Impoundment Characterization Study Report Characterization of the Impoundment of the Harpeth River in

Franklin, TN By Michael Cain, Watershed Assessment and Restoration Manager

HRWA July 30, 2008

Fig 1. Lowhead Dam, July 2007 1

This study and report were funded by TWRA and HRWA general funds from individual donors and membership.

2

Abstract: The objective of this plan was to gather data to characterize the physical, chemical and biological components of the impoundment above the lowhead dam in Franklin, Tennessee for future use in a dam removal feasibility study. Data was collected on water and sediment volume, sediment particle size and distribution, potential contaminates including RCRA metals and organics (SVOCs), chemical and physical parameters of the water, and fish, mussel and macroinvertibrate inventories. This study, conducted by Harpeth River Watershed Association (HRWA), with help from Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) and Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), was funded by TWRA following their recommendation of removal of the lowhead dam during a review of an Aquatic Resource Alteration Permit (ARAP) sought by the City of Franklin concerning drinking water withdrawal. While wildlife and recreational uses of the river were of concern, so was the fact that there had been a battery reclamation plant twenty-two miles upstream that had operated for nearly fifty years and that had undergone a RCRA remediation for lead. Partners and advisors in this process include staff from TWRA, TDEC‘s Division of Water Pollution Control (TDEC WPC), United States Geologic Survey (USGS), US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and private sector expert advisors to HRWA.1 In December of 2007, TDEC issued an ARAP to the City of Franklin for water withdrawal that mandated a dam removal feasibility study and removal of the dam if it is deemed feasible. This determination had the effect of turning our study into the initial phase of the mandated feasibility study since we had already planned on gathering all of the preliminary data needed for a removal feasibility study. Data: The impoundment was determined (independently by both USGS and HRWA) to be 1.7 miles in length with an average width of just over fifty feet. Four transects were selected to represent the cross sections of the impoundment and sediment samples were gathered and data collected about the width, water depth and sediment depth at each transect. The sediment samples were collected according to protocols in the EPA document “Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance, Volume 5: Water and Sediment, Part I—Surface Water and Sediment” dated December 1995. The sediment samples were sent to Environmental Science Corporation laboratories in Mt Juliet, TN for processing. Water chemistry parameters were processed in house using a Hach colorimeter, hand held meters and a Hach Dissolved Oxygen digital titration kit. Data collected included temperature, turbidity, PO4, NO3, pH, electrical conductivity, total suspended solids (TSS), and dissolved oxygen concentrations. Additional data that was collected included a mussel survey above and below the lowhead dam, a fish Index of Biotic Integrity scoring above and below the lowhead dam conducted by TWRA personnel and a Benthic Macroinvertibrate survey conducted by TDEC personnel. Methods: The first step in this plan was to physically map the impoundment in terms of length, width, depth, amount of water and physical characteristics of the sediment, and additional sample data was added as it was collected. This work has been completed for the purposes of this study but this mapping program will be a repository for further data. HRWA uses ArcMap software by ESRI and builds databases in-house for all data collected that are then added to the mapping program. This is a dynamic process that will continue over time, and the map included in Appendix A is a snapshot that does not show all the data stored in the program. Another aspect of this plan was investigating any information concerning possible contaminants that might be found, such as lead, mercury, cadmium, PCBs, and older pesticides that may not have degraded

3

over time. A literature review was conducted and the General Smelting and Refining operation of College Grove was found to be the most significant potential input of contaminants upstream of the impoundment. General Smelting operated a lead smelting operation from 1953 to 1997, when the facility was closed. In January of 1992, EPA designated a portion of Williamson County a non-attainment area for lead based on Lead National Ambient Air Quality Standard violations. While groundwater has been monitored since 1987 with no detected releases, elevated levels of lead constituents in the soil and subsoil were noted at the site and some adjoining property, as well as battery casing chips that were found along the bank of the Harpeth River adjacent to the plant. In 2000 the main building underwent decontamination and demolition, and in 2005, another facility (also owned by General Smelting) on an adjacent parcel underwent a similar process.2

