individuals, were statistically higher at the site upstream of SQN than the downstream. Seven of the remaining eight parameters were higher upstream than downstream, but the differences were not significant. CPUE of top carnivores was slightly higher at the downstream site. Both diversity values showed no statistical difference between sites, although both were higher at the upstream site (Table 15).
Autumn 2011 All species richness parameters were similar (no statistical difference) upstream and downstream of SQN. Six of the ten species richness measures were higher at the downstream site (including numbers of omnivore and tolerant species), while three were higher at the upstream site; mean numbers of benthic invertivore species were the same at both sites. Two of the ten parameters comparing CPUE, total CPUE and CPUE of non-indigenous individuals, were statistically higher at the downstream site (Table 16). These significant differences were driven by the higher numbers (approximately nine times more) of the non-indigenous Mississippi silverside collected at the downstream site (Tables 13 and 14). All other CPUE parameters showed no statistical difference between sites. CPUEs of insectivores, omnivores, top carnivores, and thermally sensitive individuals were also higher at the downstream site, but differences were not statistically significant. The remaining four parameters (CPUE of benthic invertivores, indigenous, tolerant, and intolerant individuals) were higher at the upstream site. Both diversity values were slightly higher at the downstream site, but differences were not significant (Table 16).
9
Fish Community Summary In conclusion, evaluation of the five characteristics of BIP and their respective metrics and traditional analyses indicated the downstream site was similar to the upstream site and that a balanced fish community existed at the site downstream of SQN in summer and autumn 2011.
Summer 2011 Seven of the 12 RFAI metrics received equal scores at both sites for the summer of 2011. The upstream site received a lower score for the metrics "Number of indigenous species," "Percent dominance by one species," "'Percent top carnivores," and "Percent omnivores" (Table 9).
Twenty-nine indigenous species were collected at the upstream site and 28 were collected at the downstream site. No statistical difference existed in numbers of indigenous species and CPUE of indigenous individuals between sites (Table 15). Thirty-one resident important species (RIS) were collected at the upstream site compared to 29 at the downstream site (Tables 11 and 12).
RIS are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC 1977). RIS often include non-indigenous species.
The same three aquatic .nuisance (non-indigenous) species, common carp, yellow perch, and Mississippi silverside, were collected at both sites (Tables 11 and 12); CPUE of these three species was similar between sites (Table 15).
The same two thermally sensitive species (spotted sucker and logperch) were collected at both sites (Tables 11 and 12) and were collected in similar densities (Table 15). Water temperatures greater than 32.2'C (90'F) are known to be the avoidance level and/or lethal level to these species (Yoder et al. 2006).
Four commercially valuable species were collected at the downstream site and five were collected at the upstream site. Twenty-four recreationally valuable species were collected at the upstream site, while 25 were collected at the downstream site (Tables 11 and 12).
Autumn 2011 Nine of the 12 RFAI metrics received the same scores at both sites. The upstream site received a lower score for the electrofishing portion of the metric "Percent dominance by one species" and "Percent tolerant individuals", while the downstream site received a lower score for the metric "Percent top carnivores" (Table 10).
Twenty-eight indigenous species were collected at the upstream site, while 25 were collected at the downstream site. Numbers of indigenous species and indigenous CPUEs at the downstream site were similar to those at the upstream site (Table 16). Thirty resident important species were collected at the upstream site compared to 27 resident important species at the downstream stations (Tables 13 and 14). Representative important species are defined in EPA guidance as those species which are representative in terms of their biological requirements of a balanced, indigenous community of fish, shellfish, and wildlife in the body of water into which the discharge is made (EPA and NRC 1977).
10
Three aquatic nuisance species (common carp, yellow perch, and Mississippi silverside) were collected at the upstream site, while two aquatic nuisance species (common carp and Mississippi silverside) were collected at the downstream site (Tables 13 and 14). Although the numbers of non-indigenous species was similar between sites, CPUE of non-indigenous individuals was significantly higher at the downstream site (Table 16). This was due to a large number of Mississippi silversides collected at the downstream site (917, or 33.5% of total catch) compared to the upstream site (124, or 6.3 % of total catch) (Tables 13 and 14). This is a schooling fish species and is commonly collected in large numbers.
Two thermally sensitive species (spotted sucker and logperch) were_collected upstream, while one (spotted sucker) was collected downstream (Tables 13 and 14). CPUE of these species was similar between sites (Table 16). Water temperatures greater than 32.2°C (90 0 F) are known to be the upper avoidance level or lethal to the aforementioned species (Yoder et al. 2006).
Thirteen commercially valuable species were collected at downstream site and II at the upstream site. Twenty-four recreationally valuable species were collected at the upstream site, while 19 were collected at the downstream site (Tables 13 and 14).
As discussed above, RFAI scores have an intrinsic variability of +/-3 points'. This variability comes from various sources, including annual!variations in air temperature and stream flow; variations in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources; changes in habitat, such as extent and density of aquatic vegetation; natural population cycles and movements of the species being sampled (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 scores are within the 6-point range, there is no certainty that any real change at a site has occurred or difference between sites exists beyond method variability.
It should be noted that the upstream site is scored using transition criteria and the downstream site using forebay criteria (Table 4). More accurate comparisons can be made between sites that are located in the same reservoir zone (i.e., transition to transition). Due to the location of SQN, it is not possible to have an upstream and downstream site within the same reservoir zone. SQN is located at the downstream end of the transition zone on Chickamauga Reservoir; therefore, the downstream site is located in the upstream section of the forebay. The physical and chemical composition of a forebay is often different than that of a transition zone; consequently, inherent differences exist among the aquatic communities (e.g. species diversity is often higher in a transition zone than a forebay).
Through the years sampled, the upstream site averaged a score of 44 ("Good") while the downstream site averaged a score of 41 ("Good"), indicating the sites were similar annually and that the SQN heated effluent is not adversely affecting the fish community in the vicinity of the plant (Table 17). RFAI scores are presented for the Chickamauga Reservoir inflow site (TRM 529.0), the forebay site (TRM 472.3), and the Hiwassee River Embayment site (HiRM 8.5) to provide additional information on the health of the fish community throughout the reservoir; however, aquatic communities at these sites are not affected by SQN thermal discharges and are not used to determine BIP in relation to SQN.. The average RFAI scores at these three sites among all years sampled have remained in the "Good" range (Table 17).
11
Individual metric scores, overall RFAI scores, species collected, and catch per effort from electrofishing and gill netting for the upstream and downstream sampling sites at SQN during 1999 through 2010 are included in Shaffer et al., 2010 and Simmons, 2011.
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community Summer 2011 During summer 2011, RBI scores at the downstream transects TRM 481.3 and TRM 483.4 were 27 ("Good") and 29 ("Good"), respectively, and were slightly higher than those at upstream transects TRM 488.0 and TRM 490.5 [27 ("Good") and 23-("Fair"),r-especfiveiy] (Table 18). A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites. Because the average of the downstream sites (28) scored three points higher than that of the upstream sites (25) and rated "Good", it can be determined that BIP was maintained. For the discussion of each RBI metric, the downstream site was compared to the upstream control site.
Average number of taxa (> 5 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 6.6 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The downstream sites (forebay) averaged 11.2 taxa, while the upstream sites (transition) averaged 7.1 taxa; all sites received the highest score for this metric (Table 18).
Proportionof samples with long-lived organisms(> 0.8 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 0.9 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The observed values for the metric "Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" (e.g.,
Corbicula,Hexagenia,mussels, and snails) were 0.8 at both downstream transects and both sites scored 3 (mid-range). Upstream of SQN, all samples at the transect at TRM 488.0 contained long-lived organisms (1.0) resulting in a score of 5, while TRM 409.5 received a score of 1 with only 40% of samples containing long-lived organisms (Table 18). Snail proportions, in particular, were higher downstream of SQN as compared to those upstream (Figure 19).
Average number of EPT taxa (> 0.9 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 1.4 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The average number of EPT taxa present in each sample were 0.9 and 1.2 at the downstream transects, resulting in scores of 3 and 5, respectively. At the upstream transects TRM 488.0 and TRM 490.5, average number of EPT taxa was 0.8 (score: 3) and 0.2 (score: 1), respectively (Table 18). Ephemeroptera(mayflies) and Trichoptera(caddisflies) proportions were slightly higher at the downstream sites as compared to the upstream sites (Figure 17).
Average proportionof oligochaete individuals (< 21.0 required for highest score-forebay criteria;
< 11.0 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The average proportion of oligochaete individuals at the downstream sites were 35.6% (score of
- 3) and 54.4% (score of 1). The upstream sites had smaller percentages of samples containing oligochaetes (15.5% at TRM 488.0 and 7.2% at TRM 490.5) and therefore, received higher scores of 3 and 5, respectively (Table 18).
12
Average proportionof total abundancecomprised by the two most abundantspecies (< 81.7 required for highest score-forebay criteria; < 77.8 required for highest score-transition criteria)
Both downstream sites received scores of 5 with proportions of 73.7% (TRM 481.3) and 75.5%
(TRM 483.4) of the samples comprising the two most abundant taxa (chironomids and oligochaetes). At the upstream sites TRM 488.0 and TRM 490.5, 82.8% and 86.4% of the total abundance, respectively, was comprised of the two most abundant taxa (chironomids and oligochaetes) resulting in mid-range scores for both sites (Tables 18 and 20).
Average density excluding chironomids andoligochaetes (> 249.9 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 609.9 required for highest score-transition criteria)
At the downstream sites, average densities of organisms excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 235/M2 and 525/M2, resulting in scores of 3 and 5, respectively. At the sites upstream of SQN, densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 470/m 2 and 396.7/m 2 and both sites received scores of 3 (Table 18).
Proportionof samples containingno organisms (0 required for highest score)
There were no samples at any site upstream and downstream of SQN which were void of organisms. Therefore, all sites received the highest score for this RBI metric during summer 2011 (Table 18).
In conclusion, during the summer of 2011 downstream sites scored the same or higher than the upstream site on all metrics except "Average number of oligochaetes" indicating BIP was maintained downstream of SQN.
Autumn 2011 Autumn RBI scores for downstream were 29 ("Good"), 27 ("Good"), while the upstream site scored 19 ("Fair") (Table 18). A difference of 4 points or less between upstream and downstream stations is used to define "similar" conditions between the two sites. Because the downstream site scored 8 to 10 points higher and rated "Good," it can be determined that BIP was maintained. For the discussion of each RBI metric, the downstream site was compared to the upstream control site.
Average number of taxa (> 5 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 6.6 required for highest score-transition criteria)
Averages of 7.8 and 13.6 taxa were observed for sites downstream of SQN. The site upstream of SQN averaged 6.6 taxa per sample. The downstream sites both received the highest score for this metric, while the upstream site received the mid-range score (Table 18).
Proportionofsamples with long-lived organisms (> 0.8 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 0.9 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The metric "proportion of samples with long-lived organisms" (Corbicula,Hexagenia,mussels, and snails) scored 3 at both downstream sites with proportions of 0.7 and 0.8. The proportion of samples with long-lived organisms (0.8) was similar at the upstream site and therefore, also a score of 3 (Table 18).
13
Average number ofEPT taxa (> 0.9 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 1.4 required for highest score-transition criteria)
The average numbers of EPT taxa present per sample at each of the downstream sites were 1.0 and 0.9, resulting in scores of 5 and 3, respectively. The site upstream of SQN received a score of 1 with 0.5 EPT taxa per sample (Table 18). Ephemeroptera(mayflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies) proportions were higher at the downstream sites as compared to the upstream site (Figure 19).
Average proportionof oligochaete individuals (< 21.0 required for highest score-forebay criteria;
< 11.0 required for highest score-transition criteria)
At the downstream sites, average proportion of oligochaete individuals in each sample was 29.4% at TRM 481.3 and 48.1% at TRM 483.4 resulting in scores of 3 and 1, respectively. The upstream site received a score of 3 with a proportion of 14.8% (Table 18).
Average proportionof total abundance comprised by the two most abundantspecies (< 81.7 required for highest score-forebay criteria; < 77.8 required for highest score-transition criteria)
During autumn 2011, 78.6% of the total abundance at TRM 481.3 was comprised of the two most abundant taxa (chironomids and oligochaetes). The two most abundant taxa at TRM 483.4 were oligochaetes and flatworms (Planariidae) and constituted 77% of the total abundance. Both downstream sites received the highest score of 5. At the upstream site TRM 490.5, 84.5% of the total abundance was comprised by the two most abundant taxa, chironomids and fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae), resulting in a mid-range score for this metric (Tables 18 and 20).
Average density excluding chironomidsand oligochaetes (> 249.9 required for highest score-forebay criteria; > 609.9 required for highest score-transition criteria)
At the downstream sites, average densities excluding chironomids and oligochaetes were 181.7/M 2 and 1,685/M 2 resulting in scores of 3 and 5, respectively. Average density excluding chironomids and oligochaetes at the upstream site was 263.3/M 2, resulting in the lowest score for this metric (Table 18).
Proportionof samples containingno organisms (0 required for highest score)
There were no samples at any site which were void of organisms. Therefore, all sites received the highest score for this RBI metric during autumn 2011 (Table 18).
In conclusion, during the autumn of 2011, downstream sites scored the same or higher on all the metrics indicating a BIP of benthic macroinvertebrates was maintained downstream of SQN (Table 18). The low score at the upstream site (19) was lower than expected based on historical scores; however, similarly low scores of 21 and 17 were observed in 2007 and 2008, respectively. A possible reason for the low score at the upstream site could be pollution impacts from the Hiwassee River, which enters the Tennessee River 9 miles upstream of TRM 490.5.
Individual RBI metric ratings and field scores from TRM 482.0 (downstream) and TRM 490.5 (upstream) are listed in Table 21 for comparison of results from 2000 to 2010. Although downstream sites sampled in 2011 were proximate to the transect sampled from 2000-2010 14
(TRM 482.0), 2011 RBI scores cannot be directly compared to those from 2000 to 2010 without inference.
RBI scores for the inflow, forebay, and Hiwassee River embayment sites are included in Table 19 to provide additional information on the overall health of the benthic macroinvertebrate community in Chickamauga Reservoir. RBI scores have averaged "Good" for the inflow and forebay sites and "Fair" for the Hiwassee River embayment over all sample years.
Plankton Community Detailed results of taxa collected and estimates of sample density are provided in Table 26 (phytoplankton) and in Table 33 (zooplankton).
Phytoplankton Summer 2011 Figure 18 indicates that average phytoplankton densities decreased progressively from TRM 490.7 (the most upstream site) to TRM 483.4 (immediately downstream of the diffusers).
Phytoplankton density was lowest at TRM 483.4 and increased further downstream at TRM 481.1 to concentrations similar to the most upstream site.
Numerically, cyanophytes were the dominant taxa (96 to 99 percent; Table 22, Figure 18) at all sites, with a prevalence of Cyanogranisand several taxa in the family Chroococcaceae (Table 26). Considered as a percentage of total biovolume, bacillariophytes (diatoms) were more dominant (Figure 19). Total taxa richness for paired replicate samples ranged from 43 to 49, and the percentage of taxa shared between replicates samples ranged from 52.1 to 76.7 percent (Table 23). However, of the 67 taxa collected in August, seven cyanophyte taxa were common to all replicate samples and accounted for 86 to 95 percent of the total population (Tables 24, 26).
Percent Similarity coefficients (ranging from 75 to 87; Table 25) and Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients (BCe) were high (ranging from 0.78 to 0.81, Figure 25), indicating that the structure of the phytoplankton community was similar at all sites. The cluster analysis indicated that the communities at TRM 481.1 and TRM 487.9 were the most similar, followed by TRM 483.4 and 490.7. No upstream to downstream trend was evident.
Autumn 2011 Total population densities in October were much lower compared to those in August. and the spatial trend was reversed. That is, phytoplankton density increased progressively from the most upstream site (TRM 490.7) to a maximum density at the diffuser (TRM 483.4), then decreased again slightly at the site further downstream at TRM 481.1 (Figure 20).
Bacillariophytes (diatoms) were numerically dominant (36 to 63 percent; Table 22, Figure 20) at all sites and comprised approximately 74 to 91 percent of the total biovolume (Figure 21).
Cryptophytes (Cryptomonas) were subdominant (21 to 36 percent) and the composition of chlorophytes and cyanophytes ranged from 6 to 16 percent. Total taxa richness for paired replicate samples ranged from 27 to 32 at the three lower sites, but only 19 taxa were collected at 15
TRM 490.7. The number of taxa shared between replicate samples ranged from 50.0 to 57.9 percent (Table 23). However, of the 38 taxa collected in October, nine were common to all samples and accounted for 74 to 97 percent of the total population. A mix of cyanophyte taxa often comprised more than 10 percent of the population in any given sample, but seldom was the same taxon present in both replicates, and no single taxon was represented in all samples (Tables 24, 26).
October PS coefficients among the three lower sites were relatively high (71 to 80), while the PS coefficients for TRM 490.7 were notably lower (63 for each site comparison) (Table 25). By this measure, the communities downstream (TRM 487.9, 483.4, and 481.1) were relatively similar, but the community at the most upstream site (TRM 490.7) showed the greatest dissimilarity to any other. The same taxa (Aulacoseira,Fragilaria,and Cryptomonas) were dominant at each site, but TRM 490.7 had lower taxa richness and the dominant taxa comprised a greater percentage of the overall population (Table 27).
The Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients (BCe) (0.64 to 0.73) indicate that phytoplankton community structure was slightly more dissimilar among sites in October than in August, which is supported by the PS coefficients. TRM 483.4 and TRM 487.9 formed the first cluster (BCe, 0.73), followed by a secondary cluster with TRM 481.1 (BCe, 0.68). TRM 490.7 clustered last, indicating this site was least similar in terms of taxa shared and taxa abundances (Figure 26).
Overall, TRM 490.7 had higher composition of diatoms and lower composition of chlorophytes and cryptophytes compared to the three downstream locations (Table 22).
Chlorophyll Chlorophyll a concentrations differed among the four sites in samples collected in both August and October (Table 28, Figure 22). Upstream to downstream differences in chlorophyll a concentrations closely paralleled phytoplankton density, but as expected, the chlorophyll a concentration was more closely associated with biovolume (Figures 19, 21).
