cap4 plea 5(f re*2r- *d wi' l'hrc j 5s) il) -q · 2012. 11. 19. · 6r~} cap4 q~/ plea...
TRANSCRIPT
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)
Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total
Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight
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.
Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total
Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight
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
Skipjack herring 2.05 0.03 5.51 0.22 0.33 0.12 7.88 0.37
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
Flathead catfish 12.02 0.06 3.34 0.24 8.81 6.47 24.17 6.77
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-
Table 5. (Continued)
Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total
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.
Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total
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
Skipjack herring 11.51 0.18 8.18 0.37 0.66 0.17 20.35 0.72
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-
Table 6. (Continued)
Young of Year Intermediate Harvestable Total
Species Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight Number Weight
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
Flathead catfish 7.41 0.05 3.86 0.34 4.58 3.07 15.86 3.46
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-
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA
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-
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA
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-
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA
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-
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA
STATION 7 - Channel Above BFN Diffuser7-2-91
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)
STATION 2 - Channel Above BFN Diffuser8-7-91
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-
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYPHYTOPLANKTON DATA
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAU1Y 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)
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAU1Y DATA
STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL a
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAU1Y DATA
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
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)
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAU1Y 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)
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAUTY 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)
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
WHEELER RESERVOIR PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY SURVEYWATER QUAUTY DATA
STATION DATE TIME DEPTH TEMP DO pH COND COUNT/MIN SECCHI TURB CHL a
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