It is also noted that the areas upstream of the impoundment have traditionally been in agricultural use and it is expected that the use of pesticides, herbicides and other agricultural chemicals have found their way into the river, and that those that do not readily degrade might still be present. The question of other contaminants such as PCBs was raised by members of the advisory committee as well. For the purposes of this study HRWA sought and was donated a 14’ Jon boat to use as a floating lab for collecting samples. In addition, a Wildco liner- type hand corer for collection of sediment samples was obtained. After reviewing EPA Representative Sampling Guidance3 and determining the length and flow of this impoundment it was determined that a best judgment method for sample locations based on approximate distance from the dam be used to identify preliminary sample locations. Initially, a set of three samples were taken at each set distance, one from the center of the impoundment, and one from the center to half the distance to each bank. A set of three samples were collected immediately behind the lowhead dam and then approximately every 5/8 mile, resulting in twelve samples from four transects. In the preliminary survey, it was noted that there was bedrock in some locations, and while there were some small areas of bedrock, there was sediment for sampling. At each transect, a line with a measure was stretched taught across the river and distances were noted about the location of each sample. Once on station, a water sample was taken, and data were collected at each site for pH, TDS, conductivity and temperature using a Hanna meter. Samples were stored in a cooler for further analysis of nitrates, orthophosphate and turbidity within six hours of collection, using a Hach Colorimeter. The water and sediment depth was recorded every two to five feet using a sediment probe. Sediment samples were extracted using the Wildco core sampler to a depth of approximately 20 inches and each sample was sorted to remove any obvious organic debris. The samples were then divided into appropriate collection bottles for laboratory analysis. At each transect two of the three samples were set aside to analyze for lead and total solids, while the third site was tested for eight RCRA metals, SVOCs and total organic carbon as well as totals solids. The location for this more extensive test was determined by best judgment based on particle size and sediment depth. The center sample tended to have less fines and was therefore not picked for this test at any of the transects. There were eight 250 ml glass containers collected, at each of four transects, for lab analysis. An additional sample was collected to be dried and used for particle size analysis. The core sampler was cleaned with Alconox and rinsed between each sample to prevent cross contamination. The sediment samples for analysis were sent to the lab in a timely fashion, the sample for particle size analysis was dried at 100 C for 24 hours and representative samples underwent particle size analysis in a sieve set, to determine particle size composition within the impoundment. A standard sieve set was used separating particles as > 4000um, < 4000um, <2000um, <500um, <250um, <125um, and <63um. It was hoped that this study could begin in late 2007, but weather and other considerations delayed the actual start of sediment collection. The main safety consideration was flow. It was determined that when flow in the river exceeded 120 cfs at the Hwy 96 USGS gage that work in the river was difficult and too

