DOCSLIB.ORG

Sickle Darter (Percina Williamsi) Species Status Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sickle Darter (Percina Williamsi) Species Status Assessment Sickle Darter (Percina williamsi) Species Status Assessment Version 1.0 Photo courtesy of Crystal Ruble, Conservation Fisheries, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee U.S Fish and Wildlife Service South Atlantic – Gulf Region Atlanta, Georgia March 2020 Draft Sickle Darter SSA This document was prepared by Dr. Michael A. Floyd, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Kentucky Ecological Services Field Office, Frankfort, Kentucky. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service greatly appreciates the assistance of Dr. Brian Alford (The Ohio State University), Todd Amacker (Todd Amacker Conservation Visuals), Bart Carter (Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA)), Luke Etchison (North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission), Brian Evans (Service – Atlanta, Georgia), Krishna Gifford (Service – Hadley, Massachusetts), Kyler Hecke (The University of Tennessee), Karen Horodysky (Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF)), Dr. Bernie Kuhajda (Tennessee Aquarium Conservation Institute (TNACI), David Matthews (Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)), Dr. Dave Neely (TNACI), Michael Pinder (VDGIF), Pat Rakes (Conservation Fisheries, Inc. (CFI)), Judith Ratcliffe (North Carolina Natural Heritage Program), Jordan Richard (Service – Virginia Field Office), Steve Roble (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation), Crystal Ruble (CFI), J.R. Shute (CFI), Jeff Simmons (TVA), Kurt Snider (Service – Tennessee Field Office), Warren Stiles (Service – Tennessee Field Office), Dr. Matthew Thomas (KDFWR), Stephanie Williams (Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)), and David Withers (TDEC), who provided helpful information and/or review of the draft document. Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Sickle Darter (Percina williamsi) Species Status Assessment, Version 1.0. March 2020. Atlanta, Georgia. 87 pp. Draft Sickle Darter SSA Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................6 Background ....................................................................................................................6 Analytical Framework ..................................................................................................6 Resiliency, Representation, Redundancy ......................................................................7 CHAPTER 2. SPECIES NEEDS AND DISTRIBUTION .................................................9 Biology and Life History ...............................................................................................9 Population Needs ........................................................................................................13 Species Needs .............................................................................................................14 Historical Range and Distribution ..............................................................................15 CHAPTER 3. FACTORS INFLUENCING VIABILITY ................................................20 Habitat Loss and Degradation ......................................................................................20 Reduced Range ...........................................................................................................25 Climate Change ...........................................................................................................27 Conservation Actions ..................................................................................................28 CHAPTER 4. CURRENT CONDITION AND SPECIES VIABILITY ..........................31 Methodology ................................................................................................................31 Habitat Elements ..........................................................................................................33 Population Elements ...................................................................................................33 Current Population Status ...........................................................................................34 Current Species Representation ..................................................................................51 Current Species Redundancy ......................................................................................52 Summary of Current Condition ..................................................................................52 CHAPTER 5. FUTURE SCENARIOS AND SPECIES VIABILITY .............................54 Scenarios ......................................................................................................................55 Summary of Future Viability ......................................................................................66 Uncertainty ..................................................................................................................67 