August data show TRM 483.4 had the lowest concentrations (6.0 Rg/1) followed by TRM 490.7 (9.5 jg/1). Chlorophyll a concentrations were similar for TRM 481.1 (12 pjg/1) and TRM 487.9 (14 gg/1) (Table 28). Decreased concentrations at TRM 483.4 are supported by findings of reduced phytoplankton cell densities and biovolume at this location (Table 26, Figure 19).
October chlorophyll a concentrations increased progressively from TRM 490.7 to TRM 483.4, and then decreased at TRM 481.1 to a concentration similar to that of the uppermost site (TRM 490.7). Again, the spatial differences are supported by the phytoplankton density (Table 26) and biovolume data (Figure 21).
Zooplankton Overall, 35 zooplankton taxa were represented in the samples collected. The number of taxa represented in each major group was 10 to 12, with the exception of the Bivalvia, for which only 2 taxa were represented (Table 31). Notably, taxa richness for individual samples ranged from 8 to 16, but the number of taxa shared between replicates ranged from only 3 to 8 (21.4 to 66.7 percent) due to substantial variability in the presence/absence of less abundant taxa (Tables 30, 33). In the samples collected during both August and October, four to five taxa comprised the majority (approximately 90 to 99 percent) of the populations at each of the four sites. The 16
dominant taxa were the cladocerans Bosmina longirostrisand Diaphanosomabirgei (not present in October); copepods in the orders Calanoida and Cyclopoida; and the rotifer Conochilus unicornis (Table 33).
Summer 2011 Data from August samples showed that zooplankton densities were notably higher at sites downstream of the diffusers. Densities increased progressively from the most upstream site (TRM 490.7) to the highest density at TRM 483.4, just downstream of the diffusers, then decreased slightly at TRM 481.2. The lower overall density at TRM 481.2 was largely due to the collection of fewer rotifers. TRM 483.4 had higher rotifer group density than all other sites.
TRM 481.1 had the highest density of cladocerans (Figure 23).
Cladocerans were numerically dominant (49 to 68 percent; Table 29, Figure 23) at all sites. The composition of copepods and rotifers was generally similar (15 to 26 percent) among all sites except TRM 481.1. Rotifers comprised only two percent of the population at TRM 481.1 and copepods comprised a slightly higher percentage (30 percent) compared to other sites. Total taxa richness for paired replicate samples was relatively low, ranging from 8 to 14. Taxa richness was highest (14) at TRM 481.1, with sites upstream having only 8 to 9 taxa represented (Table 30).
August PS coefficients (70 to 80) were relatively high among the three most upstream sites, indicating similar community structure. TRM 481.1 had somewhat low PS coefficients with TRM 483.4 and TRM 487.9 (63 and 69, respectively), due largely to lower composition of copepods in the order Calanoida and the rotifer Conochilus unicornis at TRM 481.1. The PS coefficient (75) for TRM 481.1 and TRM 490.7 was relatively high (Table 32).
Bray-Curtis Similarity yielded similar results. Coefficients ranged from 0.65 to 0.80. TRM 483.4 and TRM 490.7 were the most similar, with a high coefficient of 0.80. These sites formed a secondary cluster with TRM 487.9 (BCe, 0.72). TRM 481.1 clustered last (BCe, 0.65),
indicating this site was least similar to the other sites in terms of taxa shared and taxa abundances (Figure 27).
Autumn 2011 In October, average zooplankton densities were highest at TRM 481.1, but variability between the replicate samples was high. TRM 490.7 had the second highest population density.
Densities were similar at TRM 483.4 and TRM 487.5 (Figure 24).
Comparable to findings in August, cladocerans were numerically dominant (44 to 71 percent) at all sites and copepods were subdominant (23 to 40 percent). However, the composition of rotifers was higher at TRM 481.1 (16 percent) than at sites upstream (2 to 6 percent), which is the reverse of findings in August (Table 29). Total taxa richness ranged from 12 to 16 at the three most upstream sites, but only 9 taxa were collected at TRM 481.1 (Table 30).
October PS coefficients (72 to 93) were higher among sites than in August, but yielded similar findings, with the lowest PS coefficients (72 to 83) for TRM 481.1 (Table 32). However, the density and composition of copepods in the order Calanoida and the rotifer Conochilus unicornis were highest at TRM 481.1 in October and lowest in August (Table 33). These taxa contributed to the dissimilarity between TRM 481.1 and other sites exhibited during both sample dates.
17
Bray-Curtis Similarity yielded similar results. Coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.70. TRM 483.3 and TRM 487.9 formed the first cluster (BCe, 0.70), indicating the communities at these sites were the most similar of the four. These sites form a secondary cluster with TRM 490.7 (BCe, 0.68). TRM 481.1 clustered last, indicating greater dissimilarity with other sites (Figure 28).
Plankton Summary The results of the Phytoplankton and Zooplankton studies at SQN during 2011 generally support findings from previous studies, which are presented in the section following this summary.
Phytoplankton Phytoplankton data indicated that quantitative characteristics (total and group cell densities) differed among sites in both August and October, but there were few differences in community structure among the four sample sites on either date. Notably, the reduced phytoplankton densities, biovolume, and chlorophyll concentrations at TRM 483.4 in August could be interpreted as an effect from SQN diffuser discharge. Previous studies have indentified reduced phytoplankton densities and chlorophyll concentrations (biovolume was not measured) at TRM 483.4 due to the diffusers mixing water from the bottom - containing low phytoplankton densities - with water of the upper strata that typically contain greater densities. Previous studies have also documented that when phytoplankton reductions have occurred at TRM 483.4 in apparent relation to diffuser mixing, densities recovered within a few miles downstream of the diffusers. Likewise, in August, phytoplankton parameters (density, biovolume, and chlorophyll) showed lowest values at TRM 483.4, and then increased at TRM 481.1 to levels similar to those found upstream of the diffuser. Additionally, previous studies have documented that when differences have occurred in phytoplankton communities among locations, these differences typically have been either increases or decreases in organism densities, not compositional changes in the community. This was supported in the current study. In both August and October, the two independent measures of diversity indicated relatively high levels of similarity among sites upstream and downstream of the diffusers, even though population densities differed. Only TRM 490.7 exhibited lower similarity when compared with the other sites, and then only in October. However, we do not consider this dissimilarity related to the operation of SQN.
Zooplankton Zooplankton data indicated that quantitative differences existed among sites in both August and October, but there were no upstream to downstream trends in population densities that provided definitive evidence of an effect from the operation of SQN. In August, zooplankton densities were highest at TRM 483.4, just downstream of the diffuser, and densities at both downstream sites were higher compared to those of the upstream sites. In October, zooplankton densities were highest at TRM 481.1, the most downstream site. Densities at TRM 483.4 and TRM 487.9 were very similar, but were lower than those at the most upstream and most downstream sites.
As with phytoplankton, compositions of the zooplankton communities were generally similar among sites, even though population densities differed. Overall, TRM 481.1 was more dissimilar to the other sites in both August and October. This was due in part to higher population densities at TRM 481.1, but interestingly, the taxa that contributed most to the 18
dissimilarity of this site were the same in both months. In August, TRM 481.1 had the lowest density and composition of calanoid copepods and of the rotifer Conochilus unicornis. In October, the same site had the highest density and composition of these taxa. Although the reduced densities of these taxa in August may have been due in part to operation of SQN, the greater abundance of organisms at TRM 481.1 - including the highest densities of copepods and cladocerans among all four sites - suggests that the majority of the reduction is more likely related to other variables. One such variable is the "patchy" nature of plankton distributions, as evidenced by the high variability in density of some taxa observed between replicate samples collected at each site. Such patchy distributions have been described in previous studies, and are discussed further in the review following this summary.
Review of Previous Plankton Studies Previous plankton studies around SQN were conducted with the objective of evaluating the effects of SQN operations on plankton, but these were not controlled experiments (i.e.
experiments designed to keep all variables constant except the test factor - in this case, the power plant). Instead, the program monitored a dynamic system: even without the influence of SQN, differences between the control locations (upstream of the plant) and the test locations (downstream of the plant) were expected due to other possible variables. One possible variable is the longitudinal point, or transition zone, where water velocities become sufficiently low for phytoplankton to remain in the photic zone long enough to sustain growth and reproduction. The location of this transition zone in the reservoir is dependent on flow conditions, and it might fluctuate upstream or downstream daily or even hourly, as inflows from the Hiwassee River and releases from Chickamauga and Watts Bar dams vary (Figures 29 and 30 - hourly average flows). Other variables may include but are not limited to: reservoir stratification; inflow from the overbanks and other highly productive areas; phase of population (and community) growth; the patchy nature of plankton distribution; differences in depth among sample locations; travel time between sample locations; and light penetration. Like the transition zone, many of the factors in this list are also directly or indirectly related to flow conditions. Each of the factors listed here has an important influence on plankton, and each contributes to the composition of the community sampled at each location.
Studies to date have documented that when differences in phytoplankton and zooplankton communities occurred among sample locations, these differences typically were either increases or decreases in organism densities, not community changes. Studies have shown that downstream increases were more commonly observed under relatively high reservoir flows (e.g.,
30,000 cfs), while when reservoir flows were quite low (i.e., <10,000), decreases in downstream plankton densities were expected, particularly at the diffuser location (TRM 483.4). Greater variability in plankton densities was observed at intermediate flows.
The studies also indicated that reductions in phytoplankton densities were caused by different mechanisms than were reductions in zooplankton densities.
The mechanism most likely responsible for reductions of phytoplankton densities and of chlorophyll concentrations is mixing of the water column at the diffuser location. In-plant plankton studies conducted in 1987 (TVA, 1988) and in 1988 (TVA, 1989) indicated some reduction in cell densities may have occurred as water was entrained through the CCWS, but most of the reductions observed at TRM 483.4 were due to mixing caused by the diffusers. The cooling water that is withdrawn from the lower strata near the skimmer wall has naturally low 19
concentrations of phytoplankton compared to upper strata. This water is carried through the CCWS, heated, and discharged through the diffusers. The momentum from being discharged through the diffuser ports, plus the buoyancy from the added heat, cause this water to rise and mix with ambient water near the diffusers. The water withdrawn from and discharged at the bottom, already low in phytoplankton, and the mixing which redistributes the phytoplankton concentrated near the surface, are reflected as reduced phytoplankton concentrations for TRM 483.4 at most strata.
Previous studies have also documented that when phytoplankton reductions occurred at TRM 483.4 in apparent relation to diffuser mixing, recovery was realized by TRM 478.2 (previous study site). Furthermore, special biweekly surveys conducted from April to October, 1989, showed downstream phytoplankton concentrations recovered to levels similar to those above the diffuser within 1-2 river miles (TVA, 1990).
Reductions in zooplankton densities appear to be caused by a more complex set of factors, including passage through the SQN CCWS. In-plant studies have shown substantial reductions in zooplankton densities during passage through the CCWS, even without heat (TVA, 1988).
Zooplankton densities were significantly lower in the diffuser pond samples compared to intake samples, and essentially all zooplankton examined from the diffuser pond were immobile and presumed dead (TVA, 1989). Discharge of the water with reduced number of zooplankters would result in some reduction in density at the diffuser location (TRM 483.4). However, these reductions alone were not sufficient to account for the magnitude of decreased density typically observed, particularly since many of the dead zooplankters would still be discharged and included in the enumeration from TRM 483.4.
These results indicate that some other factor or combination of factors, in addition to mixing at the diffuser, must be involved in reduced zooplankton densities at the diffuser site. One possible factor that became evident as more studies were conducted is the complex hydraulics in the vicinity of the diffuser discharge. The hydraulics of this area were likely complex even before SQN was constructed, due to the narrowing and deepening of the channel compared to upstream, and to the presence of an overbank (typically highly productive) with its point of inflow to the channel just upstream of where the channel narrows and deepens. Construction of SQN, including the addition of an underwater dam that occupies about half of the cross-sectional area of the river channel and the installation of the diffusers with buoyant discharge, further complicated the hydraulics in this area. Obviously, collection of representative samples from this area is difficult due to varying contributions of several factors, including reduced densities in the discharge water, increased densities in water entering the channel from the upstream overbank, and physical mixing of the zooplankton (which typically are not evenly distributed in the water column) in the ambient channel water. Although some of the reductions in zooplankton densities are due to operation of SQN, it has not been possible to specify the magnitude of that reduction separate from that due to other variables.
Visual Encounter Survey/Wildlife Observations Summer 2011 Thirty-three individuals composing 11 bird species and 1 mammal species were observed along shoreline transects (RDB and LDB) upstream of SQN. Along shoreline transects downstream of SQN, 51 individuals constituting 10 bird and one mammal species were observed. Bird species 20
observed both upstream and downstream of SQN included unidentified species of swallow, belted kingfisher, osprey, and great blue heron. American crow, turkey vulture, red-winged blackbird, and an unidentified duck species were only observed at the transects upstream of SQN, while wood duck, double-crested cormorant, European starling, and green heron were only observed along transects downstream. White-tailed deer was the only mammal species observed during the survey and was observed in equal numbers (4 individuals) upstream and downstream of SQN (Table 35).
Autumn 2011 Four species of birds comprising 9 individuals were observed along transects upstream of SQN.
Downstream of SQN, 1,024 birds composing 17 species and one species of mammal were observed. Three of the four bird species (great blue heron, belted kingfisher, and an unidentified songbird species) observed upstream were viewed downstream; an unidentified wren species was observed along transects upstream of SQN only. Fourteen bird species were only observed downstream of SQN and included blue jay, northern mockingbird, double-crested cormorant, American coot, American widgeon, pied-billed grebe, mallard, tufted titmouse, killdeer, wood duck, black-crowned night heron, gadwall, green-winged teal, and an unidentified sandpiper species. The only mammal species observed at the downstream transect was eastern gray squirrel (1 individual) (Table 35).
In summary, the wildlife community downstream of SQN was similar to that upstream during summer 2011. During the autumn 2011 survey, species richness and total numbers observed were significantly higher downstream of SQN.
Chickamauga Reservoir Flow and Temperature Near SQN Total average daily flows from Watts Bar Dam, Ocoee No. 1 Dam, and Appalachia Dam from October 2010 to November 2011 and historical daily average flows from 1976 through 2010 are shown in Figure 31. Daily average flows from October 2010 to November 2011 were similar (total daily average flows averaged 6% higher) to historical daily average flows, but were below the historical averages during the summer and autumn sampling periods (Figure 31).
Daily average water temperatures recorded upstream of the SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge, October 2010 through November 2011, are shown in Figure 20. Water temperatures remained within permitted limits (below 86.9°F) throughout the year (Figure 32).
Thermal Plume Characterization Summer 2011 Temperature profiles collected on August 25, 2011 indicated the thermal plume extended from the SQN discharge point (TRM 483.6) downstream approximately 4.1 miles to TRM 479.5 (Table 36, Figure 4). The average ambient surface water temperature (0.3 m and 1 m depths) measured at TRM 486.7 on the date of the survey was 81.86'F; the maximum temperature recorded downstream of the discharge was 86.85°F. Once discharged from diffusers located on the river bottom, the thermal plume rose to the surface and remained in the upper 1 m (3.3 ft) of 21
the water column, as evidenced by temperatures measured at TRM 481.1 and TRM 480.0 (Table 36).
Autumn 2011 On August 14, 2011, the SQN thermal plume extended downstream approximately 2.6 miles to TRM 481 (Table 37, Figure 4). The average ambient surface water temperature (0.3 m and 1 m depths) measured at TRM 487.0 on the date of the survey was 77.16'F. Downstream of the discharge, the maximum water temperature measured was 81.91 °F. The thermal plume remained in the upper 1 m (3.3 ft) of the water column, as evidenced by temperatures measured at TRM 483.4, TRM 482.2, and TRM 481 (Table 37).
In summary, the entire biomonitoring zone downstream of SQN was contained within the thermal plume during the summer and autumn 2011 survey periods (Figure 4). The thermal plume extended further downstream during the summer monitoring period than the autumn period. The difference was attributed to several factors including releases from Watts Bar Dam upstream and Chickamauga Dam downstream of the plant, power generation at SQN, and condenser cooling water discharge.
Water Quality Parameters at Fish Sampling Sites During RFAI Samples Observed values of water temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and pH are listed for each profile (LDB, mid-channel, and RDB), transect (downstream, middle, and upstream), site (TRM 482 and 490.5), and season (summer and autumn 2011) in Table 38.
Summer 2011 Water temperatures at the sampling site upstream of SQN ranged from 80.44 to 83.73°F.
Downstream of SQN, water temperatures ranged from 81.73 to 87.04'F. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 4.22 to 6.56 ppm at the sampling site upstream of SQN. Dissolved oxygen readings taken at the sampling site downstream of SQN ranged from 5.26 to 7.56 ppm.
Conductivity values ranged from 190 to 227.5 pS at the downstream site and 193.2 to 201.3 at the upstream site. At the downstream site, pH values ranged from 7.55 to 8.5, while at the upstream site pH values ranged from 7.3 to 8.66 (Table 38).
Autumn 2011 Water temperatures at the sampling site upstream of SQN ranged from 69.85 to 70.47°F.
Downstream of SQN, water temperatures ranged from 70.43 to 74.891F. Dissolved oxygen concentrations ranged from 7.10 to 7.94 ppm at the sampling site upstream of SQN. Dissolved oxygen readings taken at the sampling site downstream of SQN ranged from 6.60 to 9.69 ppm.
Conductivity values ranged from 182.7 to 185.3 pS at the downstream site and 179.4 to 191.6 pS at the upstream site. At the downstream site, pH values ranged from 7.23 to 8.50, while at the upstream site pH values ranged from 7.17 to 7.6 (Table 38).
22
Literature Cited EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) and NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
1977 (draft). Interagency 316(a) Technical Guidance manual and Guide for Thermal Effects Sections of Nuclear Facilities Environmental Impact Statements. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Enforcement, Permits Division, Industrial Permits Branch, Washington, DC.