4

dangerous to commence. The first sample collection was accomplished on March 28th , 2008 with subsequent samples collected on the 7th, 20th and 23rd of May. On April 23rd, 2008, TWRA personnel conducted a mussel population assessment at two sites near the lowhead dam in Franklin. The first site was approximately 150 feet upstream of the dam and the second site was approximately 225 feet downstream of the dam. Divers were deployed in the impoundment above the dam where visibility was ~ 1 meter. Three relic shells were all that were discovered during this assessment. Below the dam, where water was 0 to four feet deep, snorkelers/waders were used and many relic shells of Tennessee pigtoe, and T. pocketbook as well as many live Asiatic clams and one live Unionid were recorded. On May 22nd and June 11th, TWRA personnel conducted fish surveys below and above the lowhead dam (respectively). The reaches below the dam were done using DC backpack electrofishing units and covered about 5,050 square feet of habitat. This method netted a total of 470 fish representing 33 native species including a finescale darter, a fish listed as in need of management. Above the dam, a 16 foot Jon boat outfitted with an electrofishing pulsator box was used to sample approximately 2215 feet of the impoundment from the dam upstream. This represents approximately the lower 25% of the impoundment. The results of this effort were 324 fish representing 18 native species. On June 9th TDEC field biologists conducted a benthic macro-invertebrate survey at Forest Crossing Golf Course (above the influence of the impoundment) and just down stream of the lowhead dam. It was noted that there was sewer line construction along the Forest Crossing reach. A biorecon and sq kick method were employed at both sites, as were the collection of SQSH samples (analysis of these to be provided at a later date). On June 23-24 HRWA conducted a light/dark study of dissolved oxygen. A sechi disc was used to determine the lower depth for this study (4.4 feet). After initial DO was measured, sets of bottles (one light/one dark) were set at three depths (surface, 2.2 feet, 4.4 feet). A final piece of this study was to capture stage at the lowhead dam and see if it were possible to correlate that with gage data from the USGS gage at Highway 96 approximately 0.7 miles downstream from the lowhead dam. To obtain gage data, a yard stick was placed on the top of the dam on the left bank about two feet from the edge, between the third and fourth flute of the face. Data Analysis: Environmental Science Corporation4 was chosen to perform the lab analysis of the sediments for this study. The constituents that we tested for were the eight RCRA metals, Total Organic Carbon, Total Solids (% moisture) and semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs, (full list of Base/Neutral/Acid)) as shown in table 1. Table 1. Impoundment Sediment Analysis Information

Parameter EPA

method detection

limit holding

time preservative container Silver (Ag) 6010B 2.5 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Arsenic (As) 6010B 5.0 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Barium (Ba) 6010B 1.2 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Cadmium (Cd) 6010B 1.2 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Chromium (Cr) 6010B 2.5 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Lead (Pb) 6010B 1.2 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Mercury (Hg) 7471 0.02 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass Selenium (Se) 6010B 5.0 mg/kg 180 days n/a 250 ml glass

5

TOC 5310B 10.0 mg/kg 28 days n/a 250 ml glass Total Solids (% moisture) 2540G 28 days n/a 250ml glass SVOCs (full list BNAs) 8270C 0.33 mg/kg* 28 days n/a 250 ml glass All chain of custody procedures were observed. HRWA tested for nitrates, phosphates, turbidity, conductivity, total dissolved solids, pH, temperature and dissolved oxygen as shown in table 2. Table 2. Water Quality Parameters Tested by HRWA Parameter Method detection range preservation holding time

Nitrate, mid-range

Hach 8171* cadmium reduction 0.0 to 5.0 mg/l cool, 4oC 48 hours

Phosphorus, Reactive

Hach 8048* Orthophosphate 0.00 to 2.50 mg/l cool, 4oC 48 hours

Turbidity Hach 8237*

Absorptometric 0 to 1000 FAU cool, 4oC 48 hours

Dissolved Oxygen

Hach 8215* Azide modification

Winkler method 1 to > 10 mg/l n/a n/a ** accuracy

pH Hanna HI 991301

multi meter 0.00 to 14.00 +/- 0.01 pH n/a **

Conductivity Hanna HI 991301

multi meter 0.00 to

20.00 mS/cm +/- 2% F.S. n/a ** Total

Dissolved Solids

Hanna HI 991301 multi meter 0.00 to 10.00 ppt +/- 2% F.S. n/a **

Temperature Hanna HI 991301

multi meter 0.0 to 60.0oC +/- 0.5oC n/a **

* using Hach 890 colorimeter ** no holding time, test performed on site

Results: The results of the particle size analysis were significant. There were fewer fines in the sediment than had been expected and the principal effect of this is there are less clay sized particles with cation exchange sites for contaminants to adsorb to. The highest percentages of fines were right behind the lowhead dam,