Summary .....................................................................................................................68 LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................69 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................80 APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................82 APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................85 Draft Sickle Darter SSA 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background This species status assessment (SSA) describes the analytical process used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to assess the viability of the Sickle Darter, Percina williamsi. During this process, we evaluated the three conservation biology principles of resiliency, representation, and redundancy (or the “3Rs”) as they pertain to the species. The Sickle Darter is a small fish native to the upper Tennessee River drainage in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia. It can be distinguished from most darters by the presence of a sickle-shaped suborbital bar (curved bar below the eye) and a small black bar subtending (extending below) a medial black spot at the base of the caudal (tail) fin. It can be distinguished from its closest relative, the Longhead Darter (Percina macrocephala) by its larger scales along the side of the body and around the caudal peduncle (posterior end of the body between the dorsal and caudal fins). The species typically occupies flowing pools over rocky, sandy, or silty substrates in clear creeks or small rivers. In these habitats, the species is most commonly observed around boulders, woody debris piles, or beds of water willow (Justicia americana). The species feeds primarily on mayflies and midges. Spawning occurs in late winter (February-March), and the species has a maximum lifespan of 3- 4 years. Methodology The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages. During the first stage, we considered the Sickle Darter’s life history and used the conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation to better understand the “needs” of populations and the species to maintain viability. The next stage involved an assessment of the historical and current condition of the species’ demographics and habitat characteristics. The final stage of the SSA involved making predictions about future viability while considering the species’ responses to anthropogenic and environmental influences that are likely to occur within its range. This process used the best available information to characterize viability as the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild over time. We delineated populations of the Sickle Darter using occurrence data obtained from peer- reviewed articles, unpublished survey reports, and survey records (1888 to present) contained in agency and partner databases (i.e., CFI, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and VDGIF). Based on these sources, we identified six extant Sickle Darter populations, each of which occurs in a distinct tributary system of the upper Tennessee River. We made qualitative assessments of the current condition (viability) of each population through evaluations of components describing the species’ physical environment (Habitat Elements) or its demographics (Population Elements). Habitat elements included physical habitat, connectivity, and water quality. Population elements included reproduction, occurrence extent (total length of occupied streams compared to historical range), and occupied stream length. We further defined how each of these components might vary in terms of condition. These metrics Draft Sickle Darter SSA 2 were selected because the supporting data were consistent across the range of the species and at a resolution suitable for assessing the species at the population level. The model output was a condition score for each Sickle Darter population that was then used to assess the Sickle Darter’s current condition across its range relative to the “3 Rs” of ecology: resiliency, redundancy, and representation. The same methodology was used to assess the species’ condition and potential viability under three future scenarios. We chose to model these scenarios at
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fort Loudon / Tellico
