cap4 plea 5(f re2r- d wi' l'hrc j 5s) il) -q · 2012. 11. 19. · 6r~} cap4 q~/ plea...

6r~} Cap4 q~/

Plea 5(f re*2r- *D

WI' L'hrc j

5S) IL) -Q

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

Water Resources Division

Aquatic Biology Department

THERMAL VARIANCE MONITORING FOR

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT,WHEELER RESERVOIR, 1990-1991

Prepared by

Donny R. LoweryWayne L. Poppe

August 1992

BACKGROUND

In 1980 and 1983, TVA submitted to the State of Alabama 316(a)

demonstrations for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant CBFN) in support of thermal

discharge limits of 90'F maximum temperature and 100F maximum temperature

rise. As a condition of approval, the Alabama Department of

Environmental Management (ADEM) required TVA to implement a thermal

variance monitoring program designed to determine effects of operation of

BFN on the aquatic community of Wheeler Reservoir under the revised

thermal discharge limitations. Phase I of the program consisted of

monitoring for sauger reproduction and was conducted for five years

(1985-1989). A summary of the results of Phase I and results of cove

rotenone sampling conducted during 1987 through 1989 were presented in a

report submitted to ADEM in July 1990.

Phase TI-A of the program was designed to describe seasonal distribution

of adult sauger in Wheeler Reservoir and is contingent on at least one

unit of plant operation. This phase of the program will require two

years and will be completed during February 1993. Phase II-B will

address temperature preference/avoidance and duration of exposure of

adult sauger relative to maximum temperature conditions within or

adjacent to the BFN mixing zone. This phase will utilize temperature-

sensing radiotelemetry tagging and will require one year with two or

three units on-line. Present scheduling calls for a second unit (3) at

BFN to begin operation in January 1994.

Phase III consists of annual cove rotenone sampling at three coves to

measure fish standing stocks and reproductive success in order to detect

any far-field effects over time that might be related to the BFN

discharge. Cove rotenone sampling has been conducted on the same three

coves since preoperational monitoring began in 1969.

TVA also committed as part of the thermal variance monitoring program to

conduct a study at BFN to determine if plant discharges were adversely

affecting the phytoplankton community of Wheeler Reservoir. This study

is complete and the results are summarized in the following report.

Reports summarizing results of the thermal variance monitoring program

have typically been submitted every two years.

-2-

PHASE II-A AND PHASE III

ADULT SAUGER STUDY AND ANNUAL COVE ROTENONE RESULTS

DURING 1990 AND 1991

Introduction

Phase II-A of the thermal variance monitoring program was designed to

evaluate the seasonal and spatial distribution of adult sauger in Wheeler

Reservoir relative to operation of BFN with thermal discharge limitations

of 90'F maximum/10'F temperature rise. Based on the general knowledge

and life history of sauger in the Tennessee River, the three working

hypotheses being tested in this study include: Ca) winter concentrations

of adult sauger are substantially higher in the Guntersville Dam

tailwater area than in the BFN thermal discharge mixing zone or immediate

vicinity, Cb) sauger do not concentrate in the BFN thermal discharge

prior to spawning and Cc) during the post-spawning period (May-August),

sauger are dispersed throughout the reservoir with some likely to occur

in the immediate vicinity of BFN discharge regardless of prevailing

surface temperature conditions. One specific concern was a conflict over

the necessity of a minimum chill period for proper gonadal development

and the potential impact of increased thermal loading on representative

percids (sauger and walleye). This concern, however, was based on

laboratory studies of yellow perch and has not been substantiated by

field investigations. The phase II-A assessment sampling will continue

through February 1993. This progress report covers the December 1990

through February 1992 samples.

-3-

Phase III of the TVA monitoring program measures reservoir fish standing

stocks. This assessment includes cave rotenone sampling conducted

annually on three coves in Wheeler Reservoir. Results of these

activities during 1990-1991 are summarized below.

Methods

Adult sauger monitoring (phase II-A) began in December 1990 at three

locations in Wheeler Reservoir; TRM 294.0 (BFN discharge), TRM 284.0 (Elk

River confluence) and TRM 349.0 (Guntersville Dam tailwater). At the

Guntersville Dam tailwater, three gill nets (1.5" mesh) were set in late

afternoon and lifted six times at two-hour intervals. This procedure was

repeated for two consecutive nights. At the BFN discharge and Elk River

locations, six nets were set in late afternoon for two consecutive days

and lifted only once the following morning. These three locations were

sampled during December 1990, February, May and August 1991, and February

1992. Flood water conditions prohibited collection of the December 1991

sample.

Tagging of adult sauger was conducted in an attempt to ascertain

information on movement, residence time in the sample areas, and

estimates of spawning population and exploitation rate.

Cove rotenone samples were conducted in 1990 and 1991 during late

August-early September at three locations; TRM 275.2-Second Creek, TRM

285.8-Lawrence County Park, and Elk River Mile CERN) 2.7. Standard field

techniques for rotenone sampling are contained in Tennessee Valley

-4-

Authority's CTVA) Biological Resources Procedures Manual, section

S&F OPS-FO-BR-23.9.

Results

Seasonal and Spatial distribution of Adult Sauger (Phase II-A):

A total of 484 adult sauger was collected during the five survey

periods. Eighty percent (389) of these were successfully tagged and

released. During the first survey, December 3-12, 1990, 140 adult sauger

were collected from all three locations. Fifty of these fish were

successfully tagged and released (Table 1). Survival rate was lower at

the Elk River location because the nets were only lifted once per net

night. Only 12 of the 76 specimens collected from the Elk River location

were tagged and released.

In the February 1991 survey, 49 adult sauger were collected (Table 1),

tagged and released at TRM 349. Three specimens tagged during December

1990 were recaptured at the same location. No sauger were collected from

the other two stations.

During the May 1991 survey only four adult sauger were collected (one at

TRM 349.0 and three at TRM 284.0). Only one of the specimens was

tagged. Only one sauger was collected during August 1991 (at TRM 349.0)

and it was not tagged. Adult sauger were concentrated at Guntersville

Dam tailwater during the February 1992 survey. A total of 186 specimens

was collected and all specimens were successfully tagged and released.

-5-

To date, 33 of the tagged specimens (8.7%) have been recaptured by

anglers (Table 2). In addition, 15 tagged sauger were recaptured by the

Alabama Department of Conservation fisheries personnel conducting a gill

net survey in the Guntersville Dam tailwater area during February 1992.

All but 12 of the 389 tagged sauger were tagged and released at the

Guntersville Dam tailwater area. All tag returns, excluding one specimen,

were tagged at the Guntersville Dam tailwater location. The majority

(85%) of angler tag returns were from fish caught within five miles of

the principal release site (Guntersville Dam tailwater). Only two

specimens were caught downstream of the release site (7.8 and 13.5 miles

downstream). Three recaptured tagged sauger had successfully locked

through Guntersville Dam and migrated upstream. One traveled 75.6 river

miles and was caught at the base of Nickajack Dam. Another was caught

near Bridgeport Island, 64.0 miles upstream from its release location.

The third sauger was caught near Widows Creek 59.2 miles upstream. The

majority of tagged sauger caught by anglers were caught within a few

weeks from the tagging date. Only one specimen, tagged on February 11,

1991, was caught the following year (March 7, 1992).

Due to the relatively low numbers tagged and released, population and

exploitation estimates were not deemed reliable; i.e., upon analysis,

statistical variance was too high to provide meaningful estimates.

Catch per unit effort for sauger was highest at the Guntersville Dam

location. Survey results for each location are presented in Table 3.

Length frequency data for all surveys are shown in Figure 1.

-6-

Examination of adult sauger collected during December and February

surveys revealed that normal gonadal development was occurring. All

specimens were ripe and appeared to be in excellent physical condition.

These observations supported the premise that sauger reproductive success

in Wheeler Reservoir, regardless of their distribution patterns, is not

adversely affected by the thermally influenced zone of BFN discharge. In

addition, related studies (reference) indicate that the expanding

population of yellow perch in the Tennessee River does not require the

60-day, 8 0C chill period for successful reproduction that was cited in

laboratory studies. Sauger were not observed concentrating near the BFN

thermal discharge.

The phase II-A results thus far support the three working hypotheses

stated in the introduction of this status report.

Cove Rotenone Samples

The cove rotenone standing stock estimate for 1990 was 198,553 fish

weighing 1530 kg (Table 4) compared to 70,924 fish weighing 761 kg/ha for

1991 (Table 5). Number and biomass per hectare estimates for 1990 and

1991 are higher than the mean for the period 1969 through 1988 (Table 6,

Figures 2 and 3) as well as the years 1985 through 1989 (Table 7). High

numbers of gizzard shad in 1990 (Table 4) and threadfin shad in 1991

(Table 5) account for the major differences in standing stock (numbers

and biomass/ha) and species composition.

Cove rotenone sampling is not considered an effective method for

estimating sauger standing stocks, but it does provide some indication of

-7-

occurrence and reproductive success. Mean number of sauger in Wheeler

reservoir rotenone samples from 1969 through 1989 was 9.8 fish/ha

weighing 0.7 kg (Table 6).

Young-of-year and intermediate size sauger were collected in 1990

(Table 4) while only young-of-year fish were observed in 1991 (Table 5).