6

Fig. 2. Average particle size at each transect but even there the percentage was low. Generally, almost all particles within the impoundment were 2000 micro meters or larger. The lab results on metals and SVOCs seem to bare out the particle size data with the highest levels of contaminants being found right behind the lowhead dam where the most fines were found and decreasing as average particle size rises. Behind the lowhead dam the levels of lead and arsenic were above background levels for this area but were significantly below action levels of the EPA Region IX Polutant Remediation Guidelines (PRG) for soils and well below guidance values for screening listed in EPA’s National Sediment Quality Survey (second edition)5 . Even these levels fell as distance from the dam and average particle size rose. T1 Lab Results: T2 Lab Results: Lab left bank center right left bank center right units

Total 66.2 76.4 58.6 85.8 81.2 81.7 % Mercury 0.035 n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a mg/kg Arsenic 9.2 n/a n/a 11 n/a n/a mg/kg Barium 180 n/a n/a 410 n/a n/a mg/kg

Cadmium 1.5 n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a mg/kg Chromium 35 n/a n/a 15 n/a n/a mg/kg

Lead 22 21.0 21.0 12 18.0 20.0 mg/kg Selenium 19 n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a mg/kg

Silver BDL n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a mg/kg T3 Lab Results: T4 Lab Results: Lab left bank center right left bank center right units

Total 80.4 84.7 91.2 82.2 79.4 79.6 % Mercury n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a BDL mg/kg Arsenic n/a n/a 9.4 n/a n/a 10.0 mg/kg

T1 Average Particle Size Distribution

0.00 5.00

10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00

<4000 >4000 >2000 >500 >250 >125 >63

Particle Size (um)

T2 Average Particle Size Distribution

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

<4000 >4000 >2000 >500 >250 >125 >63 Particle Size (um)

T3 Average Particle Size Distribution

0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00

<4000 >4000 >2000 >500 >250 >125 >63

Particle Size (um)

T4 Average Particle Size Distribution

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

<4000 >4000 >2000 >500 >250 >125 >63 Particle Size (um)

7

Barium n/a n/a 420 n/a n/a 280.0 mg/kg Cadmium n/a n/a 0.46 n/a n/a BDL mg/kg

Chromium n/a n/a 14 n/a n/a 19.0 mg/kg Lead 13.0 8.7 9.7 9.8 9.4 16.0 mg/kg

Selenium n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a BDL mg/kg Silver n/a n/a BDL n/a n/a BDL mg/kg

Table 3. Lab results of RCRA metals. All results are in mg/kg except total solids which is in % .. The volume of water and sediment were calculated using profiles of the impoundment at the four transects and averaged over ¼ of the 1.7 mile impoundment. Assuming the profiles were representative of approximately 2244 feet of the impoundment adjacent to each transect, the volume of water for the entire

Transect 1 Profile

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Feet from Left Bank

dept

h (in

fe

et)

SedimentBottomSedimentSuface

Transect 2 Profile

-14.00

-12.00

-10.00

-8.00

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.003 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 66

Feet from Left Bank

Dep

th (i

n fe

et)

SedimentSurface

SedimentBottom

Transect 3 Profile

-8

-6

-4

-2

00 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64

Feet from Left Bank

Dept

h (fe

et) Sediment

Surface

SedimentBottom

Transect 4 Profile

-3.5-3

-2.5-2

-1.5-1

-0.50

0.5

f romRB

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50

Feet from Left Bank

Dept

h (in

fe

et)

SedimentSurface

SedimentBottom

Fig. 3. Water – Sediment profiles for transects 1- 4. impoundment would be around 2,400,000 cubic feet (or 55 acre feet), or about 12 ½ minutes of flow at the recent high flow rate of 3200 cubic feet per second (cfs) that the river experienced on April 4th, 2008.