Etnier, D.A. & Starnes, W.C. (1993) The Fishes of Tennessee. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tennessee, 681 pp.
Hickman, G. D. and T. A. McDonough. 1996. Assessing the Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index-A potential measure of reservoir quality. In: D. DeVries (Ed.) Reservoir symposium-Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. Reservoir Committee, Southern Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD. pp 85-97.
Hubert, W. A., 1996. Passive capture techniques, entanglement gears. Pages 160-165 in B. R.
Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Jennings, M. J., L. S. Fore, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Biological monitoring of fish assemblages in the Tennessee Valley reservoirs. Regulated Rivers 11:263-274.
Levene, Howard. 1960. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Ingram Olkin, Harold Hotelling, et alia. Stanford University Press. pp. 278-292.
Mann, H. B.; Whitney, D. R. 1947. On a Test of Whether one of Two Random Variables is Stochastically Larger than the Other. Annals ofMathematicalStatistics 18 (1): 50-60.
McDonough, T.A. and G.D. Hickman. 1999. Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index development: A tool for assessing ecological health in Tennessee Valley Authority impoundments. In:
Assessing the sustainability and biological integrity of water resources using fish communities. Simon, T. (Ed.) CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 523-540.
Plafkin, J.L., Barbour, M.T., Porter, K.D., Gross, S.K., and Hughes, R.M. (1989). Rapid assessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
EPA/444/4-89-001, Washington DC, USA.
Reynolds, J. B., 1996. Electrofishing. Pages 221-251 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Shaffer, G.P., J.W. Simmons, and D.S. Baxter. 2010. Biological monitoring in the vicinity of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, autumn 2009. Tennessee Valley Authority, Aquatic Monitoring and Management, Knoxville, TN. 76 pp.
23
Shapiro, S. S. and M. B. Wilk. 1965. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52 (3-4): 591-611.
Simmons, J.W. 2011. Biological monitoring in the vicinity of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant discharge, autumn 2010. Tennessee Valley Authority, Biological and Water Resources, Chattanooga, TN. 58 pp.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1988. Results of plankton studies conducted in 1986 and 1987 as part of the Operational Aquatic Monitoring Program at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir. Office of Natural Resources and Economic Development, Division of Air and Water Resources, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1989. Plankton studies at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in 1988. River Basin Operations, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TVA/WR/AB-89/3.
Tennessee Valley Authority. 1990. Plankton studies at Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in 1989. River Basin Operations, Water Resources, Chattanooga, Tennessee, TVA/WR/AB--90/2.
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 Wilcoxon, F. 1945. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1 (6): 80-83 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.
24
Tables 25
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 I 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. I 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 I Riparian Zone Width buffered > 18 meters 5 Width buffered between 6 and 18 meters 3 Width buffered < 6 meters I 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 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. (> I 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.
Seawalls used to stabilize bank along > 10 % of the shoreline.
26
Table 2. Expected values for upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition and forebay zones.
Upper Mainstem Tennessee River Transition Upper Mainstem Tennessee River Forebay Proportion Number of species Proportion Number of species Trophic Guild - Avg + - Avg + - Avg + - Avg +
Benthic Invertivore < 2.4 2.4 to 4.8 >4.8 <2 2to4 >4 < 2.2 2.2 to 4.2 >4.2 <2 2to4 >4 Insectivore < 24.2 24.2 to 48.4 > 48.4 <4 4 to 8 >8 < 34.2 34.2 to 62.6 > 62.6 <4 4 to 8 >8 Top Carnivore <18.9 18.9 to 37.7 >37.7 <4 4to8 >8 <18.8 18.8 to 33.4 >33.4 <4 4to8 >8 Omnivore > 40.2 20.2 to 40.2 < 20.2 >6 3 to 6 <3 > 40.1 21.4 to 40.1 < 21.4 >6 3 to 6 <3 Planktivore > 41.2 20.6 to 41.2 < 20.6 0 1 >1 > 10.4 5.2 to 10.4 < 5.2 0 1 > 1 Parasitic < 0.4 0.4 to 0.9 >0.9 0 1 >1 < 0.4 0.4 to 0.8 >0.8 0 1 >1 Herbivore
- Values calculated from data collected from 1993 to 2010 from 750 electrofishing runs and 500 overnight experimental gill net sets in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition areas and from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in forebay areas of upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs. This trisection is intended to show less than expected (-), expected or average (Avg), and above expected or average (+) values for trophic level proportions and species occurring within each reservoir zone in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs..
27
Table 3. Average trophic guild proportions and average number of fish species, bound by confidence intervals (95%),
expected in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition and forebay zones and proportions and numbers of species observed during summer and autumn 2011.
Transition Zones Summer 2011 Autumn Forebay Zones Summer 2011 Autumn (Upstream) 2011 (Upstream) (Downstream) 2011 (Downstream)
Average Average Proportion Number Proportion Number Average Average Proportion Number Proportion Number Trophic Guild Proportion Number of of of Proportion Number of P of of
(%) Specipec ies Sp) peci Spe cies Species (%) Species Benthic Invertivore 3.1 + 0.2 3.7 + 0.2 2.6 4 1.3 3 2.3 + 0.4 3.3 + 0.3 1.7 3 0.8 3 Insectivore 44.5 + 2.2 9.2 + 0.5 52.2 10 45.6 8 50.4 + 5.7 8.7 + 0.5 52.0 10 48.3 8 Top Carnivore 18.2+0.9 10.2+0.5 8.8 10 8.2 11 19.0+2.7 9.9+0.3 11.0 10 5.2 9 Omnivo-re 29.5 +1.5 6.4+0.3 36.3 7 33.3 6 22.4+3.5 6.1 +0.3 35.2 7 29.7 6 Planktivore 5.6+0.3 1.1+0.1 0.1 1 1.1 1 1.8+0.9 1.0+0.1 0.1 1 16.1 1 Parasitic 0.04 + 0.02 1.0 + 0.1 ................- 0.05 + 0.05 0.1 + 0.08 ................
H erbivore 0.01+ 0.004 1.0+ 0.1 ---- 0.1 1 ----....................
- Expected values were calculated using data collected from 1993 to 2010 from 750 electrofishing runs and 500 overnight experimental gill net sets in upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoir transition areas and from 900 electrofishing runs and 600 overnight experimental gill net sets in forebay areas of upper mainstem Tennessee River reservoirs.
28
Table 4. RFAI scoring criteria (2002) for fish community samples in forebay, transition, and inflow sections of upper mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. Upper mainstream reservoirs include Nickajack, Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Fort Loudoun, Melton Hill, and Tellico.
Scoring Criteria Forebay Transition Inflow Metric Gear 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5
- 1. Total species Combined <14 14-27 >27 <15 15-29 >29 <14 14-27 >27
- 2. Total Centrarchid species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 <3 3-4 >4
- 3. Total benthic invertivores Combined <4 4-7 >7 <4 4-7 >7 <3 3-6 >6
- 4. Total intolerant species Combined <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4 <2 2-4 >4
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing >62% 31-62% <31% >62% 31-62% <31% >58% 29-58% <29%
Gill netting >28% 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% <1 5% >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%
29
Table 5. Scoring criteria for benthic macroinvertebrate community samples (lab-processed) for forebay, transition, and inflow sections of mainstream Tennessee River reservoirs. (TRM 481.3 and TRM 483.4-Forbay, TRM 488.0 and TRM 490.5-Transition) scoring criteria were used for sites upstream and downstream of SQN.
Benthic Community Forebay Transition Inflow Metrics 1 3 5 1 3 5 1 3 5 Average number of taxa < 2.8 2.8-5.5 > 5.5 < 3.3 3.3-6.6 > 6.6 < 4.2 4.2-8.3 > 8.3 Proportion of samples with long-lived organisms < 0.6 0.6-0.8 > 0.8 < 0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9 < 0.6 0.6-0.8 > 0.8 Average number of EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera) < 0.6 0.6-0.9 > 0.9. < 0.6 0.6-1.4 > 1.4 < 0.9 0.9-1.9 > 1.9 Average proportion of oligochaete individuals > 41.9 41.9-21.0 < 21.0 > 21.9 21.9-11.0 < 11.0 > 23.9 23.9-12.0 < 12.0 Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two most abundant taxa > 90.3 90.3-81.7 < 81.7 > 87.9 87.9-77.8 < 77.8 > 86.2 86.2-73.1 < 73.1 Average density excluding chironomids and < 125.0 125.0-249.9 > 249.9 < 305.0 305.0-609.9 > 609.9 <400.0 400.0-799.9 > 799.9 oligochaetes Zero-samples - proportion of samples >0 --- 0 >0 --- 0- >0 --- 0 containing no organisms 30
Table 6. SAHI scores for 16 shoreline habitat assessments conducted within the Upstream RFAI sampling area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, autumn 2009.
I(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD) Avg.
Latitude *35.26755 35.27312 35.27784 35.28179 35.28669 35.29674 35.20021 35.3037 Longitude -85.09749 -85.09602 -85.09093 -85.08571 -85.0741 -85.06678 -85.06367 -85.06049.
Aquatic 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Macrophytes SAHM Variables Cover 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 3 2 Substrate 5 1 1 1 3 5 3 5 3 Erosion 1 5 1 5 5 3 1 3 3 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 5 5 Habitat 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 2 Slope 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 2 Total 19 19 21 19 21 23 19 27 22 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Good Fair I(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.
Latitude 35.26823 35.27665 35.28347 35.28747 35.29329 35.30095 35.30458 35.3092 Longitude -85.108 -85.10484 -85.09809 -85.09035 -85.08268 -85.07718 -85.07455 -85.07194 Aquatic 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Macrophytes SAHI Variables Cover 3 1 5 5 3 3 5 1 3 Substrate 5 5 5 5 1 5 1 1 4 Erosion 1 1 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 1 3 5 3 3 1 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 1 1 5 1 1 1 3 Habitat 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 1 2 Slope 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 Total 21 21 21 23 21 23 19 11 21 Rating Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Fair
- Scores are shown for eight shoreline sections on the left descending bank (LD) and eight shoreline sections along the right descending bank (RD). Scoring criteria: poor (7-16); fair (17-26); and good (27-35).
31
Table 7. SAHI Scores for 16 Shoreline Habitat Assessments Conducted within the Downstream RFAI Sampling Area of SQN on Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2009.
I(LD) 2(LD) 3(LD) 4(LD) 5(LD) 6(LD) 7(LD) 8(LD) Avg.
Latitude 35.19455 35.20021 35.20443 35.20584 35.20617 35.2061 35.20865 35.21104 Longitude -85.11967 -85.11858 -85.11671 -85.11346 -85.10754 -85.10212 -85.09711 -85.09188 Aquatic 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 2%
Macrophytes SAHI Variables Cover 5 5 5 5 3 1 1 3 4 Substrate 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 Erosion 3 5 3 3 3 1 3 5 3 Canopy Cover 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 1 4 Riparian Zone 5 3 5 5 5 5 1 3 4 Habitat 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 Slope 3 5 5 3 5 5 1 1 4 Total 25 25 27 27 23' 19 11 15 22 Rating Fair Fair Good Good Fair Fair Poor Poor Fair 1(RD) 2(RD) 3(RD) 4(RD) 5(RD) 6(RD) 7(RD) 8(RD) Avg.
Latitude 35.19718 35.20069 35.20722 35.20967 35.21449 35.21521 35.21565 35.2159 Longitude -85.12923 -85.12331 -85.12156 -85.11884 -85.1115 -85.10953 -85.10047 -85.09368 Aquatic. 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 5% 25% 0% 5%
Macrophytes SAHI Variables Cover 3 5 5 3 1 3 5 3 4 Substrate 3 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 Erosion 5 5 5 5 3 3 1 5 4 Canopy Cover 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 1 3 Riparian Zone 5 5 5 1 1 1 3 5 3 Habitat 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 1 2 Slope 3 1 3 1 5 5 5 5 4 Total 25 25 29 17 13 15 23 21 22 Rating Fair Fair Good Fair Poor Poor Fair Fair Fair
- Scores are Shown for Eight Shoreline Sections on the Left Descending Bank (LD) and Eight Shoreline Sections Along the Right Descending Bank (RD). Scoring Criteria: Poor (7-16); Fair (17-26); and good (27-35).
32
Table 8. Substrate percentages and average water depth (ft) per transect upstream (8 transects) and downstream (8 transects) of SQN.
% Substrate per transect downstream of SQN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Mollusk shell 15.5 32.0 20.5 26.0 24.5 22.5 26.5 52.9 27.6 Silt 37.5 12.0 11.0 13.0 23.5 36.0 19.5 7.0 19.9 Clay 14.0 16.0 9.0 30.0 8.0 29.5 6.0 17.0 16.4 Sand 19.5 14.0 22.0 6.0 12.0 3.5 28.5 2.5 13.5 Bedrock 10.0 9.0 18.0 20. 20.0 0 10.0 15.0 12.8 Detritus 2.5 4.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 5.0 3.0 4.6 3.7 Gravel 0 3.0 7.0 1.0 8.0 3.5 3.5 0.5 3.0 Cobble 1.0 9.5 9.0 0.5 1.0 0 3.0 0.5 3.1 Avg. depth (ft) 27.1 39.7 32.6 33.2 27 29.8 35.1 44.7 33.7 Actual depth range: 7.4 to 78.5 ft
% Substrate per transect upstream of SQN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 AVG Silt 30.5 43.0 56.5 22.0 45.5 71.0 63.5 77.5 51.2 Mollusk shell 25.0 19.5 15.5 33.5 20.0 10.0 15.5 8.0 18.4 Bedrock 10.0 20.0 0 20.0 20.0 0 0 0 8.8 Detritus 7.0 7.0 8.5 7.5 2.5 10.5 9.0 8.0 7.5 Clay 14.0 0 0 5 7.0 8.5 8.0 6.5 6.1 Cobble 4.0 5.0 10.0 0 2.5 0 4.0 0 3.2 Sand 7.5 5.5 7.5 4.5 0.5 0 0 0 3.1 Gravel 2.0 0 2.0 7.5 2.0 0 0 0 1.7 Avg. depth (ft) 33 30.1 34.9 33.6 26.2 31.8 32.2 26.1 31.0 Actual depth range: 6.4 to 55.2 ft 33
Table 9. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Summer 2011.
Summer 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species Combined 28 5 29 3 (Tables 11 and 12)
- 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined 8 5 5 (less Micropterus) Black crappie 8 Bluegill Black crappie Green sunfish Bluegill Longear sunfish Green sunfish Redbreast sunfish Longear sunfish Redear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Warmouth Redear sunfish White crappie Warmouth White crappie
- 3. Number of benthic invertivore Combined 3 1 4 3 species Freshwater drum Freshwater drum Logperch Logperch Spotted sucker River redhorse Spotted sucker
- 4. Number of intolerant species Combined 5 5 6 5 Brook silverside Brook silverside Longear sunfish Longear sunfish Skipjack herring River redhorse Smallmouth bass Skipjack herring Spotted sucker Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker 34
Table 9. (Continued)
Summer 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Obs Score
- 5. Percent tolerant individuals 85.7% 79.8%
Bluegill 49.1% Bluegill 40.7%
Bluntnose minnow 1.6% Bluntnose minnow 5.3%
Common carp 0.2% Common carp 0.2%
Electrofishing Gizzard shad 26.9% 0.5 Gizzard shad 28.2% 0.5 Golden shiner 1.6% Golden shiner 1.1%
Green sunfish 0.1% Green sunfish 0.3%
Largemouth bass 3.8% Largemouth bass 1.7%
Redbreast sunfish 1.6% Redbreast sunfish 1.4%
Spotfin shiner 0.7% Spotfin shiner 1.0%
55.1% 43.9%
Bluegill 0.7% Bluegill 0.8%
Gill Netting Common carp 0.7% 0.5 Gizzard shad 37.9% 0.5 Gizzard shad 52.2% Golden shiner 3.8%
White crappie 1.4% Largemouth bass 0.8%
White crappie 0.8%
- 6. Percent dominance by one species 49.1% 40.7%
Electrofishing Bluegill 1.5 Bluegill 0.5 Gill Ntti 52.2% 0.5 37.9% 0.5 ll ng Gizzard shad Gizzard shad
- 7. Percent non-indigenous species 2.9% 5.2%
Electrofishing Common carp 0.3% 1.5 Common carp 0.1% 1.5 Mississippi silverside 2.5% Mississippi silverside 4.8%
Yellow perch 0.1% Yellow perch 0.3%
Gill Netting 0.7% 2.5 0% 2.5 Common carp 35
Table 9. (Continued)
Summer 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Obs Score
- 8. Number of top carnivore species 10 10 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Sauger Combined Smallmouth bass 5 Skipjack herring 5 Spotted bass Smallmouth bass Spotted gar Spotted bass White bass Spotted gar White crappie White crappie Yellow bass Yellow bass B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores 8.2% 5.3%
Black crappie 1.0% Flathead catfish 0.8%
Largemouth bass 3.0% Largemouth bass 1.7%
Electrofishing Smallmouth bass 0.1% Smallmouth bass 0.2% 0.5 Spotted bass 0.8% 1.5 Spotted bass 1.1%
Spotted gar 2.2% Spotted gar 1.5%
White bass 0.1%
Yellow bass 0.2%
29.0% 42.4%
Black crappie 10.1% Black crappie 16.7%
Flathead catfish 1.4% Flathead catfish 1.5%
Skipjack herring 1.4% Largemouth bass 0.8%
Gill Netting Spotted bass 7.2% 1.5 Sauger 0.8% 1.5 Spotted gar 1.4% Skipjack herring 15.2%
White bass 0.7% Spotted bass 2.3%
White crappie 1.4% White crappie 0.8%
Yellow bass 5.1% Yellow bass 4.5%
36
Table 9. (Continued)
Summer 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Ohs Score
- 10. Percent omnivores 31.2% 35.1%
Bluntnose minnow 1.6% Bluntnose minnow 5.3%
Channel catfish 0.7% Channel catfish 0.2%
Electrofishing Common carp 0.2% 2.5 Common carp 0.2% 1.5 Gizzard shad 26.9% Gizzard shad 28.2%
Golden shiner 1.6% Golden shiner 1.1%
Smalimouth buffalo 0.1% Smallmouth buffalo 0.2%
61.6% 47.7%
Blue catfish 5.8% Blue catfish 4.5%
Gill Netting Channel catfish 1.4% Channel catfish 1.5% 0.5 Common carp 0.7% 0.5 Gizzard shad 37.9%
Gizzard shad 52.2% Golden shiner 3.8%
Smailmouth buffalo 1.4%
C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 60.7 0.5 82.4 0.5 Gill Netting 13.8 1.5 13.2 1.5
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 1.2% 2.5 0.6% 2.5 Gill Netting 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 41 38 Overall RFAI Score Good Fair 37
Table 10. Individual Metric Scores and the Overall RFAI Scores Downstream (TRM 482) and Upstream (TRM 490.5) of (Sequoyah nuclear) Autumn 2011.