Mean number and biomass per hectare for 1990 and 1991 were 1.8 fish

weighing 0.1 kg/ha and 3.0 fish weighing 0.1 kg/ha, respectively

(Table 8). Both of these estimates are below the mean for the period

1969 through 1988 (Table 6 and Figure 4), but are similar to values

recorded for 1985 and 1989 (Table 8). No sauger were collected during

1986 through 1988.

Yellow perch standing stocks were 11.3 fish weighing 0.1 kg/ha in 1990

(Table 4) and 7.5 fish weighing 0.06 kg/ha in 1991 (Table 5).

Young-of-year yellow perch were collected in 1991 but not in 1990

(Tables 4 and 5). Yellow perch were first observed in Wheeler reservoir

rotenone samples in 1977 and have increased in recent years (Figure 5).

Since 1985, standing stock estimates have ranged from 2.2 fish weighing

0.07 kg/ha in 1988 to 115.3 fish weighing 0.63 kg/ha in 1987 (Table 9).

Standing stocks of game species during 1990 and 1991 were 16,800 fish

weighing 140 kg and 10,300 fish weighing 174 kg respectively (Tables 4

and 5). Mean standing stock of game species for the period 1969-1988 was

11,800 fish weighing 126 kg (Table 6). These data indicate a relatively

stable population of game fish in Wheeler Reservoir. Total fish standing

-8-

stocks estimated for 1990 and 1991 were higher than those recorded during

1988 and 1989 as well as higher than the mean standing stock (number and

biomass) recorded during the period 1969 through 1991 (Figures 2 and 3).

Therefore, no far-field effects of BFU operation have been detected from

cove rotenone data collected annually on Wheeler Reservoir.

-9-

RESULTS OF ALGAL DYNAMICS SURVEYS

DURING 1989 AND 1991

Introduction

This study was carried out as part of the approved BFN thermal variance

monitoring program as described in the study plan submitted to ADEM in

1984. The objective of this activity is to determine the effect that BFM

thermal discharges may have on the phytoplankton community in Wheeler

Reservoir and this report summarizes data collected during the study.

The study was initiated as a result of recommendations made during the

operational monitoring reporting process for BFN. Algal surveys were

conducted in 1989 during plant shutdown and again in 1991 when the plant

was operational.

Background

Operational monitoring data (Taylor, et al., 1980) showed that

phytoplankton, particularly small colonial bluegreens, increased in a

downstream direction below BFN. The increase was less than an order of

magnitude and was due primarily to Merismopedia. At the time, TVA

biologists felt that this phenomenon should be investigated further;

particularly to determine if BFM was causing this apparent increase in

numbers, or if it was due to some other influence.

-10-

Sampling Design and Methods

The sampling was designed to evaluate two possible postulates: (1) BFN

thermal discharge was having a stimulatory effect on the plankton in the

near field; and (2) BFN thermal discharge was depressing plankton growth

immediately below the plant, but was lysing cells and discharging

additional nutrients so that plankton communities could develop further

downstream of the plant. These postulates were evaluated by examination

of the phytoplankton cell counts and supporting water quality and

biological data.

Near field sampling was conducted on successive dates during two time

frames in 1989 and 1991. Sampling locations were chosen to provide data

from the basic types of plankton habitat (channel, overbank, and

embayment) found in the area near BFN. The suite of samples collected

was modified during the sampling process to gain the best information

available and to provide for economies whenever possible.

All samples were collected and analyzed according to standard TVA and

approved EPA procedures. Data were collected above, at and below the

diffuser area to compare and contrast phytoplankton productivity and

community composition in the near field area. Samples were collected in

representative overbank and channel areas. Data from TVA's Vital Signs

monitoring network were used to compare chlorophyll data in the forebay

of Wheeler Reservoir with chlorophyll in other TVA reservoir forebays.

-11--

Experiments were conducted two times during the summers of 1989 and 1991,

so that periods of non-operational and operational conditions could be

compared.

Experiments were conducted on successive days at times of the year when

any potential effects would be most pronounced. The sample design

remained flexible to allow latitude for on the spot sampling variations

deemed necessary by the project leader.

Sampling locations (Figure 6) were chosen in areas above, at and below

the diffuser from a variety of habitats. The following is a brief

description of each:

Station 1: Overbank area above the diffuser.

Station 2: Channel area above the diffuser.

Station 3: Channel area at the diffuser.

Station 4: Channel area immediately below the diffuser.

Station 5: Overbank area behind Amoco Island.

Station 6: Embayment above the diffuser

Station 7: Channel area above the diffuser

Station 8: Overbank area below the diffuser

Station 9: Overbank area below the diffuser

Station 10: Channel area immediately below the diffuser

Station 11: Channel area furthest downstream from the diffuser

Stations 1, 2, and 3 were also sampled for phytoplankton during both

preoperational and operational monitoring.

-12-

Results and Discussion

Phytoplankton cell counts are presented by station in Appendix A, Figures

Al-A12, with general limnological data/carbon counts and water quality

data for 1989 and 1991 presented in Appendix A, Tables Al-A15 and Bl-B6,

respectively. The operational monitoring report that identified the

increase of algae downstream from BFU relied solely on numbers of

bluegreen algae as the indication for an undesirable ecological condition

in the reservoir without consideration for type of algae or realistic

distribution of the algae present. Placke (1983), Poppe and Fehring

(1985), and others have shown that algal densities typically increase in

reservoirs in an up-to-downstream direction. More recently, Meinert and

Fehring (in press) compared the chlorophyll concentration (an indicator

of algal abundance) of TVA mainstream impoundment forebays as part of the

Vital Signs Monitoring program and found that Wheeler Reservoir is

typical of lower mainstem TVA reservoirs. Concentrations varied over

time for the two-year period of record shown in this report, but

increasing or decreasing trends are not apparent. Sampling was conducted

monthly which provided considerably more data than the one collection per

summer that the BFN preoperational and operational monitoring provided.

The importance in sampling at least monthly lies in the fact that algal

division rates are such that several generations can be missed in less

frequent sampling and hence the chances for observing "boom or bust"

situations increase as sampling frequency decreases. Unfortunately,

abnormal "high densities observed" during operational monitoring may have

been nothing more than chance collections, during peak densities just as

lower numbers in other years may have been underestimates.

-13-

If BFN is having a stimulatory or depressing effect on the plankton

community in the near field, numbers should be significantly increased or

decreased downstream of the plant in at least some habitats as compared

to similar habitats above the plant. Associated with a change in numbers

should be a concomitant change in carbon uptake rates. Examination of

the 1989 and 1991 samples and the Vital Signs Monitoring Network data

(far field) shows no consistent changes in either the near field or

downstream.

The only consistent observation that could be made from the 1989 and 1991

surveys and the Vital Signs monitoring data is that plankton communities

vary on a daily basis regardless of location or habitat type. For

example, a density of 9 million cells/liter of bluegreen algae

(considered a "high" number by preoperational and operational standards)

was observed on September 6, 1989, at station 1, an upstream overbank

site. The next day only 2 million cells/liter were observed at the same

station. On the same date, but in channel locations above and below the

plant, bluegreen algae were dominant, but in reduced numbers from those

seen at the overbank station. Water quality and in situ Hydrolab data

collected on the same dates varied little from station to station

regardless of habitat type. Carbon-14, expressed as counts/minute and

time-standardized, varied considerably and were not directly proportional

to cell counts (rates of carbon fixation/day could not be calculated due

to questionable/missing alkalinity and solar radiation data).

During the July 1991 survey, diatoms dominated the plankton flora above

and below BFN with as many as 110-120 million cells/liter observed. It

-14-

is interesting to note that numbers were observed in this range above and

below the plant and the highest numbers were found in channel areas.

Additionally, these high numbers were not found at all channel locations

and were not found at any of the typically more productive overbank

stations or the embayment stations sampled during this survey period

which is indicative of the algal patchiness often observed in reservoirs.

Diatoms did dominate at the remainder of the stations in reduced numbers,

but often in numbers that would have been considered "high" by pre-

operational and operational monitoring standards. The concentrations of

basic algal nutrients were not dissimilar from the 1989 survey even

though plankton densities and group dominance were considerably different.

Bluegreen algae dominated the plankton community during the August 1991

survey at all stations sampled. Although it had been only one month

since the previous survey, the plankton community dominance changed from

diatoms to bluegreens and concentrations were reduced as much as 10 fold

(from 120 million cells/liter in July to less than 10 million cells/liter

in August). Nutrient concentrations remained similar to July

observations and there was no apparent trend in carbon counts. The

tremendous change in plankton dominance and density observed during the

1991 surveys is indicative of the dynamic nature and patchiness of

plankton communities in reservoirs and clearly not the result of

localized perturbations.

As indicated earlier, several factors must be taken into consideration

when describing the planktonic dynamics of a reservoir, in addition to an

increase or decrease in cell counts. Without consideration for location

(zone), habitat, or life history, one can easily be led to spurious

-15-

conclusions. The following is a brief summary of these important

considerations:

Reservoir Zonation

Thornton et al. 1990, present an excellent summary of this and other

ecological issues as they apply to reservoir limnology. They determined

that most mainstream reservoirs are composed of three major zones:

inflow, transition, and forebay. BFN is located in the transition zone

of Wheeler Reservoir. This is the area where the reservoir tends to

spread out, water velocities are reduced and hence, phytoplankton numbers

increase because of favorable conditions. This increase in numbers

continues until nutrients are utilized and become limiting. This

phenomenon has been documented on many reservoirs including TVA projects.