8

The calculations for sediment were performed using the sediment surface and, in most cases, a definitive rock base, and were made using the same assumptions for each transect being representative. With this in mind, the total sediment volume calculated was approximately 32,000 cubic yards. The mussel survey conducted by Kim Elkin of TWRA reported that a population of mussels exists below the lowhead dam, but that there were very few traces of mussels within the impoundment, indicating that there was no migration of mussels from the reaches below the dam into the impoundment. The two very distinct habitats, in the impoundment, and below it, caused TWRA to use two different approaches to inventorying fish species, and this limits the ability to make direct comparisons. Inventory of Biotic Integrity (IBI) metrics have not been established for the Harpeth River, but a TVA IBI expert (C. Saylor) suggested metrics developed for the interior plateau region of Tennessee as an alternative for the wade able sections in this study. The impoundment was surveyed with boat shockers, and there are no established metrics and no comparable metrics available. The fact that many more species were found downstream of the impoundment is not conclusive evidence of impairment due to the different methods used to survey, but it should not be dismissed, as this does correlate to studies done by TDEC concerning impoundments in Tennessee6. While TDEC’s Benthic Macroinvertibrate scores were similar at both sites, EPT scores and intolerant species were lower below the dam. TDEC biologists stated that comparing these scores with other recent surveys indicate a general decline in ecological health as the Harpeth River moves through Franklin. They further state that these scores indicate a river that is under stress as evidenced by declining EPT and generally sensitive taxa of macroinvertibrates. They also noted higher amounts of habitat filling sediment below the dam, which was contrary to what they would have expected. This seems to fit well with our finding that the sediment material behind the dam was devoid of fines, indicating that they were hydraulically removed from the impoundment and deposited below the dam. The stage data was collected each time a collection was made and several other times as well. Each time stage data was collected, the USGS gage data was checked via the website http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/uv?cb_00060=on&cb_00065=on&format=gif_stats&period=7&site_no=03432350 . Unfortunately, there was little correlation between stage data and gage data. One major inconsistency came with the discovery of a very large log jam against the Highway 96 Bridge and the subsequent removal that caused a spike in the gage data, making much of the comparison suspect. HRWA will continue to collect stage data over the summer and attempt to find a correlation with gage data, but one condition makes this problematic, and that is the withdrawal of water for the drinking water plant and the method of accounting for flows into the system between the dam and the gage. Work continues on how to determine river flow above the Water Plant’s intake by way of a Flow Study (2008) being conducted by HRWA with advise and council from USGS. The light/dark data collected show very small changes in dissolved oxygen concentrations, and although the levels remained even or increased in the light bottles and decreased slightly in the dark bottles, the changes were very minor.

Light/Dark Bottle Study Results bottles placed at 1100 on 6-23-08, water temp 25 C recovered at 1100 on 6-24-08, water temp 24 C in mg/l