Autumn 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Obs Score A. Species richness and composition
- 1. Number of indigenous species Combined 25 3 27 3 (Tables 13 and 14) 7 7 Black crappie Black crappie Bluegill Bluegill
- 2. Number of centrarchid species Combined Green sunfish Green sunfish 5 (less Micropterus) Longear sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redbreast sunfish Redear sunfish Redear sunfish Warmouth Warmouth White crappie 3 3
- 3. Number of benthic invertivore Combined Freshwater drum Freshwater drum species Golden redhorse Logperch Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 4 3 Longear sunfish Skipjack herring
- 4. Number of intolerant species Combined Skipjack herring 3 Smallmouth bass 3 Smallmouth bass Spotted sucker Spotted sucker 42.6% .80.8%
Bluegill 12.3% Bluegill 43.0%
Bluntnose minnow 0.5% Bluntnose minnow 0.1%
Common carp 0.% Common carp 0.1%
5 Gizzard shad 26.1% 1.5 Gizzard shad 30.8% 0.5 Percent tolerant individuals Electrofishing Golden shiner 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2%
Green sunfish 0.1% Green sunfish 0.1%
Largemouth bass 1.6% Largemouth bass 1.7%
Redbreast sunfish 0.9% Redbreast sunfish 4.7%
Spotfin shiner 0.5% Spotfin shiner 0.2%
38
Table 10 (continued).
Autumn 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Obs Score Obs Score 64.8% 42.4%
Bluegill 0.8% Bluegill 0.7%
Gill Netting Gizzard shad 63.1% 0.5 Gizzard shad 39.6% 0.5 Largemouth bass 0.8% Golden shiner 0.7%
White crappie 1.4%
- 6. Percent dominance by one Electrofishin 35.1% 43.0% 0.5 species g Mississippi silverside 1.5 Bluegill 63.1% 39.6%
Gill Netting Gizzard shad 0.5 Gizzard shad 0.5 33.8% 6.9%
- 7. Percent non-indigenous Electrofishing 0.5 Common carp 0.1% 0.5 spsisep Commnerpd 033.5% Mississippi silverside 6.3%
Mississippi silverside Yellow perch 0.1%
Gill Netting 0% 2.5 0% 2.5 39
Table 10. (Continued)
Autumn 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Ohs Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Score Obs Score
- 8. Number of top carnivore species 9 11 Black crappie Black crappie Flathead catfish Flathead catfish Largemouth bass Largemouth bass Skipjack herring Skipjack herring Smallmouth bass Smallmouth bass Combined 5 5 Spotted bass Spotted bass Spotted gar Spotted gar White bass Walleye Yellow bass White bass White crappie Yellow bass B. Trophic composition
- 9. Percent top carnivores 4.5% 6.2%
Black crappie 1.9% Black crappie 1.4%
Flathead catfish 0.01% Flathead catfish 0.5%
Largemouth bass 1.6% Largemouth bass 1.7%
Electrofishing Smallmouth bass 0.01% 0.5 Smallmouth bass 0.9% 1.5 Spotted bass 0.4% Spotted bass 1.4%
Spotted gar 0.6% Spotted gar 0.1%
White bass 0.1%
Yellow bass 0.2%
19.7% 34.5%
Black crappie 7.4% Black crappie 12.2%
Flathead catfish 2.5% Flathead catfish 0.7%
Largemouth bass 0.8% Skipjack herring 8.6%
Skipjack herring 1.6% 0.5 Spotted bass 6.5%
Gill Netting 1.5 Smallmouth bass 0.8% Walleye 0.7%
Spotted bass 4.1% White bass 1.4%
White bass 0.8% White crappie 1.4%
Yellow bass 1.6% Yellow bass 2.9%
Black crappie 7.4%
40
Table 10. (Continued)
Autumn 2011 Gear TRM 482 TRM 490.5 Metric (Electrofishing/Gill Net) Ohs Score Ohs Score
- 10. Percent omnivores 27.5% 31.9%
Blue catfish 0.01% Blue catfish 0.1%
Bluntnose minnow 0.5% Bluntnose minnow 0.1%
Channel catfish 0.2% Channel catfish 0.7%
Electrofishing 1.5 Common carp 0.3% Common carp 0.1%
Gizzard shad 26.1% Gizzard shad 30.8%
Golden shiner 0.3% Golden shiner 0.2%
Blue catfish 0.1%
76.2% 51.1%
Blue catfish 9.8% Blue catfish 5.8%
Gill Netting Channel catfish 3.3% 0.5 Channel catfish 5.0% 0.5 Gizzard shad 63.1% Gizzard shad 39.6%
Golden shiner 0.7%
C. Fish abundance and health
- 11. Average number per run Electrofishing 174.2 1.5 122.4 1.5 Gill Netting 12.2 1.5 13.9 1.5
- 12. Percent anomalies Electrofishing 0.6 2.5 0.3 2.5 Gill Netting 0 2.5 0 2.5 Overall RFAI Score 35 35 Fair Fair 41
Table 11. Summer 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer 2011.
Commer- Recrea-Common Name Scientific name Trophic Indigenous Tolerance Thermally Sensitive Indi oEF VaualaVlub e Catch erRtPEF Catch erFoa tlfsh Gill Nettinge Total Gill athRt Total fish Percent Cmelevel species Tably Valuabl Rate Per Rate Per EF Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Composition level Species Species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL X X 16.33 57.38 245 7.20 72 317 30.2%
Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL X 0.13 0.47 2 0.10 1 3 0.3%
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL X 1.00 3.51 15 15 1.4%
Spotfin shiner Cyprinella spiloptera IN X TOL 0.40 1.41 6 6 0.6%
Bluntnose minnow Pimephalesnotatus OM X TOL X 1.00 3.51 15 15 1.4%
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X TOL X 1.00 3.51 15 15 1.4%
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X TOL X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X TOL X 29.80 104.68 447 0.10 1 448 42.7%
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides TC X TOL X 2.33 8.20 35 35 3.3%
White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X TOL X 0.20 2 2 0.2%
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT X X 0.20 2 2 0.2%
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT X X 0.47 1.64 7 0.20 2 9 0.9%
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X INT X 0.13 0.47 2 0.10 1 3 0.3%
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu TC X TNT X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IN X INT X X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X X 1.33 4.68 20 0.20 2 22 2.1%
Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X X X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.2%
Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X X X 0.07 0.23 1 0.20 2 3 0.3%
Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X X X 0.80 8 8 0.8%
Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X X X 0.40 1.41 6 0.20 2 8 0.8%
Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X X X 0.20 2 2 0.2%
White bass Morone chrysops TC X X 0.07 0.23 1 0.10 1 2 0.2%
Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X X 0.13 0.47 2 0.70 7 9 0.9%
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus TN X X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.53 8.90 38 0.50 5 43 4.1%
Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X X 0.47 1.64 7 1.00 10 17 1.6%
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 0.60 2.11 9 1.40 14 23 2.2%
Yellow perch Percaflavescens TN X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X X X 0.33 1.17 5 5 0.5%
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.40 4 4 0.4%
Mississippi silverside Menidia audens IN X 1.73 6.09 26 26 2.5%
Total 28 2 14 25 60.73 213.33 911 13.80 138 1,049 100%
Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 18
- All species listed are Resident Important Species (RIS). No federally threatened or endangered species were collected. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT).
42
Table 12. Summer 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Summer 2011.
Thermally Commer- Recrea- EF Catch EF Catch Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Percent Scientific name Trophic Indigenous Tolerance Sensitive cially tionaily Rate Per Rate Per Catch Rate Per net fish Combinedco st Common Name Valuable level species Species Species Valuable Species Run Hour EF Net Night net fish Combined Composition Gizzard shad Dorosomacepedianum OM X TOL X X 23.27 81.54 349 5.00 50 399 29.2%
Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.1%
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL X 0.87 3.04 13 0.50 5 18 1.3%
Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera WN X TOL 0.80 2.80 12 12 0.9%
Bluntnose minnow Pinephales notatus OM X TOL X 4.33 15.19 65 65 4.8%
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis aurilus IN X TOL X 1.13 3.97 17 17 1.2%
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X TOL X 0.27 0.93 4 4 0.3%
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X TOL X 33.53 117.52 503 0.10 1 504 36.8%
Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL X 1.40 4.91 21 0.10 1 22 1.6%
White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X TOL X 0.10 1 1 0.1%
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT X X 2.00 20 20 1.5%
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT X X 0.53 1.87 8 0.10 1 9 0.7%
River redhorse Moxostoma carinalum BI X TNT 0.07 0.23 1 . 1 0.1%
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X INT X 0.53 1.87 8 8 0.6%
Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.1%
Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus TN X TNT X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.1%
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X X 1.27 4.44 19 19 1.4%
Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X X X 0.07 0.23 1 1 0.1%
Smallmouth buffalo Ictiobus bubalus OM X X X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.1%
Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X X X 0.60 6 6 0.4%
Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X X X 0.20 0.70 3 0.20 2 5 0.4%
Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X X X 0.67 2.34 10 0.20 2 12 0.9%
Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X X 0.60 6 6 0.4%
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.13 0.47 2 2 0.1%
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus TN X X 5.93 20.79 89 0.70 7 96 7.0%
Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X X 0.87 3.04 13 0.30 3 16 1.2%
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 2.20 22 22 1.6%
Yellow perch Percaflavescens TN X 0.27 0.93 4 4 0.3%
Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X X X 1.27 4.44 19 19 1.4%
Sauger Sander canadense TC X X 0.10 1 1 0.1%
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.13 0.47 2 0.40 4 6 0.4%
Mississippi silverside Menidia audens IN X 4.33 15.19 65 65 4.8%
Total 29 2 14 24 82.39 288.79 1,236 13.20 132 1,368 100%
Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 26 16
- All species listed are Resident Important Species (RIS). No federally threatened or endangered species were collected. Trophic: benthic invertivore (1I), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT).
43
Table 13. Autumn 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Downstream (TRM 482.0) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011.
Thermally Commer- Recrea- EF Catch EF Catch Gill Nettin yTotal Gill Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name Trophic Indigenous Tolerance Sensitive ialal tionally e Rate Per Rate Per Catch Rate Per net fish Combined Composition level sSpecies Species Species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL X X 45.53 212.11 683 7.70 77 760 27.8%
Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM TOL X 0.47 2.17 7 7 0.3%
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL X 0.60 2.80 9 9 0.3%
Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.80 3.73 12 12 0.4%
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL X 0.93 4.35 14 14 0.5%
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X TOL X 1.60 7.45 24 24 0.9%
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X TOL X 0.07 0.31 1 1 0.0%
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X TOL X 21.47 100.00 322 0.10 1 323 11.8%
Largemouth bass Micropterussalmoides TC X TOL X 2.73 12.73 41 0.10 1 42 1.5%
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT X X 0.20 2 2 0.1%
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT X X 0.73 3.42 11 0.10 1 12 0.4%
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis IN X TNT X 0.13 0.62 2 2 0.1%
Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT X 0.07 0.31 1 0.10 1 2 0.1%
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X X 1.00 4.66 15 15 0.5%
Threadfin shad Dorosomapelenense PK X X 29.27 136.34 439 439 16.1%
Golden redhorse Moxostoma erythrurum BI X X 0.10 1 1 0.0%
Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X X X 0.07 0.31 1 1.20 12 13 0.5%
Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X X X 0.33 1.55 5 0.40 4 9 0.3%
Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X X X 0.07 0.31 1 0.30 3 4 0.1%
White bass Morone chrysops TC X X . 0.10 1 1 0.0%
Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X X 0.20 2 2 0.1%
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.47 2.17 7 7 0.3%
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus IN X X 2.27 10.56 34 0.10 1 35 1.3%
Spotted bass Micropteruspunctulatus TC X X 0.73 3.42 11 0.50 5 16 0.6%
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 3.27 15.22 49 0.90 9 58 2.1%
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.47 2.17 7 0.10 1 8 0.3%
Mississippi silverside Menidia audens IN X 61.13 284.78 917 917 33.5%
Total 25 1 13 19 174.21 811.49 2,613 12.20 122 2,735 100%
Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 23 16
- All species listed are Resident Important Species (RIS). No federally threatened or endangered species were collected. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT).
44
Table 14. Autumn 2011 Species Collected, Trophic level, Indigenous and Tolerance Classification, Catch Per Effort During Electrofishing and Gill Netting at Areas Upstream (TRM 490.5) of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2011.
Commer- Recrea-Thermally cially tionally EF Catch EF Catch Total fish Gill Netting Total Gill Total fish Percent Common Name Scientific name lvl seisSeisValuable Trophic Indigenous Tolerance Sensitive caluy Valuable nally Ru Per Rateor Per Rate EF NtigtRate Per net fish Catch Combined Composition sSpecies Species Species Run Hour Net Night Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum OM X TOL X X 37.73 164.53 566 5.50 55 621 31.4%
Common carp Cyprinus carpio OM . TOL X 0.07 0.29 1 1 0.1%
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas OM X TOL X 0.27 1.16 4 0.10 1 5- 0.3%
Spotfin shiner Cyprinellaspiloptera IN X TOL 0.27 1.16 4 4 0.2%
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus OM X TOL X 0.13 0.58 2 2 0.1%
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus IN X TOL X 5.73 25.00 86 86 4.4%
Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus IN X TOL X 0.07 0.29 1 1 0.1%
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus IN X TOL X 52.60 229.36 789 0.10 1 790 40.0%
Largemouth bass Microplerussalmoides TC X TOL X 2.07 9.01 31 31 1.6%
White crappie Pomoxis annularis TC X TOL X 0.20 2 2 0.1%
Skipjack herring Alosa chrysochloris TC X INT X X 1.20 12 12 0.6%
Smallmouth bass Micropterusdolomieu TC X INT X 1.07 4.65 16 16 0.8%
Spotted sucker Minytrema melanops BI X INT X 0.40 1.74 6 0.40 4 10 0.5%
Spotted gar Lepisosteus oculatus TC X X X 0.13 0.58 2 2 0.1%
Threadfin shad Dorosomapetenense PK X X 1.47 6.40 22 22 1.1%
Largescale stoneroller Campostoma oligolepis HB X X 0.93, 4.07 14 14 0.7%
Blue catfish Ictalurusfurcatus OM X X X 0.07 0.29 1 0.80 8 9 0.5%
Channel catfish Ictaluruspunctatus OM X X X 0.80 3.49 12 0.70 7 19 1.0%
Flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris TC X X X 0.60 2.62 9 0.10 1 10 0.5%
White bass Morone chrysops TC X X 0.07 0.29 1 0.20 2 3 0.2%
Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis TC X X 0.20 0.87 3 0.40 4 7 0.4%
Warmouth Lepomis gulosus IN X X 0.67 2.91 10 10 0.5%
Redear sunfish Lepomis microlophus TN X X 4.27 18.60 64 1.50 15 79 4.0%
Spotted bass Aficropterus punctulatus TC X X 1.67 7.27 25 0.90 9 34 1.7%
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus TC X X 1.73 7.56 26 1.70 17 43 2.2%
Yellow perch Percaflavescens TN X 0.13 0.58 2 2 0.1%
Logperch Percinacaprodes BI X X X 0.07 0.29 1 .. 1 0.1%
Walleye Sander vitreurm TC X .. X 0.10 1 1 0.1%
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens BI X X X 0.93 4.07 14 14 0.7%
Mississippi silverside Menidia audens IN ,. X 8.27 36.05 124 124 6.3%
Total 27 2 11 24 122.42 533.71 1,836 13.90 139 1,975 100%
Number Samples 15 10 Species Collected 27 15
- All species listed are Resident Important Species (RIS). No federally threatened or endangered species were collected. Trophic: benthic invertivore (BI), insectivore (IN), omnivore (OM), planktivore (PK), top carnivore (TC). Tolerance: tolerant (TOL), intolerant (INT).
45
Table 15. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run),
tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, summer 2011.
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Downstream Upstream Significant Test Parameter (TRM 482) (TRM 490.5) Difference Statistic~a) P Value Number of species (per run)
Total (Species richness) 10.7 (2.3) 12.1 (3.5) No t= -1.23 0.23 Benthic invertivores 0.5 (0.7) 0.8 (0.8) No Z= -1.28 0.20 Insectivores 3.4(1.5) 4.5 (1.1) Yes Z= -2.08 0.04 Omnivores 2.2.(1.1) 1.8(0.9) No Z= 1.44 0.15 Top carnivores 2.3 (0.7) 2.5 (1.4) No Z= 0.09 0.93 Non-indigenous 0.5 (0.5) 0.9 (0.7) No Z= -1.57 0.11 Indigenous 7.9(2.1) 8.7(19) No t= -1.79 0.28 Tolerant 4.5 (0.8) 4.4 (1.2) No Z= 0.39 0.69 Intolerant 0.5 (1.0) 1.0 (0.8) No Z= -1.90 0.06 Thermally sensitive 0.5 (0.7) 0.6 (0.8) No Z= -0,41 0.68 CPUE (per run)
Total 4.05(1.63) 5.49(2.10) Yes t=--2.11 0.04 Benthic invertivores 0.05 (0.10) 0.13 (0.21) No Z= -1.50 0.13 Insectivores 2.35(1.36) 3.13(1.29) No t=--1.59 0.12 Omnivores 1.26 (1.47) 1.92 (1.68) No Z= -1.14 0.25 Top Carnivores(b) 0.33(0.14) 0.29 (0.22) No t=- 0.98 0.33 Non-indigenous 0.13 (0.27) 0.32 (0.39) No Z= -1.65 0.10 Indigenous 4.83 (1.72) 6.06 (2.02) No t=--1.79 0.08 Tolerant 3.47(1.52) 4.38(1.92) No t=--1.44 0.16 Intolerant 0.05 (0.09) 0.09 (0.09) Yes Z= -1.99 0.05 Thermally sensitive 0.07 (0.10) 0.13 (0.22) No Z= -0.47 0.64 Diversity indices (per run)
Simpson 0.64(0.14) 0.70(0.11) No Z= -1.37 0.17 Shannon(b) 5.02(2.18) 7.02(4.10) No t=-- 1.79 0.13 (a) t-Value indicates results of independent two-sample t-test (a--0.05). Z-Value indicates results of Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon Z-test (a--0.05) used when raw data could not be normalized using transformation.