Embayment/Overbank Inputs

Other potential inputs were not considered during preoperational and

operational monitoring at BFN. Since that time, it has been shown that

small stream and even overbank/embayment inputs can influence the

plankton community through wash-in. In the case of the Wheeler plankton

community, consideration was not given to the potential effects of the

Elk River, inputs of the considerable overbank areas or municipal and

industrial inputs located along the reservoir.

Sampling Strategy/Life History

Preoperational and operational monitoring consisted of quarterly

sampling. Several generations of algae are produced in a 3-month period

and hence communities observed during one quarter should not be compared,

at least numerically, to the next. Additionally, plankton patchiness was

-16-

not considered during operational monitoring. It has been shown in this

study and others that numbers can vary greatly within a few meters and

even more so from successive samples on a daily basis.

Conclusions

Significant advances have been made in reservoir limnology since the time

preoperational and operational monitoring studies were conducted at BFN.

At that time researchers in the great lakes area published materials indi-

cating that "high" densities of bluegreen algae were indicative of poor

resource conditions. Unfortunately, "high" was not defined nor did the

researchers allow for consideration of flow-through water bodies. Rather,

they assumed that standing water bodies were similar enough that their

theory should prevail regardless of conditions. Since that reporting

period (10-12 years ago) considerable research and monitoring has been

conducted by TVA and others to evaluate phytoplankton/nutrient inter-

actions in reservoirs. It has been found that several factors including

flow-through conditions, overbank/embayment areas, residence time,

zonation, and placement of point and non-point pollution sources must be

considered to determine cause/effect relationships in reservoirs.

Data collected during this study and the TVA Vital Signs Monitoring

Program do not indicate that operation of BFN even with the revised

thermal limits, has influenced the phytoplankton community in Wheeler

Reservoir. Evidence derived from previous operational monitoring results

does not hold up in light of this study and ecological information that

has been developed within the last 10-12 years. Consideration must be

given to all possible influences when making judgments as to the effects

of a single perturbation.

-17-

References Cited

Fehring, J. P. and W. L. Poppe. 1985. Fort Loudon Reservoir Water

Quality. TVA Report, TVA/ONRED/AWR-85/17.

Meinert, D. L. and J. P. Fehring. 1992. Reservoir Vital Signs

Monitoring-1991, Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Water

and Sediment. (In press).

Placke, J. F. 1983. Trophic Status of TVA Reservoirs. TVA Report.

TVA/ONR/WR-83/7

Taylor, H. P., et al. 1980. Water Quality and Biological Conditions in

Wheeler Reservoir during Operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant

January 1, 1980 - December 11, 1980. TVA Report. 17 3p.

Thornton, K. W., et al. 1990. Reservoir Limnology-Ecological

Perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

ABD1629R

-18-

Table 1. Wheeler Reservoir adult sauger tagging data, December 3,

1990-February 4, 1992.

Sampling Number Number Water

Date Location Collected Tagged Temp. C

December 3-5, 1990 TRM 349.0 53 38 13.5

December 3-5, 1990 TRH 294.0 11 0 15.3

December 10-12, 1990 TRM 284.0 76 12 10.5

February 11-13, 1991 TRM 349.0 152 152 8.9

February 11-13, 1991 TRM 294.0 0 0 9.4

February 13-15, 1991 TRM 284.0 0 0 9.5

May 21-23, 1991 TRM 349.0 1 1 22.0

May 21-23, 1991 TRM 294.0 3 0 23.8

May 21-23, 1991 TRM 284.0 0 0 23.0

August 27-29, 1991 TRH 349.0 1 0 31.1

August 27-29, 1991 TRM 294.0 0 0 32.9

August 27-29, 1991 TRM 284.0 0 0 32.7

February 2-4, 1992 TRM 349.0 186 186 9.6

February 2-4, 1992 TRM 294.0 1 0 9.8

February 2-4, 1992 TRM 284.0 0 0 9.8

Total 484 389

ABD1629R

-19-

Table 2. Adult sauger tag return data from Wheeler Reservoir surveys,

December 3, 1990-February 5, 1992.

Tag r Date Tagged Release Site Date Caught Where Caught

43518 12/03/90 G'ville Dam 01/15/91 G'ville Dam

43510 12/04/90 I t 12/18/90 TRM 424.6

43515 12/04/90 et 02/09/91 G'ville Dam

43524 12/04/90 ?

00011 02/11/91 9 04/01/91

00024 02/11/91 02/13/91

00027 02/11/91 05/01/91 TRM 335.5

00028 02/11/91 02/19/91 G'ville Dam

00037 02/11/91 ' 02/23/91 '

00029 02/11/91 03/07/92

00091 02/12/91 04/03/91

00154 02/13/91 ?

00352 02/02/92 " 02/18/92

00311 02/03/92 05/09/92 TRM 413.0

00360 02/03/92 t I 02/28/92 G'ville Dam

00328 02/03/92 I t 02/09/92 '

00347 02/04/92 02/09/92 TRM 341.2

00371 02/04/92 " ' 02/20/92 TRM 346.0

00372 02/04/92 " 02/09/92 G'ville Dam

00382 02/04/92 02/09/92 TRM 346.5

00392 02/04/92 02/12/92 G'ville Dam

00394 02/04/92 02/26/92

00400 02/04/92 02/21/92

00407 02/04/92 02/16/92

00415 02/04/92 ' 02/16/92

00423 02/04/92 04/27/92 TRH 408.2

00436 02/04/92 9 02/09/92 TRH 343.7

00449 02/04/92 9' ' 03/05/92 G'ville Dam

00459 02/05/92 I t03/01/92

00472 02/05/92 02/26/92

00485 02/05/92 " 02/26/92 It

00491 02/11/92 Elk River 04/10/92

? ? ? 02/14/92

ABD1629R

-20-

Table 3. Catch per unit effort (CPUE) of adult sauger collected during

five gill net surveys at three locations on Wheeler Reservoir,

December 1990-February 1992.

CPUE (Catch/Hour)

Date Guntersville Dam Elk River BFN Discharge

December 1990 0.95 0.04 0.76

February 1991 1.97 0.00 0.00

May 1991 0.02 0.01 0.01

August 1991 0.02 0.00 0.00

February 1992 3.17 0.05 0.00

ABD1629R

-21-

Table 4. Mean number and weight (kg) of fish per hectare in 3 samples in Wheeler Reservoir, 1990.

Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total

Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight

GAME

White bass 3.53 0.06 0.85 0.06 1.36 0.18 5.73 0.30

Yellow bass 751.90 2.48 12.10 0.92 2.81 0.37 766.80 3.77

Unidentified sunfish 67.28 0.07 - - - - 67.28 0.07

Warmouth 1040.60 2.84 24.43 0.50 19.66 1.52 1084.69 4.86

Green sunfish 19.23 0.07 23.33 0.38 8.42 0.55 50.97 1.01

Bluegill 10035.22 27.79 1149.75 19.62 362.49 21.25 11547.46 68.66

Longear sunfish 1253.39 5.67 357.41 6.01 33.50 1.57 1644.29 13.25

Redear sunfish 900.79 3.58 40.72 0.68 171.46 12.54 1112.98 16.80

Smallmouth bass 49.55 0.32 87.86 2.03 7.39 3.73 144.80 6.08

Spotted bass 4.69 0.03 - - 0.58 0.21 5.27 0.23

Largemouth bass 59.23 0.44 190.86 7.60 32.57 13.69 282.66 21.73

White crappie 37.38 0.08 20.53 0.22 11.92 2.59 69.83 2.89

Black crappie 0.53 T 2.13 0.04 1.36 0.31 4.01 0.36

Yellow perch - - 10.38 0.07 0.92 0.03 11.30 0.10

Sauger 1.22 0.05 0.61 0.05 - - 1.83 0.10

Group Total 14224.53 43.48 1920.96 38.17 654.42 58.55 16799.91 140.21

ROUGH

Spotted gar 1.59 0.06 0.57 0.13 3.69 2.11 5.84 2.29

Longnose gar 0.26 0.0l 0.79 0.11 0.26 0.10 1.32 0.23

Skipjack herring 8.29 0.15 5.74 0.20 0.54 0.15 14.57 0.50

Carp - - - - 1.67 3.65 1.67 3.65

River carpsucker 0.53 0.03 0.79 0.08 - - 1.32 0.10

Smallmouth buffalo 0.31 0.03 - - 12.19 25.28 12.50 25.30

Spotted sucker 51.48 0.96 45.73 27.17 97.21 28.12

Golden redhorse - - 6.42 4.54 6.42 4.54

Blue catfish 0.31 T - - - - 0.31 T

Black bullhead - - - - 2.71 0.69 2.71 0.69

Yellow bullhead - - - - 0.26 0.03 0.26 0.03

Channel catfish 70.23 0.36 28.17 1.82 31.81 15.79 130.21 17.97

Flathead catfish 16.12 0.08 12.51 1.83 11.33 9.05 39.96 10.95

Freshwater drum 1653.79 9.99 153.92 7.39 202.37 46.47 2010.08 63.85

Group Total 1802.91 11.66 202.49 11.56 318.99 135.03 2324.39 158.24

-22-

Table 4. (Continued)