Beginning Surface Bottles

Mid-depth Bottles Lower Bottles

DO light dark light dark light dark 4.32 4.32 4.16 4.48 4.32 4.46 4.32

9

Conclusions: The ARAP for Franklin’s Drinking Water Plant states: that a feasibility study should be completed on the removal of the lowhead dam, and if deemed feasible, the dam should be removed. The data that HRWA has collected for this study should be incorporated into that feasibility study, and the data so far gives no indication of a reason not to remove the lowhead dam. The sediment is sufficiently course and relatively free of contaminants. The river below the dam has been deprived of this course sediment since the dam was built in 1961. This course sediment is a good source of habitat for benthic macroinvertibrates, and while the downstream migration of this material might be somewhat overwhelming to near reaches in the short term, it will most likely be beneficial for habitat and morphological processes in the long term. The volume of water behind the lowhead dam is not an issue, as the comparison to high flow (in the preceding results section) indicate. Even if the dam were instantaneously removed (which is not possible) the water level in the river downstream would not reach top of bank. (The flow rate of 3200 cfs on 4-4-08 did not approach bank full stage, and at that rate Franklin was never in danger of flooding.) It is likely that any dam removal would be staged so as to prevent large quick movement of water and sediment, making the volume an even less significant factor. The new ARAP permit issued to the city for water withdrawal does not allow the river’s flow to be reduced below 10 cfs as a result of withdrawals. In addition, the permit requires that no more than 20% of the river’s flow may be withdrawn at levels above 10cfs. With this limitation on withdrawals the city will no longer be able to withdraw from the river at low river flows as it had in the past. As a result of the permit, the purpose of the lowhead dam to create an impoundment that keeps water levels above the intake structure is now obsolete. With all of the biological data in, the effects of water quality from the lowhead dam are evident and this data supports other studies in Tennessee such as TDEC’s Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below Small Impoundments in Tennessee6 that have highlighted some of the biological implications of dams in Tennessee, such as being a barrier to fish and mussel migration, water quality issues and stream morphological deficiencies. With this study and the biological surveys completed by TDEC and TWRA, the city can complete the feasibility study. Its purpose as specified in the permit is to “evaluate the costs and benefits for the restoration of the water quality and fisheries ecosystem in the Harpeth River.” The permit also specified that the feasibility study would be “coordinated with the department to allow stakeholder participation.” 1. Advisory Committee members: Kim Elkin, TWRA In-stream Biologist; James Smith, TDEC WPC Biologist, Nashville Field Office; Tim Diehl, USGS; Tom Wellborn, USEPA, Tennessee Working Group, Region Four, Atlanta, GA; Mike Corn, P.E., AquAeter; Mark Quarles, Geologist, Globally Green Consulting. 2. Public Notice of Public Hearing and Statement of Basis on a Proposed Hazardous Waste Management Permit Modification for General Smelting and Refining, Inc.; TDEC Division of Solid Waste Management, July 18, 2007. 3. Superfund Program Representative Sampling Guidance, Volume 5: Water and Sediment, Part I – Surface Water and Sediment (Interim Final), http://www.clu-in.org/download/char/SF_Rep_Samp_Guid_bio.pdf 4. Environmental Science Corp, 12065 Lebanon Road, Mt. Juliet, TN 37122 (615) 758-5858 , (800) 767-5859 Fax: (615) 758-5859 http://www.envsci.com/contact.html

10

5. EPA-823-R-04-007, The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey, Second Edition, November 2004; http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/cs/report/2004/nsqs2ed-complete.pdf#page=213, pages 213-221 6. Probabilistic Monitoring of Streams Below Small Impoundments in Tennessee, TDEC, September 2006; D.H. Arnwine, K.J. Sparks, R.R. James, http://tennessee.gov/environment/wpc/publications/isp_report.pdf

Appendix A: Location map

Appendix B Harpeth River Mussel Survey

At Franklin Dam

April 2008

13

Appendix B (cont)

A mussel population assessment was needed to describe the assemblage up and downstream of Franklin’s low head dam. Field reconnaissance was used to select two mussel sites on the Harpeth River off Lewisburg Pike in Williamson County, TN during February 2008. One site was selected in the impounded area approximately 50 meters upstream of the dam (Site1) and one site approximately 75m downstream from the dam (Site 2). The mussel survey was conducted April 23, 2008; conditions were sunny, air temperature 75 ºF, water temperature 63ºF, water visibility turbid (~ 1m), flow 130cfs. Site 1 (coordinates 35.90913N x 86.85552W) consisted of a 100m reach 50m upstream of the dam described as having high sloughing, nearly vertical banks with woody debris along the channel margins. Two divers were deployed to complete the mussel survey at Site 1. They used visual and tactile techniques to search the streambed for mussels and relic shells. Divers reported silt along the sides and loose gravel substrate on the riverbed extending from the toe of the bank’s slope across the river with water depths ranging six to eight feet. The original survey protocol called for 10 bank to bank transects one-meter wide perpendicular to flow at 10m intervals over a 100m stream length at each site. However, an initial 100m longitudinal survey and the first two bank to bank transects produced no live mussels or Asian clams therefore the survey protocol was altered to a timed search of 45-person minutes. Relic shells were uncommon, three Unionid mussel species were collected during all survey efforts at Site 1: washboard (Megalonaias nervosa), flutedshell (Lasmigonia costata), and pocketbook (Lampsilis ovata). Site 2 (coordinates 35.90969N x 86.85619W) consisted of a 100m reach 75m downstream of the dam also having high sloughing, nearly vertical banks with less woody debris along the channel margins. Depth ranged from zero to four feet over areas of unstable and stable gravel shoals. Three snorkelers/waders used visual and tactile techniques to search the streambed for mussels and shells. Darters (Etheostoma sp.) and live Asiatic clams were common throughout the surveyed reach. One live Unionid mussel (flutedshell, length = 80mm, age three) along with relic shells of the Tennessee pigtoe (Fusconaia barnesiana) and pocketbook were collected during the 45-person minute search interval. Results obtained during this survey indicate a limited mussel population exists below the low head dam. The condition of the relic shells collected along with the absence of live Asian clams suggests that the impounded reach immediately upstream does not currently support a mussel population.