(b) Square root or ln(x+l) transformed data used for statistical analyses because raw data were not normally distributed and/or did not have equal variances.
46
Table 16. Spatial statistical comparisons of numbers of species, mean electrofishing catch per unit effort values (number/run),
tolerance designations, trophic levels, and non-indigenous individuals, along with species richness and Simpson and Shannon diversity values, collected near Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, autumn 2011.
Mean (Standard Deviation)
Parameter Downstream Upstream Significant Test (TRM 482) (TRM 490.5) Difference Statistic(a) P Value Number of species (per run)
Total (Species richness) 13.5 (3.0) 12.9 (2.4) No t=- 0.6 0.55 Benthic invertivores 0.5 (0.3) 0.5 (0.5) No Z= 0.94 0.35 Insectivores 3.9(1.8) 4.1 (1.0) No Z= -0.45 0.65 Omnivores 2.3(1.0) 1.9(0.6) No Z= 1.16 0.25 Top carnivores 3.1 (1.0) 3.2(1.7) No Z= 0.04 0.97 Non-indigenous 1.2 (0.4) 1.1 (0.5) No Z= 0.78 0.44 Indigenous(b) 10.1 (3.5) 9.4 (2.2) No t=- 0.48 0.63 Tolerant 4.7 (1.7) 3.9 (0.9) No t=- 1.62 0.12 Intolerant 0.7 (0.9) 0.8 (0.6) No Z= -0.67 0.50 Thermally sensitive 0.6 (0.5) 0.4 (0.6) No Z= 1.18 0.24 CPUE (per run)
Total("b) 3.34 (0.71) 2.81 (0.50) Yes t=- 2.34 0.03 Benthic invertivores 0.08 (0.06) 0.09 (0.07) No Z= -0.22 0.83 Insectivores 5.86 (2.98) 4.80 (3.25) No t=- 0.93 0.36 Omnivores 3.19 (1.36) 2.60 (1.54) No t=- 1.16 0.25 Top Carnivores 0.52 (0.27) 0.50 (0.47) No Z= 0.94 0.35 Non-indigenous 4.11(3.41) 0.56 (0.50) Yes Z= 3.43 0.0006 Indigenous(b) 7.51 (4.37) 7.60 (2.86) No t=- -0.30 0.76 Tolerant 4.95 (2.66) 6.60 (2.74) No t- -1.67 0.11 Intolerant 0.05 (0.07) 0.10 (0.11) No Z= -1.53 0.13 Thermally sensitive 0.05 (0.05) 0.03 (0.05) No Z= 1.18 0.24 Diversity indices (per run)
Simpson 0.84 (0.06) 0.83 (0.12) No Z= -0.33 0.74 Shannon 9.1(2.1) 8.9(2.6) No t=-0.16 0.87 (a) t-Value indicates results of independent two-sample t-test (a--0.05). Z-Value indicates results of Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Z-test (a=0.05) used when raw data could not be normalized using transformation.
(b) Square root or ln(x+l) transformed data used for statistical analyses because raw data were not normally distributed and/or did not have equal variances.
47
Table 17. Summary of RFAI scores from sites located directly upstream and downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as well as scores from sampling conducted during autumn 1993-2011 as part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir.
Station Location 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Inflow TRM529.0 52 52 48 42 44 42 44 46 48 48 42 42 42 42 44 44 44 50 45 Transition TRM 490.5 51 40 48 44 39 45 46 45 51 42 49 46 47 44 34 41 39 35 44 SQN Upstream Forebay SQN TRM482.0 --- --- --- 47 --- 41 48 46 43 45 41 39 35 38 38 37 39 35 41 Downstream Forebay TRM472.3 43 44 47 --- 40 45 45 48 46 43 43 46 43 41 41 42 40 34 43 Hiwassee River HiRM 8.5 46 39 39 --- 40 43 43 47 ---
36 42 45 --- 41 --- 42 --- 37 42 Embayment
- TRM 482 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 4).
- RFAI Scores: 12-21 ("Very Poor"), 22-31 ("Poor"), 32-40 ("Fair"), 41-50 ("Good"), or 51-60 ("Excellent")
48
Table 18. Comparison of mean density per square meter of benthic taxa collected at upstream and downstream sites near SQN during August and October 2011.
DOWNSTREAM UPSTREAM TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Metric Obs Rating Obs Rating Ohs Rating Obs Rating Ohs Rating Obs Rating Obs Rating
- 1. Average number of taxa 9.0 5 7.8 5 13.6 5 13.6 5 7.0 5 7.2 5 6.6 3
- 2. Proportion of samples with long- 1.0 5 0.4 1 0.8 3 0.8 3 0.7 3 0.8 3 0.8 3 lived organisms
- 3. Average number of EPT taxa 0.9 3 1.0 5 1.2 5 0.9 3 0.8 3 0.2 1 0.5
- 4. Average proportion of 15.5 3 7.2 5 14.8 3 35.6 3 29.4 3 54.4 1 48.1 1 oligochaete individuals
- 5. Average proportion of total abundance comprised by the two 73.7 5 78.6 5 75.5 5 77.0 5 82.8 3 86.4 3 84.5 3 most abundant taxa
- 6. Average density excluding 1685.0 5 470.0 3 396.7 3 263.3 1 235.0 3 181.7 3 525.0 5 chironomids and oligochaetes
- 7. Zero-samples - proportion of 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 samples containing no organisms Benthic Index Score 27 29 29 27 27 23 19 Good Good Good Good 27 Good Fair Fair
- TRM 481.3 and 483.4 scored with forebay criteria, TRM 488.9 and 490.5 scored with transition criteria (Refer to Table 5).
Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")
49
Table 19. Summary of RBI Scores from Sites Located Directly Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant as Well as Scores from Sampling Conducted as Part of the Vital Signs Monitoring Program in Chickamauga Reservoir.
Station Location 1994 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Inflow TRM 527.4 ... ... ... ......- 29 27 33 35 31 --- 23 23 23 21
- 27 Inflow TRM 518.0 19 31 25 21 23 29 23 27 35 29 33 25 --- 31 --- 27 27 Transition SQnstion TRM 490.5 33 29 31 31 23 25 25 31 31 31 27 21 17 27 23 19 SQN Upstream 27 Forebay TRM 482.0 --- --- --- --- 23 31 29 29 33 31 31 25 25 23 29 --- 28 SQN Downstream Forebay TRM 472.3 31 27 29 25 27 27 21 27 29 27 29 19 25 23 --- 21 26 HiwasseeRiver HiRM 8.5 17 27 25 21 --- 21 --- 31 --- 25 --- 13 --- 19 --- 19 22 Embayment
- - Sampling was conducted, but data was not available at the time this report was issued.
Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23 ("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent")
50
Table 20. Comparison of mean density per Square Meter of Benthic Taxa collected with a Ponar Dredge along Transects Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Summer and Autumn 2011.
Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Taxa Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Upstream Upstream Upstream TRM 481.3 TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 TRM 490.5 Insecta Diptera Chironomidae Ablabesmyia annulata 5 8 2 2 13 7 7 A blabesmyia m allochi 2 ----- 3 ....................
Ablabesmyia rhamphe gp. 7 ----- 10 13 ...............
A blab esm yia sp. ...................
- 3 -----
Ch iron omidae 3 2 ....................
Chironomus crassicaudatus 10 2 10 7 73 22 Chironomus decorus gp. 2 2 ..........
Chironomus major 15 2 ..... 27 2 Chironomus sp. 5 Cladopelmasp. 2 Cladotanytarsussp. 5 2 ------ 15 Coelotanypussp. 135 23 35 12 217 410 ------
Coelotanypus tricolor 205 ------- 103 292 Clinotanypussp. 2 ......
Cryptochironomussp. 7 7 2 7 3 3 Cricotopussp. 2 Cricotopus reverses gp. 2 Dicrotendipeslucifer 58 45 Dicrotendipesmodestus 12 53 Dicrotendipesneomodestus 2 2 28 5 Dicrotendipessimpsoni 3 3 Dicrotendipessp. 2 2 Glyptotendipes sp. 2 27 3 Hydrobaenussp. 2 Microtendipespedellus gp. 2 Nanocladiusalternantherae 2 Nanocladius distinctus 3 5 Orthocladiussp. 2 Parachironomuscarinatus 7 3 Parachironomusfrequens 7 Parachironomussp. 2 Polypedilum halteralegp. 2 3 Procladiussp. 5 2 2 2 7 .5 Pseudochironomussp. 2 51
Table 20 (continued).
Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Taxa Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Upstream Upstream Upstream TRM 481.3 TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 TRM 490.5 Chironomidae (Cont.)
Tanytarsus sp. 2 3 5 Thienemanniellalobapodema 10 Ceratopogonidae 3 2 Argia sp. 2 Palpomyiasp. 7 Chaoboridae Chaoboruspunctipennis 115 67 22 2 63 260 10 Ephemeroptera Ephemeridae Hexagenia limbata 28 23 3 13 20 3 7 Hexageniasp. 2 2----------------2---------
Heptageniidae Stenacron interpunctatum 2 3 Caenidae Caenissp. 2 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis sp. 7 8 20 12 7---------3 Polycentropodidae Cyrnellusfraternus 3 ------- 17 18 ..............
Polycentropussp. ------- ------- -------- -------- -------- -------- 2 Hydroptilidae Orthotrichiasp. 3.... -2 Ostracoda Podocopa Candoniidae Candonasp. 3 70 -------- 58 -------- 7 22 Ostracoda 5 2 3 Brachiopoda Cladocera Daphnidae Ceriodaphnia 2 Sididae Sida crystallina 2 2 32 5--------- -------- 3 52
Table 20 (continued).
Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Taxa Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Upstream Upstream Upstream TRM 481.3 TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 TRM 490.5 Oligocheata Haplotaxida Tubificidae Aulodriluspiqueti 392 33 27 77 7 3 2 Branchiurasowerbyi 3 2 10 3 ...............
Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 10 13 7 93 20 ----- 10 L imnodrilus cervix ----- 2 .........................
Tubificidae 168 75 52 542 60 70 120 Naididae Dero sp. 60 18 855 822 7 ..........
Naididae 3 3 137 167 ..........- 12 Nais cf pardalis ..........- 30 2 ...............
Nais sp. -----...... 22 40 .......... 5 Prisitinabreviseta 2 -----............ 5 Pristina le idy i ...... .. .. 2 ... ... .. ... ..... . ...
Pristinasp. -----. 2 ----- 25 ...............
Slavina appendiculata ..........- 15 18 ...............
Sty laria lac ustris ...............- 4 10 ...............
Branchiobdellida Branchiodellida - 2... ..........
Bivalvia Veneroida Corbiculidae Corbiculafluminea 42 38 98 212 223 67 67 Dreissenidae Dreissenapolymorpha 77 198 Sphaeriidae Euperacubensis 2 Musculium transversum 100 62 27 138 187 283 165 Pisidiumsp. 20 12 12 5 20 27 3 Sphaeriidae 2 Unionoida Unoinidae Utterbackiaimbecillis 2 5 Truncilla truncata 2 Gastropoda Mesogastropoda Viviparidae Viviparus sp. 7 13 55 3 53
Table 20 (continued).
Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Taxa Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Upstream Upstream Upstream TRM 481.3 TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 TRM 490.5 Gastropoda (cont.)
Campeloma decisum 2 7 2 Hydrobiidae Amnicola limosa 3 2 Pleuroceridae Pleuroceracanaliculata -------- -------- 3 10--------- -------- 3 Basommatophora Planorbidae Menetus dilatatus -------- "-2--------
2 Malacostraca Amphipoda Crangonyctidae Crangonyxsp. 2 8 Gammaridae Gammarussp. 7 3 Talitrida Hyalella azteca---------3 Maxillopoda Copepoda Cyclopoida 5 3 5 3 7 2 Harpacticoida 2 .......
Turbellaria Tricladida Planariidae Dugesia tigrina 2 2 185 625 .......
Curaforemanii 2 ........
Hirudinea Rhynchobdellida Glossiphoniidae Glossiphoniidaesp. 12 88 3 Helobdellastagnalis 15 22 17 165 10 3 3 Helobdellasp. -------- 2 2 73 Helobdella triserialis -------- -------- 8 13 Placobdellamontifera 3--------3 Pharyngobdellida Erpobdellidae Erpobdellidae -------- ---------------- 3 28 54
Table 20 (continued).
Summer Autumn Summer Autumn Summer Summer Autumn Taxa Downstream Downstream Downstream Downstream Upstream Upstream Upstream TRM 481.3 TRM 481.3 TRM 483.4 TRM 483.4 TRM 488.0 TRM 490.5 TRM 490.5 Nematoda Nematoda Nematoda 2 2 3 2 Arachnoidea Unoinicolidae Unionicolasp. 2 8 Acariformes Hygrobatidae Atractides sp. 2 2 Hydrozoa Hydroida Hydridae Number of samples 10 10 10 10 5 5 10 Mean Density per meter 2 1,205 735 1,883 4,283 887 1,263 810 Taxa Richness 42 40 54 58 20 18 36 Sum of area sampled (meters2) 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.30 0.30 0.60 55
Table 21. Individual Metric Ratings and the Overall RBI Field Scores for Downstream and Upstream Sampling Sites Near SQN, Chickamauga Reservoir, Autumn 2000-2010. Reservoir Benthic Index Scores: 7-12 ("Very Poor"), 13-18 ("Poor"), 19-23
("Fair"), 24-29 ("Good"), 30-35 ("Excellent").
Downstream (TRM 482.0) 2000 2 2001 2 2003 2 2005 2006 2007 ý2008 ` 2009 *201I Metric b or Obs Score S Obs Scorec Ohs Score Obs Score Obs Score kbs Scor Avg. Number of Taxa 37 3 6.2 5 4 5 7 5 6.6 5 4.1 3 42 3
% Long-Lived Organisms 0.8 5 06 3 0.9 5 0 36 3 07 3 09 Avg. Number of EPT Taxa 0.6 3 0.3 1 0.7 3 0.5 3 05 3
% as Oligochaetes 7 27.1 3 1 9.4 5 15 3 6.3 5 73 4.4 5 101
% as Dominant Taxa 80.8 5 5 798 5 79 5 90.6 3 839 3 Density excluding chironomids 348.3 5 580 5 5 5 125 3 1044 1 and oligochaetes Number of Samples with Zero 0 Organisms ý, 0 5 0 5 0 5 5 Overall Score 2 31 2 29 3 31 3 25 5 23 Iiz*
Upstream (TRM 490.5) 2001 2002 2003 2005 2007 2009 2 10" .
Metric s Score Obs ScorehscoreOhsb s Sc Ohs Scor Scorere 0b Obs Score C(,
Avg. Number of Taxa 4,- 5 6 5 7.4 5 6.8 5 4.7 5 5 5
%Long-Lived Organisms 0.9 5 0.9 5 0.9 5 0.5 3 0 d3 0.8 5 Avg. Number of EPT Taxa 0.4 3 07 3 70.9 5 0.3 1 06 3
% as Oligochaetes 14.8 3 10.7 5 6 4.4 5 5.2 5 167 3 7.2 5
%1asDominant Taxa 79.4 3 71 5 79.8 3 93.4 1 81.2 3 18 1 Density excluding chironomids 230 1 3417 3 479.2 3 56.7 1 817 1 1 and oligochaetes Number of Samples with Zero 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 W 0 5 Op Organisms Overall Score -3: 25 25 31 31 ~ ~~ 21 2C 't7j27 56
Table 22. Mean percent composition of major phytoplankton groups at sites sampled
-upstream and downstream of SQN in August and October, 2011.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM Division 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 Bacillariophyta 0 0 1 0 36 38 39 63 Chlorophyta 1 1 2 1 16 16 13 11 Chrysophyta 0 0 0 0 - -- --.
Cryptophyta 0 0 0 0 30 34 36 21 Cyanophyta 99 98 96 98 16 12 12 11 Euglenophyta 0 0 0 0 1 0 --- 0 Pyrrophyta 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
.*To enhancepattern recognition,percentages are rounded to whole numbers, and values may not add to 100.
"0" values indicatepercentagesless than 0.5%. Blank values indicate no individualsof the taxa collected.
Table 23. Comparison of the similarity of phytoplankton taxa within paired replicate samples.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 R1 R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 Replicate Taxa Richness 37 39 36 40 36 43 33 40 23 25 21 24 19 22 15 15 Combined Taxa Richness. 43 46 49 48 32 30 27 19 Species Shared 33 30 30 25 16 15 14 11 Percent Shared 76.7% 65.2% 61.2% 52.1% 50.0% 50.0% 51.9% 57.9%
Table 24. Taxa richness of the main phytoplankton groups.
Total Number of Taxa Group August October Combined Bacillariophyta 9 12 16 Chlorophyta 31 14 37 Chrysophyta 7 -- 7 Cryptophyta 2 1 2 Cyanophyta 14 7 18 Euglenophyta 1 2 2 Pyrrophyta 3 2 4 Total Taxa Richness 67 38 86 Table 25. Percent Similarity Index for comparison of phytoplankton communities among sites.