Gizzard shad 148834.12 675.09 - - 5990.81 468.50 154824.92 1143.59

Threadfin shad 23042.30 79.27 - - 0.31 0.01 23042.61 79.28

Central stoneroller 3.36 0.01 - - - - 3.36 0.01

Silver chub 7.86 0.03 - - - - 7.86 0.03

Golden shiner 136.04 2.59 - - - - 136.04 2.59

Unidentified shiner 2.71 0.01 - - - - 2.71 0.01

Emerald shiner 341.44 0.45 - 341.44 0.45

Spotfin shiner 76.46 0.12 - 76.46 0.12

Mimic shiner 4.40 T - 4.40 T

Pugnose minnow 0.27 T - 0.27 T

Striped shiner 12.50 0.03 - 12.50 0.03

Bullhead minnow 243.16 0.24 - 243.16 0.24

Tadpole madtom 1.63 T - 1.63 T

Blackstripe topminnow 6.18 0.01 - - - - 6.18 0.01

Blackspotted topminnow 79.06 0.11 - - - - 79.06 0.11

Mosquitofish 6.84 0.01 - 6.84 0.01

Pirate perch 0.54 T - 0.54 T

Orangespotted sunfish 43.91 0.06 221.33 0.87 4.86 0.04 270.10 0.97

Stripetail darter 14.13 0.01 - - - - 14.13 0.01

Logperch 206.76 1.51 - - - - 206.76 1.51

River darter 1.41 T - - - - 1.41 T

Brook silverside 147.05 0.16 - - - - 147.05 0.16

Group Total 173212.14 759.71 221.33 0.87 5995.97 468.55 179429.44 1229.13

FINAL TOTAL 189239.58 814.85 2344.78 50.60 6969.38 662.12 198553.74 1527.57

ABDI63OR

-23-

Table 5. Mean number and weight (kg) of fish per hectare in 3 samples in Wheeler Reservoir, 1991.



GAME

White bass 8.17 0.18 0.33 0.02 0.65 0.18 9.15 0.37

Yellow bass 329.85 0.94 4.15 0.31 1.88 0.30 335.88 1.55

Striped bass 0.27 T - - - - 0.27 T

Warmouth 423.90 0.61 35.27 0.55 7.07 0.69 466.31 1.85

Green sunfish 148.75 0.32 33.04 0.60 8.13 0.60 189.93 1.52

Bluegill 3564.01 5.64 .2281.68 38.35 1359.33 83.15 7205.02 127.13

Longear sunfish 963.47 2.53 438.97 8.01 28.46 1.36 1430.89 11.90

Redear sunfish 244.84 0.58 41.86 0.97 81.72 8.28 368.42 9.83

Smailmouth bass 36.72 0.22 34.82 1.28 18.94 4.25 90.49 5.75

Spotted bass 16.47 0.08 4.82 0.08 - - 21.29 0.17

Largemouth bass 51.58 0.36 69.21 2.12 27.40 10.74 148.20 13.22

White crappie 10.63 0.02 9.04 0.08 2.60 0.50 22.28 0.60

Black crappie - - - - 0.57 0.08 0.57 0.08

Yellow perch 6.21 0.01 0.33 T 0.92 0.04 7.46 0.06

Sauger 3.03 0.11 - - - - 3.03 0.11

Group Total 5807.96 11.61 2953.52 52.36 1537.70 110.16 10299.18 174.14

ROUGH

Spotted gar 2.17 0.09 1.11 0.14 3.53 2.24 6.81 2.48

Longnose gar - - 0.27 0.05 0.98 1.00 1.25 1.05


Carp - - - - 1.57 8.18 1.57 8.18

Northern hogsucker - - 0.65 0.07 - - 0.65 0.07

Smallmouth buffalo 2.13 0.19 - - 11.71 20.55 13.85 20.74

Spotted sucker 29.52 0.58 29.84 3.81 54.74 18.05 114.11 22.43

Silver redhorse 0.27 0.01 - - 0.65 0.45 0.92 0.45

Black redhorse - - - - 0.57 0.49 0.57 0.49

Golden redhorse - 1.31 0.17 7.78 5.41 9.08 5.58

Blue catfish 0.29 T - - 0.57 0.39 0.86 0.39

Brown bullhead - - 0.29 T - - 0.29 T

Channel catfish 37.91 0.17 22.17 1.41 39.92 11.65 100.01 13.22


Freshwater drum 400.25 3.04 31.55 1.59 103.03 35.47 534.83 40.11

Group Total 486.62 4.17 96.03 7.70 234.21 110.48 816.85 122.34

-24-



Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Wei ght

FORAGE

Gizzard shad 342.52 3.69 - - 2080.83 158.49 2423.34 162.18

Threadfin shad 55476.98 293.95 - - 109.69 2.64 55586.34 296.59

Stoneroller 2.61 0.01 - - - - 2.61 0.01

Bigeye chub 0.33 T - - - - 0.33 T

Silver chub 37.87 0.20 - - - - 37.87 0.20

Golden shiner 89.88 2.44 - - 89.88 2.44

Emerald shiner 325.66 0.48 - - 325.66 0.48

Ghost shiner 1.31 T - 1.31 T

Spotfin shiner 51.26 0.10 - - 51.26 0.10

Mimic shiner 9.89 0.01 - - 9.89 0.01

Striped shiner 0.65 T - - 0.65 T

Bullhead minnow 953.75 0.91 - - 953.75 0.91

Blackstripe topminnow 3.11 0.01 - - - - 3.11 0.01

Blackspotted topminnow 67.79 0.10 - - - - 67.79 0.10

Mosquitofish 1.72 T - - 1.72 T

Orangespotted sunfish 1.07 T 1.40 0.01 - - 2.46 0.01

Stripetail darter 4.73 T - - - - 4.73 T

Logperch 222.31 1.51 - - - - 222.31 1.51

River darter 4.98 0.01 - - - - 4.98 0.01

Brook silverside 18.95 0.02 - - - - 18.95 0.02

Group Total 57617.38 303.44 1.40 0.01 2190.18 161.13 59808.95 464.58

FINAL TOTAL 63911.96 319.22 3050.94 60.07 3962.09 381.77 70924.98 761.06

ABD I630R

-25-

Table 6. Mean number and weight (kg) of fish per hectare in 60 cove samples from Wheeler Reservoir during

1969 through 1988.


Species Number Weight Number Weig ht Number Weight Number Wei ght

GAME

White bass 15.23 0.21 5.87 0.42 4.65 0.90 25.75 1.54

Yellow bass 174.99 0.71 7.75 0.52 2.08 0.28 184.81 1.51

Rock bass - - 0.04 T - - 0.04

Unidentified sunfish 593.80 1.74 - - - - 593.80 1.74

Warmouth 348.24 0.68 63.22 1.25 19.03 1.35 430.49 3.28

Redbreast sunfish 0.06 T - - 0.01 T 0.07 T

Green sunfish 123.28 0.36 40.00 0.70 9.22 0.57 172.50 1.62

Bluegill 5413.62 12.64 1403.65 23.34 363.45 25.76 7180.72 61.74

Longear sunfish 1252.06 3.48 691.52 12.08 69.89 3.44 2013.47 19.00

Redear sunfish 624.23 1.94 139.63 2.61 75.19 8.62 839.06 13.17

Unidentified bass 0.03 T - - - - 0.03 T

Smallmouth bass 48.49 0.31 22.41 0.90 11.65 3.34 82.54 4.54

Spotted bass 23.73 0.13 6.55 0.19 1.20 0.26 31.49 0.59

Largemouth bass 75.21 0.51 94.80 3.78 26.57 10.15 196.57 14.45

White crappie 15.40 0.06 16.39 0.31 9.14 1.85 40.94 2.22

Black crappie - - 0.04 T 0.27 0.04 0.31 0.05

Yellow perch 0.52 T 7.49 0.04 0.19 0.01 8.19 0.05

Sauger 7.55 0.20 1.53 0.17 1.17 0.33 10.25 0.70

Group Total 8716.43 22.99 2500.90 46.31 593.71 56.90 11811.04 126.20

ROUGH

Spotted gar 2.60 0.14 1.12 0.21 1.76 1.50 5.48 1.85

Longnose gar 0.38 0.01 1.14 0.15 0.57 0.30 2.09 0.47

Shortnose gar 0.09 T 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.19 0.04

Bowfin 0.01 T - - 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03


Mooneye 0.04 T 0.07 0.01 - - 0.10 0.02

Grass pickerel 0.02 T - - - - 0.02 T

Carp - 0.05 0.02 6.83 22.34 6.88 22.35

River carpsucker 0.02 T - - 0.02 T

Unidentified hogsucker - - - 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01

Northern hogsucker 0.07 T 0.25 0.03 0.13 0.04 0.45 0.07

Smallmouth buffalo 1.50 0.07 5.34 7.38 34.89 58.57 41.73 66.03

Bigmouth buffalo 0.02 T 0.32 0.64 1.34 3.30 1.68 3.94

Spotted sucker 38.89 0.75 29.07 3.43 59.87 22.98 127.83 27.16

Unidentified redhorse 0.31 0.01 0.53 0.08 3.81 2.08 4.65 2.17

-26-




ROUGH (Continued)