14

Appendix C: Lab Reports

15

1 Left Bank

16

1 Center

1 Right Bank

17

18

2 Left Bank

19

2 Center

2 Right Bank

20

3 Left Bank

3 Center

21

3 Right Bank

22

4 Left Bank

4 Center

23

24

4 Right Bank

25

Appendix D: Profile Data

T1 Profile data

water-sed sed-bottom

from RB sediment volume

0 0 0 0

0 -2.33 -2.67 0.34 1.7

5 -5.08 -6.17 1.09 5.45

10 -8.25 -

10.08 1.83 9.15

15 -7.25 -9.25 2 10

20 -8.25 -

11.25 3 15

25 -8.67 -9.83 1.16 5.8

30 -8.25 -9.17 0.92 4.6

35 -7.92 -9.5 1.58 7.9 stage 4.0 gage 76

40 -7.83 -8.25 0.42 2.1

45 -7.67 -8.08 0.41 2.05 Water

50 -7.25 -7.92 0.67 3.35 Av depth 6.338667

55 -6.33 -7.83 1.5 7.5 width 70

60 -4.58 -7.83 3.25 16.25 length 2244

65 -4 -7.67 3.67 18.35 T1 volume 995,678

cubic feet

70 -1.42 -6.25 4.83 24.15 7,448,187 gallons

75 0 0 0 0

Av depth 6.338667 Sediment

133.35sq feet * 2244 feet = 299,237

cubic feet

11,083 cubic yards

26

T2 Profile data

water-sed

sed-bottom

from RB 0 0 0 0 0 3 -5.00 -12.08 7.08 21.24 6 -5.92 -8.00 2.08 6.24 9 -6.33 -7.25 0.92 2.76

12 -6.75 -8.00 1.25 3.75 15 -6.33 -7.58 1.25 3.75 18 -6.75 -7.33 0.58 1.74 21 -5.75 -7.17 1.42 4.26 24 -5.75 -7.42 1.67 5.01 27 -5.75 -7.08 1.33 3.99 30 -5.17 -7.50 2.33 6.99 33 -5.50 -7.17 1.67 5.01 36 -5.50 -6.58 1.08 3.24 39 -5.58 -6.92 1.34 4.02 42 -5.33 -7.08 1.75 5.25 stage 4.25 gage 100 45 -5.33 -6.67 1.34 4.02 48 -5.42 -7.00 1.58 4.74 51 -5.58 -7.58 2 6 54 -5.58 -8.00 2.42 7.26 Water

57 -5.25 -8.00 2.75 8.25 Av depth 5.476364

60 -5.08 -6.67 1.59 4.77 width 66

63 -4.00 -7.42 3.42 10.26 length 2244 1/4 impoundment length

66 -2.83 -7.42 4.59 13.77 T1 volume 811,071 cubic feet

69 0.00 0.00 0 0 6,067,235 gallons 72 0 0 0 0

Av depth 5.47636 136.32sq feet * 2244 feet = 305,902 cubic feet

11,330 cubic yards

27

T3 Profile data

from RB water-sed sed-bottom 0 0 0 0 0 2 -1.50 -4.00 2.5 5 4 -2.00 -3.00 1 2 6 -3.00 -5.58 2.58 5.16 8 -3.75 -5.67 1.92 3.84