Phytoplankton - Percent Similaritya Station Comparison August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM 481.1 - TRM 483.4 83 76
- TRM 487.9 85 71
- TRM 490.7 75 63 TRM 483.4 - TRM 487.9 87 80
- TRM 490.7 81 63 TRM 487.9 - TRM 490.7 84 63
- a. PercentSimilaritycomparison of two communities 57
Table 26. Phytoplankton taxa and density (cells/ml) data for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011. Abbreviations "RI" and R2" designate replicate samples.
TRM 483.4 TRM 490.7 August October August October Division Taxon R1 R2 R1 R2 RI R2 RI R2 Bacillariophyta Achnanthes 30.3 28.4 Anomoeneis 56.8 Aulacoseira 60.6 56.8 90.4 74.9 56.8 69.1 76.5 Cyclotella 333.2 312.4 20.9 16.5 710.0 1164.4 2.2 6.6 Nitzschia 121.2 113.6 3.3 56.8 170.4 0.5 1.0 Skeletonema 454.4 227.2 Stephanodiscus 60.6 2.2 Surirella 28.4 Synedra 30.3 56.8 16.5 9.9 28.4 5.9 5.6 Achnanthidium 3.3 1.1 2.9 1.5 Cocconeis 0.1 Cymbella 0.1 0.5 Fragilaria 86.0 50.7 83.7 54.4 Gyrosigma 0.5 Melosira Navicula 0.1 Bacillariophyta Total 636 625 223 153 1,221 1,676 165 146 Chlorophyta Carteria 28.4 Chlamydomonas 121.2 198.8 49.6 20.9 198.8 142.0 9.6 6.6 Chlorococcaceae 121.2 113.6 170.4 142.0 Chlorogonium Coelastrum Cosmarium 28.4 Crucigenia 121.2 5.7 0.6 894.6 0.3 7.6 Diacanthos Dictyosphaerium 121.2 227.2 113.6 312.4 Euastrum Eudorina 484.7 Golenkinia 28.4 28.4 Kirchneriella Lagerheimia 30.3 28.4 85.2 Micractinium 121.2 113.6 113.6 Monomastix 28.4 Monoranhidium 151.5 426.0 4.4 397.6 227.2 58
Table 26 (continued).
TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 August October August October August October August October Division Taxon RI R2 R1 R2 RI R2 RI R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 RI R2 Chlorophyta Mougeotia 22.7 (continued) Oocystis 18.9 60.6 142.0 545.3 272.6 113.6 113.6 Pandorina 363.5 87.8 87.8 Pediastrum 76.8 208.3 22.8 242.3 87.8 22.8 1.8 1056.4 0.8 113.6 2.1 Pyramichlamys 22.7 56.8 28.4 Quadrigula 28.4 Scenedesmus 284.0 1022.4 0.4 10.5 1272.3 426.0 3.1 13.2 1363.1 1158.7 16.1 17.6 1703.9 1168.4 15.6 6.1 Schroederia 22.7 75.7 30.3 28.4 34.1 28.4 Sphaerocystis 272.6 Staurastrum 28.4 0.7 34.1 0.1 0.0 Teilingia 21.9 Tetraedron 45.4 0.7 30.3 113.6 34.1 34.1 0.7 113.6 85.2 Tetrastrum 75.7 5.7 113.6 0.4 136.3 136.3 2.9 Treubaria 30.3 28.4 34.1 Actinastrum 17.6 11.4 8.8 0.8 0.4 17.6 3.8 0.4 Ankistrodesmus 8.8 5.7 0.2 Chlorella 23.1 16.5 13.2 7.7 3.3 3.3 0.1 Closterium 0.7 Elakatothrix 0.6 1.0 Selenastrumn 9.4 0.2 1.4 1 Chlorophyta Total I 1,792 2,265 98 52 1 2,938 2,189 104 50 3,987 5,521 47 58 3,126 3,306 32 21 Chrysophyta Chrysococcus 28.4 Conradiella 132.5 242.3 198.8 408.9 204.5 170.4 340.8 Erkenia 272.6 208.3 121.2 113.6 408.9 937.2 568.0 198.8 Goniochloris 34.1 28.4 Gonyostomum 5.5 5.5 5.5 Kephyrion 28.4 Mallomonas 68.2 68.2 Chrysophyta Total 1 273 341 1 364 312 920 1,215 801 573 Cryptophyta Cryptomonas I 318.1 397.6 146.6 123.4 30.3 56.8 188.4 139.9 306.7 681.6 157.6 137.7 426.0 284.0 53.6 49.2 Rhodomonas 454.4 284.0 121.2 113.6 238.6 1465.4 568.0 312.4 Cryptophyta Total 772 682 147 123 151 170 188 140 545 2,147 158 138 994 596 54 49 59
Table 26 (continued).
1.TRM48I.I1,...: . TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 nAugust. . . ' October August October August *:October August October Division Taxon Ri R2 . I.*, R2 RI R2 Ri R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 Cyanophyta Anabaena 43.9 738.4 069" 76.8 1.5 886.1 477.1 1.9 74.4 Anabaenopsis 153.6 Aphanocapsa 61-79.6 1o7561.7 3513.9 2186.7 5316.3 477.1 10947.7 6957.8 Chroococcaceae 98554.4 65702.9 78022.2 70835.9 100607.6 104714.0 151938.0 170416.9 Chroococcus 795.2 75.7 22.0 0.2 363.5 340.8 11.4 681.6 477.1 2.9 227.2 Cyanocatena 21900.9 10266.1 14783.2 Cyanogranis 59789.6 158097.6 65702.9 94447.9 68988.0 98760.2 123192.9 68988.0 Cylindrospermopsis 2805.8 2515.9 1206.5 1318.4 1243.9 1756.2 666.0 467.4 Dactylococcopsis 22.7 56.8 136.3 142.0 142.0 Leptolyngbya 32.8.
Limnothrix 25.7 2.3 Lyngbya 3358.7 1416.2 1269.2 1817.5 963.3 1613.1 1363.2 3908.7 Merismopedia 8497*0 5566.2 11.4 1931.1 2.4 59.3 272.6 2453.7 454.4 681.6 Oscillatoria 6411' 3691.9. 4543.8 4158.1 4089.5 6043.3 8503.5 7403.6 Planktothrix *48.5 27.9 Pseudanabaena - 0.9 34.3 19.8 Synechococcus 61t664.6 1:10873.7.. 30113.8 34989.9 40203.9 62789.2 22585.4 35415.9 Synechocystis 53,39.'W0- 4998...1..2 4453.0 3635.1 7497.3 -.6986.2. 5963.8 5310.6 Cyanophyta Total 25S,461 '",37%,-295-'. ,.56t- :87 211,090 226,004 4 107 230,750 .286,683 22 77 325,757 314,856 0 28 Euglenophyta . Euglena 45.. * . 6. 7 15 0 1 5 5 1 Trachelomonas I Euglenophyta Total :45- 11, 6- - 7 15 0 3 5 5 1 Pyrrophyta Glenodinium 23. 5; I1 28 Gymnodinium 45 '38 30 34 28 Peridinium 45. 5 2 0 0 11 1 28 Ceratium 01 0 Pyrrophyta Total 14.
1 -.49 2 30 0 0 11 45 1 28 57 Total Phytoplankton Cell Count -257,313 .36i081 467 439 215,224 229,301 519 453 239,603 298,3S91 389 432 331,933 321,065 251 244 60
Table 27. Percentage Composition of phytoplankton for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 Taxon RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 Bacillariophyta Achnanthes --- 0 --- 0 --- 0 ..---.--- ---------.---.
Anomoeneis ------- -
..-------- 0 ------------------------. - -.---- -----
Aulacoseira 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 16 15 17 17 13 16 27 31 Cyclotella 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 5 4 4 6 5 1 3 Nitzschia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 --- 1 1 0" 0 Skeletonem a 0 0 ... ... 0 0 0 0 -... . ... ... ... ... ... ..
Stephanodiscus --- 0 0- ----- ----- ---- --- --- 0 --- ----. ---
Su rire lla ... ... ... 0 ... ... ... ...... .. ... ... ... ... ... ...
Synedra 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 Achnanthidium .--------------------- ---- ------ 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Cocconeis ------------------------------- 0 0 --- 0 0 --- ---....
Cymbella --------------------------- --- 0 0 0 --- 0 0 ---
Fragilaria -------------------- ------------
- 1 15 17 11 19 12 33 22 Gyrosigma ----------------------------------------------------------- 0 Melosira --------------------------------------------- --- 0 0 ......
Navicula .------------------------------ 0 0 --- 0 1 1 ---...
Bacillariophyta Total 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 34 38 43 34 42 36 66 60 Chlorophyta C arteria 0 0 --- 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Chlamydomonas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 10 5 6 4 4 3 Chlorococcaceae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Chlorogonium ..----- ---- --- ---. 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Coelastrum --- 0 --- 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Cosmarium 0.-----------------------------------
.----------0 .. .------
Crucigenia . 00.. --- .--- ---- ---- 0 . 1 0 --- 0 0 3 Diacanthos ...---------- --- -- 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Dictyosphaeriumn 0 --- 0 0 --- 0 0 0 . .---.--- ---------.---..
Euastrum 0 --- ..-- ..-- . .--..--..--.--- "---.-.. ... ... ..
Eudorina ------- 0-----------------------------.. . .. ...
Golenkinia ... ... ...- 0 0 0 --- 0 Kirchneriella ---- ---- ---- --- 0 --- ... ... ...-... . ... ... ... ... ..
Lagerheimia --- 0 0 --- 0 0 --- - ---... ... ..
M icractinium --- 0 0 0 0 --- 0 ---... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Monomastix ----------- 0 --- -------- -------------- ----.--- --- --
Monoraphidium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 I --- 0 ... ...
Mougeotia 0--------------------------------.- .-- -------.--- --
Oocystis --- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Pandorina 0 0 ---- ---- ---- - 0 ---... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Pediastrum 0 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 5 --- 4 0 0 --- 1 ---
Pyramichlamys 0 0 ----- ---- --- ----- --- 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... .
Quadrigula ..---------- ---. -- - -- 0.
0 ... ... .. .. ... ... ....
Scenedesmus 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 L 3 4 4 6 3 61
Table 27. (Continued)
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 Taxon RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 (Chlorophyta)
Schroederia 0 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0------------------
Sphaerocystis - - - --- 0 --------------........
Staurastrum . . . 0 0 ... ... ... ... ...- 0 0 - - 0 Teilingia . . . .-----.-- 0 .--------------------------
Tetraedron 0 -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- 0 -------. - 0 -...
Tetrastrum - 0 - 0 0 0 --.. . 1 --- 0 --- I . ... ...
Treubaria - - 0 0 -- 0---------------------.----.-- ---.
Actinastrum - .. - - - 4 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 Ankistrodesmus - - - 2 1 .. .- - 0 ... ...
Chlorella - - -------------- 5 4 3 2 1 I --- 0 Closterium -.- -.--- --------.---.--- 0 --.---.--.---.---
Elakatothrix - .-
.--- 0-- ---. .--- ---- 0 ---
Selenastrum .-.---- --------- --- 2 --- 0 .. .. 0-Chlorophyta Total I I 1 1 2 2 1 1 21 12 20 11 12 14 13 9 Chrysophyta Chrysococcus . .. . . . 0 ---... ... ... ... .. .. .. ...
Conradiella -- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ...--------- .----.---. --
Erkenia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- .. . .. .. . .. ..
Goniochloris ..- - .. 0 - 0 ---... ... ... ... . ... ... ... .
Gonyostom um ... . .. 0 0 0 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Kephyrion ---...- ---. ---.--. 0 ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ...
Mallomonas .. - - 0 0 ..-----------------.-------- ---
Chrysophyta Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . .
Cryptophyta Cryptomonas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 28 36 31 41 32 21 20 Rhodomonas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --- --. ----. ---...
Cryptophyta Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 31 28 36 31 41 32 21 20 Cyanophyta Anabaena 0 0 - 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 -- 0 17 ... ...
Anabaenopsis -.- - -- ----- 0 Aphanocapsa 2 5 2 1 2 0 3 2-------------. ... ....
Chroococcaceae 38 17 36 31 42 35 46 53 --- -------------
Chroococcus 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 5 0 3 1-Cyanocatena ---- 10 4 ------ --- 5----- ----------
Cyanogranis 23 42 31 41 29 33 37 21- .. ... .. .. .. .. ... ...
Cylindrospermopsis I I I I I 1 0 0- ... .. . . . . ... ...
Dactylococcopsis 0 0 - - - 0 0 0 ...-------------- ---.--. ---
Leptolyngbya - - -.------- 7 ..
Limnothrix -- --. -- -------- - -- 6 1 1- ---
Lyngbya 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 ..-------------- - -
Merismopedia 3 1 -- 1 0 1 0 0 --- 3 0 13 ... ... ... ...
Oscillatoria 2 1 2 2 2 2 3 2-------------- .--
Planktothrix - - - - --.-. .
--- . ---- . 11 --- ----
Pseudanabaena - - - - -.------- 0 --- 8 5 Synechococcus 24 29 14 15 17 21 7 11 .
-l-.. . .. . ..
Synechocysfis 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 ---.---.. ..
Cyanophyta Total 99 99 98 99 96 96 98 98 12 20 I 24 6 18 - 1!
62
Table 27. (Continued)
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM' Taxon 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 Euglenophyta Euglena 0 0 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- 1 2 0 0 ... ... 0 ---
Trachelomonas .------------------------- ----------------- 0 ... ... ... ...
Euglenophyta Total 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 2 0 1 00 Pyrrophyta Glenodinium 0 0 -------- --- 0 0 ---------- -----------
Gymnodinium 0 0 0 ------- 0 --- 0------------- ----.------
Peridinium 0 0 --- ----- 0 ------ 0 --- 1 0 0 --- 0 Ceratium ---------------- ---------------- --- 0 -- 0 ... ...
Pyrrophyta Total 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 1 0 0 - 0 - --
63
Table 28. Concentrations of chlorophyll a (apparent and corrected), phaeophytin a and the chlorophyll/phaeophytin index values for samples collected upstream and downstream of SQN during 2011.
Collection Sample Replicate Chlorophyll a (pg/L) Phaeophytin Chlorophyll/Phaeophytin Date Site Apparent Corrected a (pg/L) Index TRM 08/25/2011 481.2 R1 13 11 2.2 1.6 R2 14 13 1.5 1.6 TRM 483.4 RI 8 6 2.5 1.5 R2 8 6 2.6 1.5 TRM 487.9 RI 13 13 < 1.0 1.7 R2 15 15 < 1.0 1.7 TRM 490.7 RI 11 10 1.0 1.6 R2 11 9 1.5 1.6 TRM 10/10/2011 481.1 RI 6 5 1.0 1.6 R2 8 7 1.7 1.6 TRM 483.4 RI 10 9 1.4 1.6 R2 13 11 1.6 1.6 TRM 487.9 RI 7 6 1.7 1.5 R2 9 8 1.4 1.6 TRM 490.8 Ri 7 5 2.0 1.5 R2 6 6 1.1 1.6 Table 29. Mean percent composition of major zooplankton groups at sites sampled upstream and downstream of SQN in August and October, 2011.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM Group 481.1 483A 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 Bivalvia (veliger) - --... ... .. 0 0 ---
Cladocera 66 51 65 62 44 59 71 69 Copepoda 32 27 20 23 40 37 23 29 Rotifera 2 22 15 16 16 4 6 2
- Percentagesare roundedto whole numbers, and values may not add to 100.
"0" values indicatepercentagesless than 0.5% Blank values indicate no individualsof the taxa collected.
64
Table 30. Comparison of the similarity of zooplankton taxa within paired replicate samples.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1R2 RI R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 Replicate Taxa Richness 8 9 6 7 7 8 7 7 7 7 11 11 8 9 12 9 Combined Taxa Richness 14 8 9 9 9 16 12 13 Species Shared 3 5 6 5 5 6 5 8 Percent Shared 21.4% 62.5% 66.7% 55.6% 55.6% 37.5% 41.7% 61.5%
Table 31. Taxa richness of the main zooplankton groups.
Total Number of Taxa Group August October Combined Bivalvia --- 2 2 Cladocera 7 8 11 Copepoda 3 9 10 Rotifera 8 7 12 Total Taxa Richness 18 26 35 Table 32. Percent Similarity Index for comparison of zooplankton communities among sites.
Zooplankton - Percent Similarity' Station Comparison August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM 481.1 -TRM 483.4 63 83
- TRM 487.9 69 72
- TRM 490.7 75 74 TRM 483.4 - TRM 487.9 70 86
- TRM 490.7 72 89 TRM 487.9 - TRM 490.7 80 93
- a. PercentSimilarity comparisonof two communities 65
Table 33. Zooplankton taxa and density (organisms/m3) data for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011. Abbreviations "R1" and R112" designate replicate samples.
TRM 483.4 TRM 490.7 August October August October Taxon R1 R2 RI R2 R1- R2 R1 R2 Bivalvia Corbiculidae Corbicula fluminea (veliger) 9 Dreissenidae Dreissena polymorpha (veliger) 9 9 Cladocera Cladocera (immature)
Diplostraca Bosminidae Bosmina longirostris 1421 784 2461 3614 627 796 5511 5863 Bosminidae (immature) 40 Eubosmina tubicen 18 41 Daphiniidae Ceriodaphnia 41 37 14 Daphnia galeata 31 Daphnia lumholtzi 9 40 Daphnia retrocurva 89 Leptodoridae Leptodora kindtii 18 Sididae Diaphanosoma birgei 958 1238 111 265 Diaphanosoma brachyurum 14 Sididae (immature) 14 40 Ilyocryptidae Ilyocryptus spinifer 9 Macrothricidae Macrothrix sp. 9 Copepoda Calanoida Calanoida 247 372 1558 1276 111 44 2020 2193 Temoridae Epischura fluviatilis Eurytemora affinis 186 120 82 120 Eurytemora sp.
66
Table 33 (continued).
TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 August October August October August October August Taxon Ri R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 RI R2 R1 R2 RI R2 RI R2 R1 R2 (Copepoda)
Cyclopoida Cyclopoida 1023 1284 453 2918 1019 661 230 370 119 241 137 94 221 265 220 179 Cyclopidae Cyclops sp. 38 41 37 Eucyclops agilis 9 Mesocyclops edax 27 Tropocyclops prasinus 41 20 Harpacticoida Harpacticoida 112 Poecilostomatoida Ergasilidae Ergasilus sp. 1 18 1 41 40 Rotifera Flosculariaceae Conochilidae Conochilus unicomis 38 1773 6846 31 2312 416 278 281 503 184 265 96 199 Ploima Brachionidae Brachionus angularis 14 Brachionus calyciflorus 37 38 9 9 Brachionus patulus 9 Brachionus quadridentatus 17 Brachionus quadridentatus 15
- f. brevispinus Kellicottia longispina 40 Keratella cochlearis 40 14 Platyias patulus 37 Gastropidae Ascomorpha sp. 44 Lecanidae Lecane sp. 38 Trichocercidae Trichocerca sp. 37 Total Zooplankton Abundance 2842 5064 11657 41751 3707 5449 4930 5462 1866 2326 4632 4917 1327 1769 8122 8734 67
Table 34. Percentage composition of zooplankton taxa for samples collected at four stations within Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River - August 25 and October 10, 2011.
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 Bivalvia C or bi cu li da e ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Corbicula fluminea (veliger) --- -------------------- ---------------- 0 --- ... .
Dr e is se nid a e ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Dreissena polymorpha (veliger) -------------------------------- ------- 0 0 0 ---.. ..
Bivalvia Total .. ... .. .. .. ... 00. 0.
0-- --
Cladocera Cladocera (immature) ----------------------------------------------- 0 ---.. ..
Diplostraca .. - ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
B osm in id a e ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Bosmina longirostris 41 47 38 14 32 47 47 45 43 44 50 66 63 77 68 67 Bosminidae (immature) .---------------------------------------------------------- 0 Eubosmina tubicen .------------------------------ 0 --- I I ---
Da ph iniid a e ... ... ... .. . ... ... ... .. .... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. .
Ceriodaphnia --- 3 --- 1 4 5 3 ---..--- -----.---.--- 0 ---
Daphnia galeata. 3 --- I --- - ... ... ... ... ... ...
Daphnia lumholtzi --- I ... .. .--- 7 ... ... ... ... ... 0 1 0 --- 0 Dap h n ia re tro c u rva ... ... ... ... ...- .. .--- 5 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
L ep tod orid ae --- --- - ..... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Leptodora kindtii I ---- ---- -------- --- --- 0 ... ... 0 ... ... ... ...
Sid ida e ... ... ... ... ... ... .. . .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Diaphanosoma birgei 15 20 26 23 21 14 8 15 ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Diaphanosoma brachyurum .------------------------------------------------------ 0 ---
Sididae (immature) ----------------------------------- 0 --------------- 0 0 Ilyo cry ptid ae ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Ilyocryptus spinifer ...--------------------------------- ---- 0 ---------- ...
Macrothricidae ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Macrothrix sp. ---------- -------------------------------- 0 ---------------
Cladocera Total 60 72 65 38 57 72 58 65 43 44 50 67 63 78 69 68 Copepoda Calanoida --- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Calanoida --- 1 7 7 19 3 8 2 34 31 32 23 22 18 25 25 Temoridae ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ... ...
Epischura fluviatilis .----------- ------------------------------------------ I Eurytemora affinis -------- --------------- .--- 3 --- 4 2 0 2 1 1 Eurytemora sp. -- - .---.--- - --- -.---. ---. --- 2 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Cyclopoida ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Cyclopoida 36 25 27 12 6 10 17 15 4 7 5 7 3 2 3 2 68
Table 34. (Continued)
August 25, 2011 October 10, 2011 TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM TRM 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 481.1 483.4 487.9 490.7 R1 R2 RI R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 RI R2 RI R2 RI R2 (Cyclopoida)
C yclops sp. ...
-- .. 3 ---.--. ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
E ucyclo ps agilis ... ... ... ... ... ... .... ...... ... 0 ... ... ... ... ...
M esocyclop s edax ... ... ... ... ...--- ...--- ... ...... ... I ---. ...
Tropocyclops prasinus ...
--- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 1 0 Harpacticoida ---. -.- .--. --- .- -. -.- .--. ---.--- -.- .--. .-- .--- ..- .--. .--
H arp actico ida ---... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 0 ... ... ... ... ... ...
Poecilostom atoida --- ...
Ergasilidae ---. -.- .-.- .-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.--..--. .--..--.. ... ...
Ergasilus sp. ..
--- ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 0 --- --- 1 0 Copepoda Total 37 26 34 20 26 14 28 17 41 40 41 33 25 22 30 29 Rotifera Flosculariaceae ---... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ...
C onochilid ae --- ..-- ..-- . ... ... ... -...
Conochilus unicomis I --- 1 42 15 12 14 15 15 16 8 --- 11 --- 1 2 P lo im a ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .... .. ... ... ... . .. ... ... ...
Brachionidae --- .--- --. ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
Brachionus angularis ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ..--
-- - --- 0 ---
Brachionus calyciflorus --- I ... ... ... ... .. .--- 0 --- 0 0 ... ... ... ...
B rachionus patulus --- .. ...--- ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... 0 ... ...
B rachionus quadridentatus ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ....---.. ... ... .. . 0 ... ...
Brachionus quadridentatus f. brevispinus --- .. .. .. ... .. .. ...
--- --- --- --- - 0 ... ... ...
Kellicottia longispina ... ... ... ... ... 2 --- . .... .. .. --- ...------ ---
Keratella cochlearis ... ... ... ...- 2 --- .. .... ...--- --- --- --- 0 ---
P latyias patulus I ... ... --- ... ... ......
G a strop ida e --- ... ... ... ... ... ...... --. ..--- ... ... ... ... ...
Ascom orpha sp. -.. ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 --- .. .. ..---
L ecanidae --- - ... ... ... ...---... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...
Lecane sp. 1 --- . ---- .. --.---.---.---
T richocercidae ---.--- --. ... ... ... ... ...... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..
Trichocerca sp. --- 1 ... ... .. ... .. ..... ---...... ...--- --- --- -
Rotifera Total 3 2 1 42 17 14 14 17 16 16 9 0 11 1 2 2
- Percentagesare rounded to whole numbers, and values may not add to 100.
"0" values indicate percentagesless than 0.5%. Blank values indicate no individuals of the taxa collected.
69
Table 35. Wildlife Visual Encounter Survey Results of Shoreline Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant during August (Summer) and October (Autumn) 2011. (RDB = right descending bank, LDB = Left Descending Bank)
Season Site Transect Birds Obs. Mammals Obs.
August 2011 Upstream RDB Swallow sp. 1 Belted Kingfisher I American Crow 4 Turkey Vulture 2 Osprey I Great Blue Heron 5 Unidentified Duck 2 Upstream LDB Swallow sp. 2 White-tailed Deer 4 Red-winged Blackbird 5 American Crow I Great Blue Heron 5 Downstream RDB Swallow Sp. 3 White-tailed Deer 4 Osprey 2 Wood Duck I Great Blue Heron 4 Double-crested Cormorant 2 Downstream LDB Belted Kingfisher I Swallow sp. 5 European Starling 30 Green Heron I Great Blue Heron 2 October 2011 Upstream RDB Songbird sp. 2 Great Blue Heron 4 Upstream LDB Wren sp. I Belted Kingfisher I Great Blue Heron I Downstream RDB Songbird sp. 6 Eastern Gray Squirrel Belted Kingfisher 3 Blue Jay I Northern Mockingbird I Double-crested Cormorant I Great Blue Heron 5 American Coot 335 American Widgeon 2 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Mallard 5 Downstream LDB Belted Kingfisher 2 Tufted Titmouse 3 Killdeer 2 Sandpiper sp. 2 Songbird sp. 3 Great Blue Heron 7 Wood Duck 15 American Coot 603 Black-crowned Night Heron I Gadwall 3 Mallard 13 Green-winged Teal 2 Pied-billed Grebe 2 Double-crested Cormorant 5 70
Table 36. Water temperature (*F) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 486.7 (ambient), TRM 483.4 (discharge), TRM 481.1 (middle of plume), TRM 480.0 (downstream limit of plume),
and TRM 478.3 (below plume) on August 25, 2011 (Summer). Green numbers represent ambient temperatures used to characterize the thermal plume. Red numbers represent temperatures 3.6"F (2°C) or greater above ambient temperature.
Depth Ambient TRM 486.7 SQN Discharge TRM 483.4 Middle of Plume TRM 481.1 At Plume Limit TRM 480.0 Below Plume TRM 478.3 (m) 10% 30% 500/a 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 300/6 50%19 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 900/. 100/N 30%/. 50% 70%/. 90%
0.3 82.35 82.63 81.63 81.55 81.59 85.42 85.15 84.92 85.30 84.69 85.28 85.69 86.63 86.22 86.85 85.95 85.51 85.89 86.72 86.77 84.18 84.74 85.19 85.46 85.86 1 81.93 82.38 81.52 81.43 81.54 85.08 85.06 83.52 84.85 84.87 85.03 84.87 85.03 86.04 86.72 85.77 85.08 85.69 84.97 86.16 84.11 84.63 85.03 85.30 85.37 2 81.63 81.50 81.32 81.23 81.41 84,72 84.58 82.58 84.96 84.43 84.69 84.51 84.65 85.32 84,51 84.18 85.21 84.88 83.52 83.98 84.74 84.31 85.33 3 81.36 81.32 81.21 81.68 81.37 82.60 82.96 81.73 84.51 83.32 84.02 84.16 84.40 84.27 84.40 83.93 84.31 83.55 83.95 84.51 84.13 85.32 4 81.25 81.09 81.10 81.05 81.27 82.13 82.40 84.31 84.45 83.75 83.97 84.29 84.24 84.34 83.82 83.84 83.93 84.11 84.11 85.26 5 81.12 81.09 81.03 81.05 82.18 84.22 83.80 83.86 84.25 84.20 84.18 83.59 83.89 83.93 84.06 84.97 6 81.03 81,01 80.73 84.33 83.82 83.66 84.16 84.11 82.96 83.82 83.86 83.84 84.16 7 80.98 80.94 80.65 84.20 83,75 83.75 84.07 83.98 82.58 83.46 83.79 83.82 83.84 8 80.85 80.89 80.65 84.20 82.76 83.12 83.84 83.61 82.36 83.43 83.75 83.80 83.77 9 80.80 80.85 80.65 83.70 82.11 82.94 83.53 83.39 82.17 83.17 83.66 83.75 83.68 10 80.80 80.85 80.65 83.55 82.09 82.85 83.16 83.28 82.11 83.26 83.17 83.71 83.66 11 80.80 80.83 80.64 83.10 81.68 82.49 82.72 83.19 82.11 83.25 82.99 83.66 83.64 12 80.83 80.64 83.14 81.70 82.54 82.47 83.14 82.09 83.10 82.90 82.92 13 80.64 82.67 81.63 82.47 82.20 82.11 83.10 82.80 82.87 14 80.64 82.17 81.59 82.38 82.08 82.11 83.05 82.54 82.63 15 82.18 82.26 82.08 83.01 82.53 82.58 16 82.13 82.26 82.08 82.51 82.58 17 82.06 82.27 82.08 82.51 82.56 18 82.04 82.15 82.08 82.45 82.56 71
Table 37. Water temperature (OF) profiles measured at five locations (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%) from right descending bank along transects located at TRM 487 (ambient), TRM 483.4 (discharge), TRM 482.2 (below discharge), TRM 481.0 (downstream limit of plume), and TRM 478.3 (below plume) on September 14, 2011 (Autumn). Green numbers represent ambient temperatures used to characterize the thermal plume. Red numbers represent temperatures 3.6*F (2'C) or greater above ambient temperature.
Depth Ambient TRM 487 SQN Discharge TRM 483.4 Below Discharge TRM 482.2 At Plume Limit TRM 481 Below Plume TRM 480.5 (M) 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90%
0.3 77.18 77.18 77.54 77.36 77.54 81.25 80.42 80.55 80.01 81.68 81.45 81.21 81.14 81.48 81.91 80.15 81.03 81.32 80.53 80.65 80.08 80.04 80.42 79.25 79.45 S 77.00 76.2 7718 7664 77,18 80.71 80.29 80.10 79.88 81.09 81.09 80.28 79.79 80.06 80.71 79.61 79.74 79.75 79.66 79.59 78.18 79.14 79.00 78.62 78.76 2 76.64 76.46 76.46 76.46 76.28 82.35 80.08 80.06 79.70 80.58 79.83 79.29 79.20 80.24 78.60 78.60 79.00 79.30 78.80 78.82 78.49 78.48 78.44 77.58 3 76.64 76.46 76.10 76.10 76.10 78.40 79.61 80.06 79.54 80.69 79.74 78.93 79.00 79.39 78.40 78.21 78.04 78.84 78.51 78.71 78.19 78.21 77.52 4 76.46 76.46 75.92 75.20 75.38 78.06 79.97 79.47 80.80 79.47 78.84 78.87 77.83 77.49 78.75 77.61 78.58 78.04 77.94 77.49 5 76.46 75.56 75.20 80.20 79.34 80.64 78.24 78.53 78.71 77.68 77.34 78.69 77.49 78.13 77.81 77.56 6 75.20 75.02 79.02 79.25 80.55 78.37 78.58 77,38 77.32 78,51 77.43 77.74 77.50 7 75.20 75.02 78.49 80.28 78.28 77.32 77.20 77.70 77.45 8 75.02 74.48 77.58 78.49 78.06 77.20 76.93 77.67 77.36 9 75.02 74.48 77.22 77.54 77.67 77.04 76.84 77.58 77,34 10 74.48 74.30 76.15 77.43 77.59 76.96 76.80 77.52 77.09 11 73.58 74.30 76.12 77.36 77.58 76.66 76.69 77.49 76.96 12 73.22 75.97 76.82 77.56 76.28 76.41 77.47 76.23 13 75.94 76.82 77.23 76.21 76.24 77.05 76.19 14 75.87 76.05 76.14 76.08 76.19 15 75.76 75.83 76.08 76.06 16 75.76 75.78 76.03 17 75.74 75.78 18 75.72 72
Table 38. Seasonal water quality parameters collected along vertical depth profiles downstream (TRM 482) and upstream (TRM 490.5) of the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant in Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River. Abbreviations: 0 C -
Temperature in degrees Celsius, IF - Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit, Cond - Conductivity, DO - Dissolved Oxygen Summer - TRM 482 LDB. Mid-channel RDB Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH 0.3 29.33 84.79 192.8 7.46 7.91 0.3 29.50 85.10 192.2 8.05 8.11 0.3 29.73 85.51 192.6 6.73 7.74 1.5 29.09 84.36 193.1 7.18 7.83 1.5 29.15 84.47 192.3 7.55 7.98 1.5 29.30 84.74 192.8 7.22 7.86 3 28.67 83.61 193.0 6.51 7.67 3 29.10 84.38 192.4 7.49 7.95 3 29.07 84.33 193.8 7.59 7.98 5 28.62 83.52 193.1 6.39 7.64 4 29.07 84.33 192.5 7.45 7.93 5 28.74 83.73 192.4 8.22 8.18 6 28.85 83.93 192.4 7.17 7.85 Downstream Transect 8 28.69 83.64 192.0 7.02 7.80 12 28.40 83.12 191.4 6.55 7.70 15 28.19 82.74 192.2 6.38 7.64 19 28.07 82.53 227.5 6.24 7.63 0.3 29.60 85.28 192.8 6.89 7.78 0.3 29.35 84.83 191.6 7.35 0.3 30.58 87.04 191.8 9.12 8.37 1.5 29.14 84.45 191.6 7.03 7.81 1.5 29.03 84.25 191.3 7.35 7.92 1.5 29.19 84.54 191.0 8.58 8.21.
3 28.59 83.46 192.3 8.05 8.07 3 28.79 83.82 191.2 7.16 7.86 3 28.69 85.44 190.4 7.94 8.02 4.5 28.30 82.94 190.2 8.35 8.23 4 28.65 83.57 191.0 7.23 7.87 Middle 8 28.35 83.03 191.7 6.94 7.79 Transect 12 27.93 82.27 191.8 6.60 7.71 14.5 27.87 82.17 191.2 6.53 7.67 0.3 28.75 83.75 190.9 9.00 8.21 0.3 29.20 84.56 192.0 7.61 7.81 0.3 29.31 84.76 190.0 9.66 8.50 1.5 27.84 82.11 190.0 7.12 7.72 1.5 29.07 84.33 191.7 7.44 7.79 1.5 29.25 84.65 191.5 9.58 8.45 3 27.78 82.00 190.5 7.14 7.63 3 29.09 84.36 191.9 6.78 7.68 3 29.15 84.47 190.7 9.48 8.42 3.5 27.77 81.99 190.0 6.96 7.55 4 28.75 83.75 191.2 6.73 7.67 4 29.18 84.52 190.7 9.69 8.46 Upstream 6 28.44 83.19 191.8 6.84 7.70 6 29.12 -84.42 191.0 9.55 8.44 Transect 8 28.50 83.30 191.5 6.88 7.72 8 28.83 83.89 190.8 8.36 8.19 12 27.86 82.15 190.6 6.86 7.73 12 27.63 81.73 191.9 6.60 7.64 16 27.80 82.04 190.4 6.85 7.75 73
Table 38 (continued).