Silver redhorse 0.49 0.01 0.08 0.01 1.58 1.18 2.15 1.20

Shorthead redhorse 0.04 T 0.01 T - - 0.05 T

River redhorse 0.10 T 0.02 T - - 0.12 T

Black redhorse 0.08 T 0.04 T 0.84 0.48 0.96 0.49

Golden redhorse 0.87 0.02 1.68 0.22 18.31 11.41 20.85 11.65

Blue catfish 0.03 T - - 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.03

Black bullhead 0.02 T 0.03 T 0.45 0.11 0.49 0.11

Yellow bullhead 0.02 T - - - 0.02 T

Brown bullhead - - 0.01 T 0.02 T 0.03 T

Channel catfish 15.27 0.09 10.67 0.67 28.04 14.74 53.98 15.50


Freshwater drum 127.39 1.01 77.52 4.08 104.06 44.42 308.96 49.51

Group Total 207.16 2.35 140.07 17.66 267.83 186.80 615.07 206.81

FORAGE

Gizzard shad 22723.83 106.57 - 3445.68 232.53 26169.50 339.10

Threadfin shad 13147.42 34.45 - - 7.02 0.16 13154.44 34.61

Orangespotted sunfish 40.31 0.10 39.48 0.16 4.57 0.04 84.36 0.30

Mixed & Uniden. Minnows 885.83 4.09 - - - - 885.83 4.09

Group Total 36797.98 145.21 39.48 0.16 3457.27 232.74 40294.13 378.11

FINAL TOTAL 45720.98 170.55 2680.45 64.13 4318.81 476.44 52720.24 711.12

ABDI630R

-27-

Table 7. Total number and weight (kg) of fish per hectare for

Wheeler Reservoir, 1985-1989.

Total

Year No. Samples Number Weight

1985 3 90,147.25 703.27

1986 3 28,588.67 612.84

1987 3 42,392.24 631.71

1988 3 64,735.18 741.55

1989 3 17,319.44 678.18

ABD1629R

-28-

Table 8. Total number and weight (kg) of sauger per hectare for Wheeler

Reservoir, 1985-1991.

Total

Year No. Samples Number Biomass

1985 3 1.85 0.34

1986 3 * *

1987 3 * *

1988 3 *

1989 3 1.34 0.10

1990 3 1.83 0.10

1991 3 3.03 0.11

*None collected.

ABD1629R

-29-

Table 9. Total number and weight (kg) of yellow perch per hectare for

Wheeler Reservoir, 1985-1991.

Total

Year No. Samples Number Biomass

1985 3 27.28 0.17

1986 3 15.06 0.13

1987 3 115.31 0.63

1988 3 2.16 0.07

1989 3 14.31 0.14

1990 3 11.30 0.10

1991 3 7.46 0.06

*None collected.

ABD1629R

-30-

LENGTH FREQUENCY OF SELECTED SPECIES COLLECTED IN 13BROWNS FERRY SAUGER SAMPLES, 1991-1992

(AT LEAST 50 FISH MEASUREMENTS TAKEN ON EACH SPECIES)

---------------------------------------- Common name=Sauge-

Percentage

14 + MMXXX

6+ MM**XXXX MMM*XX MX M

**X~x ** MMMXX*X MMXXX MMMXX MMMXXN****X*X NX* MMXXX* MXXXM MMXXX MMMx XXK xx

10 + MMMXX~~~~~~*Xx**X NX***N MMMXX MMMXX* MMXX ***X*

**X* **N* X*X MMXX*X MMXXX MX*XX* MMMXX MMMXX X****

I MM~~~~~~~~~~~~x***XXX MMMXX MMXXX **MXX MMMXX MMXX* Xx8+ MMMXXK*X *NX K*X*** MMMXX MMMXX MMXXX MMX****X MXXX* *K

MMMxXX *MMXX MMXX MMXX MMMXX MMMX*XMM* XXX MMXX XXXXX MXIXX MMMXX MXX MMMXX

MMMXX-MMMXX MMMXX MMMXX MMXXX MMMXX-MMMXX-t

6+ MMXX2 MMMXX MMXX3 MMXXX MMMXX 3MX MX MMXXCM-GRP MMMXX MMMM M

j igureMXXnthXFrquencyofColecte MMXXX MMMXX MMMXXions iX WheXXXr ResMMXXMMX MMMXX MX MMMXMMMXMMXXX XXX1M

14+ MMMXX MMXXX MM~~~~I~XXX MMMXX MMXXX MMXXX MMXXMMXXXXM

MMXXX ~ ~ ~ Il~ MMXXX MMX MXXMXX MX MMXMXX MXMMXXMXX MXX MXXMXX MXX MXXMMX MMX MMXMMX

g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~MX MM MMX MMMXX MMMXX MMXXX MXXX MMMXX MMXXXMMXXMMX

2+~~~~~~ff MMMXX MXM MX MMXMXX MX MX MMXMXX MX MX

I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rr MMXXM MMXXX MMMXX MMX MX MMXMMX MX MX MMXMXX MX MXMMMX MMXX MMXXMMMX MMXX MMXXMMXX MMXX MXX MMMXX MMXXX MXXXX XMXXXMM MXXMMX

MMX MX MX MX MX MM MX MX MX MMX MMMXX MMXXX MMXXX XXXMX MMYXX MMXMXXXMM…~~~~~~~~~~~~if l~ r~

26~~~ff~ 27~~ 29 3 1 32 3 4 35 3 7 38 3 0 41 4 3W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~CR

r f~~~~f~~~ ~~li~~~l ffft~~~~ ~~~~~tf~Fiue1 eghFrqec fSue Colce ~from Three Locaion inWeee esroiDcebr 90

February~t~ 1992.~f ~)f ~ ~ w

f~~~~Y ~f~f~ ri~l~ ~~~~ff f~f~~ Ii~l~

~ff~f f~~~f ~ X~I1 f~X~ ~f~lf fll~~ il~S

A - TRM 275.2B - TRM 285.8E ERM 2.76 0

E E

5.5

-~~~~~~~~~~ B~~~~~~~~~A A

B ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E5.0 E B A E

A E B

B E E A E Ar E~~~~~~ce E A

CI . E A

B BN~~~~~~~~~ AE4.0 B A B

o

A

3.5

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

YEAR

Figure 2. Total Standing Stocks [Logl 0 (Number per Hectare +1)1 of Fish Collected in Three CaveRotenone Samples on Wheeler Reservoir from 1969 Through 1991.

4.0 w

A - TRM 275.2B - TRM 285.8E - ERLM 2.7

3.5

E

8 8 A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A E A 3 0 A A

,3.0 A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A A

E A~~~BB B A

A

w -W

2.0

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

YEAR

Figure 3. Total Biomass [Loglo (Kilograms per Hectare +1)] of Fish Collected in Three Cove Rotenone

Samples on Wheeler Reservoir from 1969 Through 1991.

CONAUE=SAUGER

2.0

* . . Young of Year

- - - - Intermediate

Adult

el. .

Li~~~~~~~~~~~~~i * / 4

0~~~~~~~ 0

C,2

0.0 a C*

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Year

Figure 4. Standing Stock [Logl0 (Number per.Hectare +1)] of Young of Year, Intermediate,and Harvestable Sauger Collected in Three Cove Rotenone Samples on WheelerReservoir from 1969 Through 1991.

CONAME=YELLOW PERCH

2.0

. . . .Young of Year

- - - - Intermediate

1.5 Adult

-1 I '

Ln~~L~

aI\

J ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I \,

697 7 2 37 717.0 8798 2I38 858 7888 09

I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

5; e. Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C. I j . I

F~~~ 0. I .11

0.0

69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Year

Figure 5. Standing Stock [Logl 0 (Number per Hectare +1)] of Young of Year, Intermediate,

and Harvestable Yellow Perch Collected in Three Cove Rotenone Samples on

Wheeler Reservoir from 1969 Through 1991.

O'k Ch % .. R I R04j "I k I

"O'o V O .I-.

z o I I Bu~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~sc I11jnd e"' l f Dry slid# 7 CD

0 Ilk 'i

CL o ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~OGIPSEY B :v+ lo CAMPpZR~S '

'm, I CAD.