10 -3.75 -6.00 2.25 4.5 12 -3.92 -6.58 2.66 5.32 14 -3.50 -6.17 2.67 5.34 16 -3.58 -6.08 2.5 5 18 -3.58 -6.17 2.59 5.18 20 -3.92 -5.67 1.75 3.5 22 -3.67 -6.00 2.33 4.66 24 -3.92 -6.00 2.08 4.16 26 -3.67 -5.17 1.5 3 28 -3.58 -5.50 1.92 3.84 30 -3.50 -4.75 1.25 2.5 32 -3.58 -5.00 1.42 2.84 34 -4.00 -4.75 0.75 1.5 36 -3.92 -5.33 1.41 2.82 38 -4.17 -5.08 0.91 1.82 40 -3.67 -4.50 0.83 1.66 42 -3.83 -4.75 0.92 1.84 44 -4.17 -5.50 1.33 2.66 stage 2.75 gage 13 46 -4.00 -5.25 1.25 2.5 48 -3.92 -3.92 0 0 50 -3.50 -3.50 0 0 Water

52 -2.67 -2.67 0 0 Av depth 3.205161

54 -1.75 -1.75 0 0 width 62 56 -1.75 -1.75 0 0 length 2244

58 -1.50 -1.50 0 0 T1 volume 445,928

cubic feet

60 -1.42 -1.42 0 0 3,335,771 gallons 62 -0.67 -1.25 0.58 1.16 64 0.00 0.00 0 0

Av depth 3.20516129 81.8sq feet

* 2244 feet = 183,559 cubic feet

lat lon 6,798 cubic yards

28

T4 Profile data

water-sed sed-bottom sed thick sed vol

from RB 0 0 0 2 -0.83 -0.83 0 0 4 -1.33 -1.33 0 0 6 -1.75 -1.75 0 0 8 -1.75 -1.75 0 0

10 -1.83 -1.92 0.09 0.18 12 -1.92 -2.17 0.25 0.5 14 -1.67 -2.58 0.91 1.82 16 -1.58 -2.42 0.84 1.68 18 -1.58 -2.42 0.84 1.68 20 -1.67 -3 1.33 2.66 22 -1.5 -1.75 0.25 0.5 24 -1.58 -1.92 0.34 0.68 26 -1.5 -1.83 0.33 0.66 28 -1.33 -1.83 0.5 1 30 -1.25 -1.83 0.58 1.16 32 -1.08 -1.67 0.59 1.18 stage 2.5 gage 8.9 34 -1.08 -1.75 0.67 1.34 36 -1 -1.92 0.92 1.84 38 -1 -1.92 0.92 1.84 Water

40 -0.83 -1.67 0.84 1.68 Av depth 1.285217

42 -0.83 -1.83 1 2 width 46 44 -0.5 -1.83 1.33 2.66 length 2244

46 -0.17 -1.67 1.5 3 T1 volume 132,665

cubic feet

48 0 -2.25 2.25 4.5 992,405 gallons 50 0 0 0 0

Av depth 1.28521739 32.56 sq feet * 2244 feet = 73,065

2,706cubic yards

Sediment volume Estimate T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 = T total

299,237 305,902 183,559 73,065 861,763cubic feet

31,917 cubic yards or Av sq ft * 1.7 miles =

96.0075 8976 861,763 cubic feet Water Volume Estimate T1 + T2 + T3 + T4 = Total

995,678 811,071 445,928 132,665 2,385,342cubic feet 54.75992

acre feet

7,448,187 6,067,235 3,335,771 992,405 17,843,598 gallons

29

Appendix E: TWRA Fish Survey Report

30

31

32

33

34

35

Appendix F: TDEC Rapid Bioassessment of Macro-invertebrates Forest Crossing

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix F (cont): Below Dam

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51