Summer - TRM 490.5 LDB Mid-channel RDB Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH 0.3 28.19 82.74 198.5 9.58 8.52 0.3 27.90 82.22 198.7 8.88 8.33 0.3 28.32 82.98 194.5 9.50 8.51 1.5 28.15 82.67 199.0 9.54 8.49 1.5 27.72 81.90 200.1 7.07 8.16 1.5 28.29 82.92 194.9 9.40 8.42 3 27.51 81.52 197.7 6.60 7.62 3 27.68 81.82 200.2 7.74 8.03 3 27.43 81.37 196.6 6.13 7.55 5 26.91 80.44 200.6 4.23 7.33 4 27.30 81.14 200.5 5.75 7.62 4.5 27.19 80.94 198.1 5.17 7.42 7 26.91 80.44 199.5 4.31 7.36 6 27.19 80.94 200.0 5.50 7.53 Downstream Transect 8 27.15 80.87 201.1 5.21 7.48 10 27.09 80.76 200.7 5.04 7.45 13 27.11 80.80 200.3 5.17 7.46 17 27.14 80.85 200.1 5.37 7.47 0.3 28.70 83.66 196.0 10.9 n/a 0.3 28.38 83.08 198.8 9.84 8.57 0.3 28.74 83.73 193.2 9.83 8.64 1.5 28.28 82.90 196.2 10.0 n/a 1.5 27.90 82.22 200.6 8.48 8.20 1.5 27.44 81.39 199.4 6.58 7.75 3 27.16 80.89 198.2 4.68 n/a 3 27.25 81.05 201.3 5.61 7.54 3 27.27 81.09 200.4 5.88 7.55 5 27.09 80.76 197.3 4.37 n/a 5 27.13 80.83 200.9 4.97 7.45 4 27.34 81.21 200.4 6,15 7.59 Middle 7 27.02 80.64 200.3 4.71 7.40 6 27.17 80.91 200.8 5.50 7.44 Transect 9 27.00 80.60 200.7 4.62 7.38 ý7 27.19 80.94 201.1 5.57 7.37 11 26.98 80.56 200.5 4.56 7.40 0.3 28.71 83.68 197.8 10.4 8.66 0.3 28.15 82.67 200.6 8.30 8.15 0.3 28.07 82.53 200.0 6.15 8.12 1.5 28.49 83.28 197.9 9.92 8.55 1.5 27.87 82.17 200.0 7.77 7.97 1.5 27.80 82.04 200.1 6.24 7.89 3 27.70 81.86 197.0 6.00 7.79 3 27.36 81.25 200.3 5.78 7.51 3 27.46 81.43 199.6 7.93. 7.49 Upstream 4 27.24 81.03 200.5 5.21 7.42 4 27.37 81.27 199.3 8.58 7.43 Transect 6 27.18 80.92 200.7 4.94 7.36 8 27.08 80.74 200.5 4.73 7.30 9.5 27.07 80.73 200.2 4.68 7.30 74
Table 38 (continued).
Autumn - TRM 482 LDB Mid-channel RDB Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH 0.3 22.43 72.37 184.5 7.45 7.49 0.3 22.92 73.26 183.7 7.57 7.48 0.3 22.43 72.37 184.4 7.49 7.54 1.5 22.42 72.36 184.3 7.41 7.47 1.5 22.89 73.20 183.7 7.48 7.47 1.5 22.19 71.94 184.7 7.48 7.49 2 22.38 72.28 184.0 7.42 7.44 3 22.63 72.73 184.2 7.41 7.44 3 22.14 71.85 185.1 7.37 7.47 5 22.51 72.52 184.6 7.38 7.43 5 22.12 71.82 185.3 7.32 7.44 Downstream 7 22.35 72.23 185.0 7.34 7.40 Transect 9 22.18 71.92 184.4 7.29 7.36 11 21.75 71.15 184.8 7.29 7.33 13 21.70 71.06 184.2 7.33 7.29 15 21.63 70.93 183.7 7.29 7.25 0.3 23.49 74.28 183.7 7.72 7.57 0.3 23.46 74.23 183.4 7.59 7.50 0.3 22.97 73.35 183.8 7.62 7.52 1.5 23.21 73.78 183.6 7.66 7.53 1.5 23.89 75.00 183.8 7.47 7.49 1.5 22.71 72.88 183.8 7.57 7.52 3 23.21 73.78 183.4 7.66 7.49 3 22.96 73.33 183.8 7.45 7.47 3 22.65 72.77 184.1 7.45 7.51 4 22.92 73.26 183.4 7.40 7.45 4 22.59 72.66 183.9 7.74 7.46 6 22.81 73.06 183.9 7.33 7.44 Middle 8 22.45 72.41 183.5 7.34 7.39 Transect 10 21.99 71.58 183.3 7.32 7.37 12 21.74 71.13 182.9 7.31 7.33 14 21.41 70.54 183.0 7.23 7.29 16 21.39 .70.50 183.1 7.15 7.23 0.3 23.75 74.75 183.8 7.49 7.49 0.3 23.83 74.89 183.7 7.42 749 0.3 23.42 74.16 183.5 9.66 8.50 1.5 23.46 74.23 183.5 7.39 7.51 1.5 23.57 74.43 183.3 7.37 7.48 1.5 23.28 73.90 183.4 9.58 8.45 3 22.97 73.35 183.9 7.33 7.48 3 23.03 73.45 183.9 7.34 7.84 3 23.08 73.54 183.6 9.48 8.42 4 22.69 72.84 184.0 7.30 7.47 4 22.71 72.88 183.3 7.33 7.47 9.69 8.46 Upstream 6 22.61 72.70 183.6 7.24 7.46 6 22.48 72.46 183.3 7.31 7.46 9.55 8.44 Transect 8 22.38 72.28 184.2 7.12 7.44 8 22.44 72.39 183.1 7.32 7.45 8.36 8.19 10 22.15 71.87 184.4 7.06 7.42 10 22.32 72.18 183.9 7.27 7.43 6.60 7.64 12 22.17 71.91 184.1 7.06 7.39 12 21.89 71.40 182.7 7.29 7.41 14 21.54 70.77 182.8 7.24 7.38 16 21.35 70.43. 183.0 7.26 7.39 75
Table 38 (continued).
Autumn - TRM 490.5 LDB Mid-channel RDB Depth °C OF Cond DO pH Depth °C OF Cond DO pH Depth TC OF Cond DO pH 0.3 21.23 70.21 182.7 7.68 7.54 0.3 21.26 70.27 182.9 7.67 7.55 0.3 21.21 70.18 182.6 7.82 7.58 1.5 21.23 70.21 182.7 7.66 7.52 1.5 21.26 70.27 183.0 7.62 7.56 1.5 21.21 70.18 182.8 7.82 7.56 2 21.22 70.20 182.6 7.66 7.54 3 21.26 70.27 183.0 7.59 7.54 3 21.20 70.16 186.7 7.84 7.55 4 21.26 70.27 183.0 7.55 7.53 4 21.19 70.14 183.5 7.94 7.55 Downstream 6 21.25 70.25 183.0 7.50 7.56 Transect 8 21.24 70.23 183.0 7.48 7.51 10 21.24 70.23 182.6 7.46 7.59 12 21.23 70.21 183.0 7.44 7.47 14 21.24 70.23 183.0 7.37 7.44 16 21.03 69.85 183.0 7.39 7.42 0.3 21.09 69.96 191.6 7.81 7.57 0.3 21.33 70.39 187.0 7.68 7.54 0.3 21.34 70.41 182.7 7.67 7.52 1.5 21.09 69.96 182.7 7.79 7.57 1.5 21.33 70.39 182.0 7.65 7.50 1.5 21.34 70.41 182.8 7.66 7.57 3 21.10 69.98 180.7 7.75 7.55 3 21.32 70.38 182.2 7.60 7.51 3 21.34 70.41 187.7 7.65 7.51 Middle 5 21.20 70.16 181.7 7.75 7.48 5 21.37 70.47 182.4 7.54 7.17 4 21.34 70.41 182.7 7.59 7.54 Transect 7 21.29 70.32 181.1 7.50 7.45 6 21.33 70.39 182.8 7.55 7.53 9 21.27 70.29 181.3 7.47 7.40 8 21.32 70.38 182.8 7.44 7.50 10 21.31 70.36 182.8 7.45 7.48 0.3 21.06 69.91 179.4 7.81 7.56 0.3 21.20 70.16 179.5 7.40 7.49 0.3 21.29 70.32 180.7 7.72 7.55 1.5 21.06 69.91 179.5 7.81 7.52 1.5 21.20 70.16 179.5 7.46 7.50 1.5 21.28 70.30 180.2 7.83 7.56 3 21.03 69.85 179.9 7.77 7.55 3 21.20 70.16 180.0 7.45 7.50 2 21.22 70.20 181.1 7.86 7.60 Upstream 5 21.19 70.14 179.4 7.44 7.48 Transect 7 21.19 70.14 179.4 7.39 7.46 9 21.25 70.25 179.5 7.10 7.41 76
Fiieures 77
Figure 1. Vicinity map for Sequoyah Nuclear plant depicting Chickamauga and Watts Bar Dam locations and water supply intakes downstream of the plant thermal discharge 78
Figure 2. Site map for Sequoyah Nuclear plant showing condenser cooling water intake structure, skimmer wall, and NPDES-permitted discharge Outfall No. 101 79
Figure 3. Biological monitoring stations upstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant.
80
Biomonitoring Stations Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant
- Electroflshing o Gill Netting
- Plankton/ Water Quality Benthic Macroinvertebrate Transect
-WI~dMIfe Observation Transect L]imemal Phlums Sunmur (0Wn 121)
E2 Thermal Plume, Auturm (S101412011)
Figure 4. Biological monitoring stations downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, including mixing zone and thermal plume from SQN CCW discharge.
81
Tlansects for Shoreline Aquatic Habitat Index (SAHI)
Upstream and Downstream of Sequoyah Nuclear Plant CCW Discharge A
- SAI Transects mo W
4-4 VA 0 1.5 3 miles igure 5. Benthic and shoreline habitat transects within the fish community sampling area upstream and downstream of SQN. SAHI data were collected on the left and right descending banks at endpoints of each transect.
82
Figure 6. Locations of water temperature monitoring stations used to compare water temperatures upstream of SQN intake and downstream of SQN discharge during October 2010 through November 2011. Station 14 was used for upstream ambient temperatures of the SQN intake and was located at TRM 490.4. Station 8 was used for temperatures downstream of SQN discharge and was located at TRM 483.4.
83
Substrate Type L.)qepun) ox water wncre sample was taken
-. ' 9* tWTVA-GEOGRAPHIC E&T - ES&R INFORMATION & ENGINEERING OCTOBER 2010 Figure 7. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (1 and 2) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN. *Water depth (fi) at each point is denoted. Transects I and 2 are the most downstream of the eight transects downstream of the SQN discharge.
84
N f TVA - &T-ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERDhGiG OCTOBER 2010 Figure 8. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (3 and 4) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted.
85
I I
Substrate Type rt) of water where sample was taken N
TVA - E&T - ES&R 010A, e 14.1*
- 40"* e GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING e '00' 'ýe C"o CP /
OCTOBER 2010 Figure 9. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (5 and 6) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN. *Water depth (fi) at each point is denoted.
86
. I 0 #
Substrate TyN *Depth(ft) ofwaler where sample was taken TVA - E&T - ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING OCTOBER 2010 Figure 10. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (7 and 8) across the Tennessee River downstream of SQN. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted.
87
19 4 4 Substrate Type N *Depth(ft) of water where samnple was taken TVA-E&T-ES&R C- 009 C// GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING v %.A- a %jDrlykZVI V Figure 11. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (1 and 2) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN. *Water depth (fi) at each point is denoted.
Transects 1 and 2 are the most downstream of the eight transects upstream of the SQN discharge.
88
& I9 I
- DepdKft) of water where sample was takim, Substratte Type TVA - E&T -ES&R GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING I rIu-wVTnYnIM*Di Jr I n' Figure 12. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (3 and 4) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted.
89
Substrate Type N *Depth(ft) of water where sample was taken TVA - E&T - ES&R co' GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION & ENGINEERING 4ýr OCTOBER 2010 Figure 13. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (5 and 6) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted.
90
- Depth(ft) of wae where samle was taken
.ý -A - ~ , N'~
61 1 -TA - EAT -ESAR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATON & ENGINEERING OCTOBER 2010 Figure 14. Substrate composition at ten equally spaced points per transect (7 and 8) across the Tennessee River upstream of SQN. *Water depth (ft) at each point is denoted.
91
i , I .
35 31 3 Avg = 27 28 29 27
_30 30 26 26 26 26 4ft 52 25
.2 25 23 U
0 CL
'~0 10
~Ifl--1 r, 00 0 v-4
'0 Ch 0 0 0 0 '-I
ýq 1-4 c 8
r4 8
rI4 C*4 o~ o4 0*
0 rd 0
Year Figure 15. Number of indigenous fish species collected during RFAI samples downstream of SQN (TRM 482) during 1996 and 1999 through 2011.
40 MAvg = 28 35 3131 31 30 28 29 28 31 30 29 31 30 28 28
_3 27 27 27 23 W 25 . . ...
I20 02 w
20 . . ..
.2-0 0 r" --r- -- r- -"-T
-T~ Ln W. r" M~ 0 .- 4 rn .0r to fý 00 Ch 0 r4 Oi0) M Ml CA M 1-4 IC M (A~CMM 0 8" 0 8 INj 814 8.N 0 80.i 8.~ 0.
0 0.
.1 .
0 14 1-1 .4 -4 .4 rI4 r4 .N .
Year Figure 16. Number of indigenous fish species collected during RFAI samples upstream of SQN (TRM 490.5) during 1993 to 1997 and 1999 through 2011.
92
0 Mayflies N Caddisflies U Snails 4
21 0 0.
,.4 m,4 (v It Cyl 0 o6 C U) d 00 m0 00 00 00 0) 0) 00 .0 00 00 00-,
H .- . H LI ! !/ I L
Figure 17. Proportions of selected benthic taxa from Ponar dredge sampling at locations upstream and downstream of SQN, summer and autumn 2011.
93
400,000 600 E350,000 E 500 a
300,000 U Bacillariophyta U Bacillarlophyta 250,000 N Chlorophyta
~.400 4 Chlorophyta 200,000 1 Chrysophyta 300 N Chrysophyta 1 150,000 U 1Cryptophyta U Cryptophyta j S20200 NCyanophyta 100,000 - N Cyanophyta U
N Euslenophyta 100 - Euglenophyta 50,000 0 N Pyrrophyta
- Pyrrophyta 0
TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 Site Site Figure 18. Mean phytoplankton densities (cells/ml) for Figure 20. Mean phytoplankton densities (cells/ml) for samples collected August 25, 2011. samples collected October 10, 2011.
1,600,000 120,000 1,400,000 100,000 1,200,000 U Bacillariophyta 0 Bacillariophyta E EChlorophyta E 80,000 1Chlorophyta 1 0 Chrysophyta "o 800,000
- =e60,000-- -
m U Chrysophyta
- 0Cryptophyta E 6000 *Cryptopihyta 600,000 0 Cyanophyta 5 Cyanophyta 40,000 400,000 U Euglenophyta 0 Euglenophyta U Pyrrophyta 20,000 UPyrrophyta 200,000 0
TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 Figure 19. Mean phytoplankton biovolume (im'/ml) for Figure 21. Mean phytoplankton biovolume (atm'/ml) for samples collected August 25, 2011. samples collected October 10, 2011.
94
16 U August 2011 I 45,000 0 October 2011 14 40,000 T
.1 12 Z 35,000 30,000 1 RotIfera 10 I
C 25,000 ICopepoda 8
20,000 3 Cladocera I' 6 15,000 I 4 2 if k 10,000 5,000 0
TRM 481.2 TRM 483.4 TRM 481.1 TRM 483.4 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 TRM 487.9 TRM 490.7 Site Site Figure 22. Mean chlorophyll I concentrations for samples Figure 24. Mean zooplankton densities (number/mr) for collected August 25 and October 10, 2011. samples collected October 10, 2011 6,000
. 5,000 z
I 4,000 3000 1,000 0
TRM 481.2 TRM 483A RM 487.9 TRM 490.7 Site Figure 23. Mean zooplankton densities (number/m3) for samples collected August 25, 2011.
95
Bray-Curtis Similarity OD C IIIII I I I I T_487.9_8 T_481.1_8 T_483.4_8 T_490.7_8 Figure 25. Dendrogram of phytoplankton community (taxa density, logio+1) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected August 25. 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr = 0.89) 96
Bray-Curtis Similarity o 00 0 0 P
C,' o.q 0 0 0
-4 Q C:'
T490.71 0 T_483.4_10 T_487.9_10 T_481.1_10 Figure 26. Dendrogram of phytoplankton community (taxa density, logio+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected October 10. 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr = 0.78) 97
U Bray-Ourtis Similarity 0 P P 0 0 0
-4 4 T_483.3_8 T_490.7_8 T_487.9_8 T_481.1_8 Figure 27. Dendrogram of zooplankton community (taxa density, loglo+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected August 25. 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr = 0.87) 98
Bray-Curtis Sinilarity
- 0) 04 0 0* O cli 0D bo cli a I T_483.310 T_487.9_10 T_490.7_10 T_481.1_10 Figure 28. Dendrogram of zooplankton community (taxa density, log1o+l) cluster analysis (average distance) based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix among samples collected October 10, 2011. Samples for each location are coded by river mile and month. (Coph. Corr = 0.78) 99
I 1 &
I DaIead Hour F!gure 29. Average hourly discharge from Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee #1 dams, August 23 through August 25, 2011 50000-45,000 - Chickamaupa 45,0,I - - WattsBar 40,00 1 - ApalachiaandOccoe#l 35,000 I 30,000 I 25,000
~2S2,000W 1I 15,0WD 10,000 5,0WD 0
1311511 11 71 191IL IlWW 113 57191 wwwW w1 131117 l HIljW~ WIlWI2W 10/08/2011 10/09/2D11 10/10/2011 Mle uMNow Figure 30. Average hourly discharge from Chickamauga, Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee #1 dams, October 8 through October 10, 2011 100
100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 a,
.C 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0
10/1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1
- 10/1 11/1 Date Figure 31. Total daily average releases (cubic feet per second) from Watts Bar, Apalachia, and Ocoee 1 dams, October 2010 through November 2011 and historic daily average flows averaged for the same period 1976 through 2010.
101
U 100 90 80 70 60 cL.50 E
I--
W 40 30 - Downstream of SQN Discharge 20 - Upstream of SQN Intake 10 -- - TN State Thermal Discharge Limit (86.9 'F) 0 i I i i i i,,!
Date Figure 32. Daily average water temperatures (IF) at a depth of five feet, recorded upstream of SQN intake (Station 14) and downstream of SQN discharge (Station 8), October 2009 through November 2010.
102