.7 '.I , F

CrR'"RIG~~~~GIG Y F0 T 90

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .LINL CARTWRIGHT I PI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~XCRWIH

C%~C ~Clement

f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~h ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '' John io,

.4 St Paul Ch f< CAI

Smog PoPPLAR EIMESIONE CREEK t:RILR;

PA RX :·0 SHANGHAI 1AiD $0 Elk Ri.e, Mflls TANN

C; O 90 O p~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Mdi

RIPLEY - 7 F1

0 0

-- 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r = r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~:

Fdendshlp Ch V I

tr~~rirl ~Whel~ Sch R R~e

\ 01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1~ Grova Ch C

rD ·/ (7C~~~~~~~~~~~~~)AWNGATE D 4

~~~~~~oo rurr~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,TSVILL.-f aI 1, .

flou nd Islrnd Crarr Ch '

FCRP*:.~ ~~~~~~~~~~ i Pine~~~~~10n Crook Sch

40'' `~~~~?4 0O

MVILONROFUREK~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r

de ·, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OT p~jA R WAE

ALC~~~)A~~; R0115U~~~~~t09bB41(-

OJERUSAL`EM 1UY~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fo~,1111C

08"d empl Sch$ ! 6',44srpla;Ch . ....

APPENDIX A

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 1 - Overbank above BFN Diffuser9-6-89

8.9* CHRYSOEI CHLOROM CRYPTO

3 - -------- ----- U-CYANO0 OTHER

0

0.3 1.0 3.0DEPTH (m)

STATION 2 -Channel above BFN Diffuser9-6-89

4

*CHRYSOE CHLORO(3 CRYPTO

3 -0- . -.-- I CYANO* OTHER

0 1 .0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (m)

-Al-

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 3- Channel at BFN Diffuser9-6-89

4-

U CHRYSO0 CHLORO1 CRYPTO

3 El CYANO

E OTHER

to

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0

DEPTH (m)

STATION 4 - Channel Just Below BFN Diffuser9-6-89

4

CHRYSOrz CHLOROO CRYPTO

3 - El CYANO

& OTHER

I-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.i

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0DEPTH (m)

-A2-


STATION 1 - overbank Above BFN Diffuser9-7-89

4

* CHRYSOEI CHLORO* CRYPTO3

-0---- ---------- ----- ·-- ·--;-·- -- - ------------·----~ -CYANO0 OTHER

1 - .~~~~~~~-. . - . --..- . --..- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~....~~~~-.-. . ---.-- .-- ---- .

0 .0.3 1.0 3.0

DEPTH (m)

STATION 2 - Channel Above BFN Diffuser9-7-89

4

* CHRYSO0 CHLORO0 CRYPTO

3 tJ CYANO--

0 OTHER

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (m)

-A3-


STATION 3 - Channel At BFN Diffuser9-7-89

4 4.4

* CHRYSOEJ CHLORO* CRYPTO

3 - f------- ...... CYANO-23 OTHER

01

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0DEPTH (m)

STATION 4 - Channel Just Below Diffuser9-7-89

4

CHRYSO

eJ CHLOROa CRYPTO

3 .....- ----. --. CYANO

0 OTHER

2 .- ......

_ _ _ _

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.0

DEPTH (m)

-A4-


STATION 1 - Overbank Above BFN Diffuser7-2-91

10

* CHRYSOE CHLORO

8 t------------- - .- -*- --- ··------- ·--- ·----- - ---- · *s--CRYPTOO CYANO3 OTHER

6

DEPTH (m)

STATION 3 -. Channel At. BFN Diffuser

7-2-9110

* CHRYSO

[2 CHLORO8 93 CRYPTO-

o CYANOKI OTHER

6

-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~::

0.

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (m)

-A5-



110* CHRYSOEJ CHLORO

.U8- I9-CRYPTO(I] CYANOQ OTHER

4~

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (m)

STATION 8- Overbank Below BFN Diffuser

7-2-9112

CHRYSO4I CHLOR.10IM CRYPTO0 CYANO

01 OTHER

x

0.3 1.0 30o 5.0DEPTH (in)

12

10 ~~.. 1.0 3H0ORO

DEPTH (m)~ OHE8

__~~~~~~~- 6

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTWIVY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 9 - Overbank Below BFN Diffuser7-2-91

120120 37.5 E CHRYSO

18.2 9 CHLOR0a CRYPTOL CYANO0 OTHER

4 .. . ..... .....-....

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (i)

STATION 10- Channel Just Below BFN Diffuser7-2-91

10

U CHRYSO0 CHLORO

8 tl---- ----- ~-- -- .~.-.---.----- -- ---~~0 CRYPTO-

- CYANOZ OTHER

6

(0

4 - -..- - -.

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (i)

-A7-

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 1 - Overbank Above BFN Diffuser8-7-91

10

* CHRYSOEi CHLORO

8 ---------- ----- -- - - . - -- U CRYPTO-

El CYANO0 OTHER

4 -------.

0 Aw

0.3 1.0 3.0 6.0DEPTH (m)


10

* CHRYSOEl CHLORO

8 ---- !CRYPTO

C CYANOEO OTHER

t0

-J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -

Uj 4 .-...

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (m)

-A8-

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON D TA

STATION 3 - el At BFN Diffuser8-7-91

10

U CHRYSO0 CHLORO

8 - - -- .- -.------ *---------- -[a CRYPTO -0- CYANO0 OTHER

40

2

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (n

STATION 5 -Ove bakAbove Diffuser Behind8-7-9 1 Amo o Island

10

M CHRYSOf0 CHLORO

8 -- f~~~~~~~~~~~~~( CRYPTO

Cl CYANO(3 OTHER10

2 -- ~ - -I-- - .--.- R PT ~

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (i)

-A9-

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVTY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 6 - Embayment Above BFN Diffuser8-7.91

12

* CHRYSOIZI CHLORO10* CRYPTOC CYANO_ OTHER

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (m)

STATION 7 -Channel Above BFN Diffuser

8-7-9110

I CLORO2 -0 CR-P---T-O - --..-------------.

El CYANO0 OTHER

0

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (in)

10

DEPTH (m) ~ ~ ~ OHE

(0~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~A0

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVWTY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA

STATION 8 - Overbank Below BFN Diffuser8-7-91

10

N CHRYSOE CHLORO

8 - --.- -* -- ..... -.. --- *- *CRYPTO.---E CYANO0 OTHER

6

00.3 1.0 3.0 5.0

DEPTH (i)

STATION 10- Channel Just Below BFN Diffuser8-7-91

10

* CHRYSOUZ CHLORO

8 - - CRYPTO

E CYANO[3 OTHER

d 6

4 ... .

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (i)

-All-


STATION 11 - Channel Farther Downstream8-7-91 From BFN Diffuser

10

N CHRYSOEJ CHLORO

8 M-- __________ - U CRYPTO53 CYANO0 OTHER

c 6

-I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

2

0.3 1.0 3.0 5.0DEPTH (m)

-A12-

TABLE A-i

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAU1Y DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND CUUNTIMW SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

1 9-6-89 1005 0.3 26.55 6.77 7.51 175 3602 3

1 1.0 26.55 6.81 7.50 175 2508 15.0

1 1.5 26.58 6.72 7.49 175 3

1 3.0 26.57 6.67 7.49 175 296 4

1 9-7-89 0925 0.3 26.57 7.15 7.60 175 6576 4

1 1.0 26.62 6.71 7.58 174 7580 7

1 1.5 26.62 6.60 7.57 175

1 3.0 26.62 6.52 7.57 174 512 3

1 9-7-89 1245 0.3 27.58 7.10 7.52 174

1 1.0 27.06 6.60 7.49 174

1 1.5 26.96 6.47 7.47 174

1 3.0 26.90 6.31 7.45 174

TABLE A-2

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUA LIY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL a

CENTRAL (i) (c) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugiL)

2 9-6-89 1045 0.3 27.64 6.63 7.39 175 5465 6

2 1.0 27.65 6.30 7.38 176 5519 8.3 5

2 1.5 27.65 6.33 7.37 176 7956*

2 3.0 27.65 6.15 7.37 175 1798 4

2 5.0 27.65 6.29 7.36 175 0 5

2 7.0 27.65 6.18 7.35 176

2 9-7-89 0950 0.3 27.72 6.75 7.50 174 13619 4

2 1.0 27.64 6.55 7.50 174 10209 6

2 1.5 27.60 6.37 7.48 174 10337*

2 3.0 27.53 6.18 7.47 175 2596 5

2 5.0 27.51 6.08 7.46 174 0 3

2 7.0 27.51 6.02 7.45 174

2 9-7-89 1255 0.3 28.14 6.83 7.50 174

2 1.0 27.75 6.30 7.45 175

2 1.5 27.62 6.15 7.43 175

2 3.0 27.54 6.09 7.41 174

2 5.0 27.49 6.01 7.41 174

2 7.0 27.49 5.93 7.40 174

* COLLECTED AT 5m DEPTH, INCUBATED AT 1-1.5m.

TABLE A-3


STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (C) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugIL)

3 9-6-89 1120 0.3 27.64 6.60 7.38 176 6583 6

3 1.0 27.64 6.50 7.39 176 7418 7.4 7

3 1.5 27.56 6.40 7.40 176 3916*

3 3.0 27.40 6.35 7.39 175 1030 4

3 5.0 27.15 6.43 7.41 175 267 3

3 7.0 27.08 6.48 7.43 173 0 4

3 9.0 27.05 6.41 7.43 173

3 9-7-89 1005 0.3 27.37 7.18 7.50 174 13619 5

3 1.0 27.39 6.61 7.49 174 10209 5

3 1.5 27.37 6.45 7.48 174 10337*

3 3.0 27.25 6.38 7.47 174 2596 3

3 5.0 26.94 6.74 7.55 171 0 5

3 7.0 26.92 6.70 7.58 170 5

3 9-7-89 1310 0.3 28.85 6.64 7.57 173

3 1.0 27.76 6.49 7.53 173

3 1.5 27.62 6.21 7.45 173

3 3.0 27.51 5.90 7.45 174

3 5.0 27.18 6.16 7.46 174

3 7.0 27.10 6.15 7.47 173

3 9.0 27.07 6.10 7.47 173

3 ______9.0 26.91 6.61 7.59 170

* COLLECTED AT 7m DEPTH, INCUBATED AT 1-1.5m.

TABLE A-4



CENTRAL (i) (c) (mgIL) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

4 9-6-89 1155 0.3 27.52 7.01 7.34 172 10688 7

4 1.0 27.41 6.83 7.44 172 8294 15.0 7

4 1.5 27.42 6.65 7.46 173 3694*

4 3.0 27.34 6.57 7.46 173 1484 7

4 5.0 27.34 6.52 7.46 173 95 4

4 7.0 27.34 6.45 7.46 173 5

4 9-7-89 1040 0.3 27.34 6.60, 7.49 173 9216 5

4 1.3 27.33 6.32 7.48 173 9594 5

4 1.5 27.33 6.28 7.46 174 7451*

4 3.0 27.28 6.34 7.45 174 1044 5

4 5.0 27.26 6.27 7.45 174 0 6

4 7.0 27.25 6.21 7.45 174 5

* COLLECTED AT 7m DEPTH, INCUBATED AT 1-1.5m

TABLE A-5

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER Q UAU1Y DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg1L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

1 7-1-91 0935 0.3 28.33 7.55 7.49 149 15124 1.1 7.6 8

1 1.0 27.60 7.22 7.51 149 6498 8.5 7

1 2.0 27.24 6.44 7.37 149

3 7-1-91 1052 0.3 29.05 8.90 7.80 139 12151 0.8 7.2 10

3 1.0 28.29 7.84 7.39 139 10140 11.2 11

3 2.0 28.08 6.84 7.26 139

3 3.0 27.85 6.86 7.30 143 870 9.8 8

3 4.0 27.58 6.80 7.30 142

3 5.0 27.49 6.23 7.23 145 385 6.5 4

3 6.0 27.44 6.15 7.23 144

3 7.0 27.44 6.09 7.22 145

3 8.0 27.43 6.09 7.21 143

3 7-2-9 1 1022 0.3 29.54 7.73 7.53 140 10891 1.0 6.9 5

3 1.0 28.78 6.68 7.29 144 5702 8.8 6

3 2.0 28.60 6.65 7.29 144

3 3.0 28.55 6.67 7.34 144 589 9.0 3

3 4.0 28.49 6.81 7.36 144

3 5.0 28.30 6.84 7.37 143 281 7.6 5

3 6.0 27.93 6.46 7.32 144

3 7.0 27.89 6.45 7.31 143

3 8.0 27.87 6.34 7.31 144

TABLE A-6

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAUTY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg1L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugiL)

7 7-1-91 1004 0.3 28.24 7.24 7.39 145 78 1.2 6.1 7

7 1.0 27.75 6.85 7.41 144 9960 7.5 6

7 2.0 27.45 6.36 7.32 145

7 3.0 27.37 6.24 7.31 144 1852 7.7 5

7 4.0 27.36 6.19 7.26 144 337

7 5.0 27.36 6.16 7.28 144 8.8 3

7 6.0 27.26 6.09 7.28 144

7 7-2-91 1100 0.3 29.05 7.40 7.35 144 12036 1.0 5.4 5

7 1.0 28.33 7.46 7.46 145 6847 6.3 12

7 2.0 28.21 7.31 7.42 145

7 3.0 28.12 7.12 7.38 144 416 7.2 8

7 4.0 27.95 6.96 7.38 144

7 5.0 27.86 6.43 7.28 146 3 7.2 5

7 ___ _ 6.0 27.83 6.34 7.24 145

TABLE A-7


STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO *pH COND COUNTIMIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mgIL) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugiL)

8 7-1-91 1145 0.3 30.24 10.07 8.40 140 20856 1.25 5 12

8 1.0 29.26 12.04 8.85 142 5.5 19

8 2.0 28.65 9.20 8.42 142 11816

8 3.0 27.85 6.35 7.30 143 9.8 6

8 4.0 27.54 5.80 7.18 145

8 4.5 27.22 5.42 7.13 146

8 7-2-9 1 0900 0.3 29.25 9.75 8.38 144 0.75 5.4 23

8 1.0 29.00 9.68 8.38 144 6.4 17

8 2.0 28.76 8.02 7.81 143

8 3.0 28.58 7.20 7.47 143 5.4 7

8 4.0 28.25 5.65 7.10 139

8 7-2-91 1425 0.3 31.45 11.23 8.59 136

8 1.0 31.32 11.26 8.70 138

8 2.0 29.01 8.45 8.07 144

8 3.0 28.49 6.30 7.32 144

8 4.0 28.43 6.23 7.27 142

TABLE A-8

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA


CENTRAL (i) (c) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugiL)

9 7-2-91 0955 0.3 29.66 9.74 8.44 140 1.1 5.3 9

9 1.0 29.23 9.60 8.37 140 5.5 15

9 2.0 28.75 7.69 7.48 140

9 3.0 28.62 7.54 7.48 141 6.2 7

9 4.0 28.27 6.94 7.35 141

9 5.0 28.08 6.78 7.32 142 6.9 5

9 6.0 27.99 6.55 7.30 142

9 7-2-91 1442 0.3 30.72 11.62 8.81 138 14356

9 1.0 30.40 11.37 8.92 139 12292

9 2.0 28.95 8.23 7.99 141

9 3.0 28.70 7.35 7.67 141 792

9 4.0 28.58 7.19 7.43 141

9 5.0 28.53 7.07 7.37 141 188

TABLE A-9


STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg1L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

10 7-2-91 0925 0.3 29.27 9.68 8.38 143 25155 1.1 4.9 14

10 1.0 28.72 7.86 7.61 142 7692 6.3 14

10 2.0 28.50 7.19 7.42 141

10 3.0 28.22 6.94 7.39 143 6203 5.6 6

10 4.0 28.15 6.82 7.35 142

10 5.0 28.13 6.74 7.30 141 124. 6.0 5

10 6.0 28.12 6.51 7.18 140

10 7-2-91 1437 0.3 31.00 10.63 8.73 140

10 1.0 29.93 10.14 8.76 139

10 2.0 29.16 8.33 7.99 140

10 3.0 28.78 7.08 7.54 142

10 4.0 28.45 6.64 7.42 143

10 5.0 28.37 6.55 7.32 143

TABLE A- 10

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVI1Y SURVEYWATER QUAULY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mgIL) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

1 8-6-91 1002 0.3 30.76 7.66 7.55 141 1.25 6.77 <1.0

1 1.0 30.62 7.62 7.54 142 7.1 1

1 2.0 30.52 7.42 7.49 143

1 3.0 30.38 7.40 7.50 143 7

1 4.0 30.29 7.29 7.47 144

1 8-6-91 1350 0.3 33.03 9.30 8.25 145

1 1.0 31.48 8.31 8.03 144

1 2.0 31.05 7.57 7.56 141

1 3.0 30.66 6.98 7.41 141

1 4.0 30.46 6.94 7.38 143 _ ____ _

TABLE A-1i

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAULY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (C) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugIL)

3 8-7-91 0956 0.3 32.20 6.51 7.31 153 1.25 6.2 1

3 1.0 31.94 6.55 7.33 152 6.6. 2

3 2.0 31.47 6.52 7.35 152

3 3.0 30.96 6.61 7.39 149 7.5 4

3 4.0 30.83 6.55 7.37 149

3 5.0 30.75 6.36 7.35 152 6.7 4

3 7.0 30.67 6.00 7.26 154

3 9.0 30.58 5.90 7.25 153

3 8-7-91 1455 0.3 32.91 8.18 7.85 142

3 1.0 32.32 8.11 7.83 143

3 2.0 31.79 7.00 7.46 154

3 3.0 31.36 6.65 7.38 155

3 4.0 30.82 6.66 7.40 153

3 5.0 30.60 6.32 7.33 153

TABLE A-12


STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (C) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugIL)

5 8-6-91 0912 0.3 30.59 7.51 7.63 150 1.0 10.9

5 1.0 30.58 7.47 7.62 150 6.6 9

5 2.0 30.55 7.31 7.55 150

5 3.0 30.54 7.03 7.46 149 10 1

5 4.0 30.52 6.07 7.26 145

5 8-6-91 1322 0.3 32.72 8.63 7.89 149

5 1.0 31.75 9.10 8.12 148

5 2.0 30.63 7.26 7.52 148

5 3.0 30.56 6.96 7.47 148

5 4.0 30.52 6.74 7.42 148

6 8-6-91 1022 0.3 31.65 7.14 7.55 144 0.75 9.6 1

6 1.0 31.29 6.99 7.49 144 10.8 1

6 2.0 31.08 6.73 7.38 142

6 8-6-9 1 1400 0.3 33.46 7.74 7.64 143

6 1.0 31.65 7.59 7.57 142

6 2.0 31.03 6.85 7.44 143

TABLE A-13



CENTRAL (i) (c) (9g1L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugiL)

7 8-7-91 1048 0.3 30.74 6.64 7.37 159 1.5 4.2 5

7 1.0 30.56 6.29 7.34 159 4.6 1

7 2.0 30.45 5.94 7.31 159

7 3.0 30.41 5.85 7.29 159 4.8 5

7 4.0 30.30 5.72 7.25 157

7 5.0 30.29 5.66 7.24 157 5.5 5

7 8-7-91 1519 0.3 31.91 7.29 7.60 158

7 1.0 31.15 7.02 7.57 158

7 2.0 30.52 6.19 7.36 160

7 3.0 30.43 5.90 7.29 160

7 4.0 30.39 5.75 7.25 160

7 5.0 30.35 5.55 7.24 160

8 8.6-91 0946 0.3 30.92 7.08 7.28 151 17590 0.8 9.1 2

8 1.0 30.67 6.70 7.24 150 8.3 2

8 2.0 30.64 6.39 7.21 152 4289

8 3.0 30.62 6.02 7.13 157 35.0 2

8 8-6-91 1334 0.3 32.91 8.91 7.95 152

8 1.0 30.90 6.81 7.27 151

8 2.0 30.61 6.33 7.20 152

8 3.0 30.56 6.05 7.21 153

TABLE A-14

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAUMY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (m) (NTU) (ugiL)

9 8-7-91 1025 0.3 30.74 6.15 7.29 158 1.5 4.2 1

9 1.0 30.51 5.92 7.27 158 5.2 1

9 2.0 30.42 6.02 7.25 159

9 3.0 30.39 5.68 7.24 159 5.6 1

9 4.0 30.37 5.64 7.23 159

9 5.0 30.37 5.63 7.24 159 6.3 2

9 7.0 30.33 5.46 7.22 157

9 8.0 30.32 5.41 7.20 157

10 8-7-91 0932 0.3 30.96 7.05 7.44 152

10 1.0 30.96 6.98 7.44 152 1.5 6.1 1

10 2.0 30.94 6.89 7.42 152 6.2 1

10 3.0 30.93 6.77 7.40 152

10 4.0 30.92 6.69 7.39 152 5.5 4

10 5.0 30.90 6.67 7.38 152

10 6.0 30.86 6.49 7.30 152 6.0 1

10 8-7-91 1444 0.3 31.58 7.54 7.55 151

10 1.0 31.34 7.50 7.57 151

10 2.0 31.03 6.77 7.39 151

10 3.0 30.99 6.60 7.37 151

TABLE A-15

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PROD UCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL aCENTRAL (i) (c) (mg/L) su umhos/CM2 C-14 (i) (NTU) (ugiL)

11 8-7-91 0908 0.3 30.58 6.86 7.33 151 1.25 5.6 1

11 1.0 30.59 6.75 7.34 151 6.7 1

11 2.0 30.58 6.68 7.34 151

11 3.0 30.59 6.66 7.31 151 6.6 1

11 4.0 30.49 6.55 7.29 151

11 8-7-91 1430 0.3 32.46 8.96 8.16 152

11 1.0 32.04 8.89 8.11 152

11 2.0 31.08 6.60 7.30 150

11 3.0 30.79 6.17 7.19 150

11 4.0 30.78 6.16 7.17 149

TABLE B-i

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVlY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH TOTAL-N NH3-NH4 N02-N03 TOTAL-P ORTHO-P SOC

(m) (mg/L) (ngiL) (mg/L) (ngiL) (mg/L) (mgiL)

1 9-6-89 0.3 0.18 0.03 0.24 0.07 0.02

1 1.0 0.25 0.03 0.23 0.07 0.02 1.2

1 3.0 2.20 0.20 0.24 0.32 0.02

1 9-7-89 0.3 0.19 0.02 0.21 0.06 0.02

1 1.0 0.22 0.03 0.22 0.08 0.02 1.0

co 1 3.0 0.19 0.02 0.21 0.07 0.02

2 9-6-89 0.3 0.18 0.02 0.23 0.05 0.02

2 1.0 0.19 0.03 0.24 0.05 0.02 1.2

2 3.0 0.26 0.04 0.24 0.09 0.02

2 5.0 0.26 0.04 0.23 0.08 0.02 1.2

2 9-7-89 0.3 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.06 0.02

2 1.0 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.07 0.02 1.2

2 3.0 0.28 0.02 0.22 0.07 0.02

2 5.0 0.3 0.02 0.22 0.08 0.02 24

TABLE B-2

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIWY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH TOTAL-N NH3-NH4 N02-N03 TOTAL-P ORTHO-P SOC(m) (ngiL) (mgIL) (mg/L) (mgIL) (mg/L) (mg/L)

3 9-6-89 0.3 0.30 0.05 0.23 0.06 0.02

3 1.0 0.32 0.02 0.24 0.07 0.02 1.1

3 3.0 0.32 0.02 0.24 0.07 0.02

3 5.0 0.34 0.03 0.22 0.08 0.02 1.3

3 7.0 0.42 0.09 0.20 0.09 0.02

3 9-7-89 0.3 0.32 0.02 0.23 0.05 0.02

3 1.0 0.30 0.04 0.22 0.06 0.02 1.1

3 3.0 0.24 0.02 0.23 0.06 0.02

3 5.0 0.34 0.03 0.16 0.07 0.02 1.3

3 7.0 0.36 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.01

4 9-6-89 0.3 0.30 0.02 0.20 0.05 0.02

4 1.0 0.32 0.01 0.21 0.05 0.02 1.4

4 3.0 0.32 0.03 0.19 0.07 0.01

4 5.0 0.32 0.02 0.18 0.07 0.01 2.3

4 7.0 0.32 0.02 0.18 0.06 0.01

4 9-7-89 0.3 0.32 0.04 0.22 0.08 0.03

4 1.0 0.34 0.04 0.22 0.09 0.03 1.6

4 3.0 0.32 0.02 0.21 0.07 0.02

4 5.0 0.32 0.02 0.20 0.06 0.03 1.7

4 7.0 0.32 0.03 0.21 0.07 0.02

TABLE B-3

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVYY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH ORGANIC-N NH3-NH4 N02-N03 TOTAL-P(m) (mg/L) ( giL) (ngiL) (ngiL)

1 7-1-91 0.3 0.22 <0.01 0.08 0.021 1.0 0.22 <0.01 0.14 0.02

1 7-2-91 0.3 0.30 .<0.01 <0.01 0.051 1.0 0.32 <0.01 0.02 0.03

1 3.0 0.25 0.03 0.24 0.043 7-1-91 0.3 0.24 <0.01 0.07 0.053 1.0 0.22 0.02 0.18 0.02

3 3.0 0.21 0.03 0.19 0.023 5.0 0.18 <0.01 0.23 0.013 7-2-91 0.3 0.30 <0.01 0.14 0.033 1.0 0.34 0.02 0.24 0.053 3.0 0.28 0.02 0.24 0.053 5.0 0.28 0.02 0.23 0.03

7 7-1-91 0.3 0.18 <0.01 0.24 0.047 1.0 0.22 <0.01 0.24 0.077 3.0 0.20 0.02 0.24 0.05

7 5.0 0.18 0.02 0.24 0.027 7-2-91 0.3 0.27 <0.01 0.24 0.047 1.0 0.30 <0.01 0.24 0.047 3.0 0.30 <0.01 0.24 0.057 5.0 0.27 0.01 0.25 0.04

TABLE B-4

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVTY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH ORGANIC-N NH3-NH4 N02-N03 TOTAL-P(m) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

8 7-1-91 0.3 0.38 <0.01 0.01 0.02

8 1.0 0.26 <0.01 0.08 0.01

8 3.0 0.17 0.05 0.20 0.02

8 7-2-91 0.3 <0.02 0.39 0.50 0.05

8 1,0 0.52 <0.01 0.08 0.06

8 3.0 0.24 0.02 0.17 0.04

9 7-2-91 0.3 0.23 <0.01 0.05 0.04

9 1.0 0.38 <0.01 0.06 0.04

9 3.0 0.37 0.01 0.17 0.04

9 5.0 0.24 0.02 0.20 0.04

10 7-2-91 0.3 0.36 <0.01 0.08 0.03

10 1.0 0.36 <0.01 0.16 0.05

10 3.0 0.21 0.01 0.21 0.05

10 5.0 0.23 0.05 0.21 0.05

TABLE B-5

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PROD UCTIVY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH N02-N03 TOTAL-P ORTHO-P(i) (mg/L) (mgIL) (mgIL)

1 8-6-91 0.3 <0.01 0.021 1.0 <0.01 0.021 3.0 <0.01 0.04,2 8-7-91 0.3 0.14 0.022 1.0 0.14 0.03 0.032 3.0 0.09 0.042 5.0 0.06 0.033 8-7-91 0.3 0.09 0.033 1.0 0.08 0.013 3.0 0.05 0.033 5.0 0.06 0.055 8-6-91 0.3 0.02 0.055 1.0 0.02 0.02 0.025 3.0 0.02 0.02 0.016 8-6-91 0.3 <0.01 0.02 <0.016 1.0 <0.01 0.02 0.01

TABLE B-6

WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVTY SURVEYWATER QUALITY DATA

STATION DATE DEPTH N02-N03 TOTAL-P ORTHO-P(m) (mgIL) (mgiL) (mgIL)

7 8-7-91 0.3 0.11 0.01

7 1.0 0.13 0.02

7 3.0 0.12 0.12

7 5.0 0.14 0.01

8 8-6-91 0.3 0.05 <0.01

8 1.0 0.05 0.02 0.02

8 3.0 0.03 0.03

10 8-7-91 0.3 0.08 0.03

10 1.0 0.07 0.02

10 3.0 0.03 <0.01

10 5.0 0.08 0.04

11 8-7-91 0.3 0.07 0.02

11 1.0 0.07 0.01

11 3.0 0.07 0.01

cap4 plea 5(f re*2r- *d wi' l'hrc j 5s) il) -q · 2012. 11. 19. · 6r~} cap4 q~/ plea...

Documents

cap4 plea 5(f re2r- d wi' l'hrc j 5s) il) -q · 2012. 11. 19. · 6r~} cap4 q~/ plea...