    September 2018 FREE! WWW.TNFHG.COM - Full Color On The Web! FREE MORE FACTS, PHOTOS, AND FUN INSIDE! FREE TENNESSEE FISHING & HUNTING GUIDE 1805 Amarillo Ln Knoxville, TN 37922 865-693-7468 J.L. & Lin Stepp Publishers “Serving Tennessee Since 1990” Our E-mail: [email protected] BENTON SHOOTERS SUPPLY Send us your pictures! The Largest Shooters Supply Store In The South! ABOUT THE WWW.BENTONSHOOTERS.COM COVER 423-338-2008 Hannah and her Dad, Hwy 411, Benton, TN 37307 Mon - Sat 9am - 6pm Bobby Barnes, pose at Jerry’s Bait Shop with a big catfish caught on a HUNTING & FISHING SUPPLIES - GUNS - AMMO Saturday morning trip on ARCHEREY EQUIPMENT - SAFES Watts Bar. Summer OUTDOOR CLOTHING FOR MEN/WOMEN/CHILDREN fishing still good and Fall game hunting seasons just around the corner - it’s a great time to enjoy outdoor sports in Tennessee! Cover photo courtesy Jerry’s Bait Shop, Rockwood, TN 865-354-1225 Fish & Hunt Tennessee! Long guns and handguns: Over 2,000 guns in stock! Ammo and supplies for every shooting need. Introduce A Kid KEEP OUR TENNESSEE To Fishing! 2 LAKES CLEAN WATTS BAR LAKE 4 CORNERS MARKET Intersection of Hwys 58 & 68, Decatur, TN * Gotzza Pizza - Subs - Salad - Wings (Delicious & Best @ Prices) Call In or Carry Out * Hunting & Fishing Licenses * Live Bait & Fishing Supplies * Cigarettes - Beer - Groceries * 100% Ethanol-Free Gas (grades 87 & 93) OPEN 7 DAYS - Big Game Checking Station 423-334-9518 John Henry with a nice largemouth on Watts Bar 7/27/18. Photo Jerry’s Bait Shop. * Groceries * Deli - Take-Out * Pizza * 100% Gas - no ethanol * Live Bait * Worms * Beer * Ice * Lottery * Propane * Minnows DEER ARCHERY SEASON Sept 22 - Oct 26 Oct 29 - Nov 2 ELK (Quota Hunt) - Archery Sept 29 - Oct 6 7 Permits - 1 antlered elk / permit BLACK BEAR - Archery Sept 23 - Oct 19 John Henry caught this big smallmouth 8/9/18.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Nine Lakes
    MELTON HILL LAKE NORRIS LAKE - 809 miles of shoreline - 173 miles of shoreline FISHING: Norris Lake has over 56 species of fish and is well known for its striper fishing. There are also catches of brown Miles of Intrepid and rainbow trout, small and largemouth bass, walleye, and an abundant source of crappie. The Tennessee state record for FISHING: Predominant fish are musky, striped bass, hybrid striped bass, scenic gorges Daniel brown trout was caught in the Clinch River just below Norris Dam. Striped bass exceeding 50 pounds also lurk in the lake’s white crappie, largemouth bass, and skipjack herring. The state record saugeye and sandstone Boone was caught in 1998 at the warmwater discharge at Bull Run Steam Plant, which bluffs awaiting blazed a cool waters. Winter and summer striped bass fishing is excellent in the lower half of the lake. Walleye are stocked annually. your visit. trail West. is probably the most intensely fished section of the lake for all species. Another Nestled in the foothills of the Cumberland Mountains, about 20 miles north of Knoxville just off I-75, is Norris Lake. It extends 1 of 2 places 56 miles up the Powell River and 73 miles into the Clinch River. Since the lake is not fed by another major dam, the water productive and popular spot is on the tailwaters below the dam, but you’ll find both in the U.S. largemouths and smallmouths throughout the lake. Spring and fall crappie fishing is one where you can has the reputation of being cleaner than any other in the nation.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams
    Amencan F~sheriesSociety Symposium 37:179-193, 2003 Fish Relationships with Large Wood in Small Streams USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Department ofFisheries and Wildlife Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24060, USA USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 1000 Front Street, Oxford, Massachusetts 38655, USA Abstracf.-Many ecological processes are associated with large wood in streams, such as forming habitat critical for fish and a host of other organisms. Wood loading in streams varies with age and species of riparian vegetation, stream size, time since last disturbance, and history of land use. Changes in the landscape resulting from homesteading, agriculture, and logging have altered forest environments, which, in turn, changed the physical and biological characteristics of many streams worldwide. Wood is also important in creating refugia for fish and other aquatic species. Removing wood from streams typically results in loss of pool habitat and overall complexity as well as fewer and smaller individuals of both coldwater and warmwater fish species. The life histories of more than 85 species of fish have some association with large wood for cover, spawning (egg attachment, nest materials), and feeding. Many other aquatic organisms, such as crayfish, certain species of freshwater mus- sels, and turtles, also depend on large wood during at least part of their life cycles. Introduction Because decay rate and probability of displace- ment are a function of size, large pieces have a Large wood can profoundly influence the struc- greater influence on habitat and physical processes ture and function of aquatic habitats from head- than small pieces. In general, rootwads, branches, waters to estuaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Stability, Persistence and Habitat Associations of the Pearl Darter Percina Aurora in the Pascagoula River System, Southeastern USA
    Vol. 36: 99–109, 2018 ENDANGERED SPECIES RESEARCH Published June 13 https://doi.org/10.3354/esr00897 Endang Species Res OPENPEN ACCESSCCESS Stability, persistence and habitat associations of the pearl darter Percina aurora in the Pascagoula River System, southeastern USA Scott R. Clark1,4,*, William T. Slack2, Brian R. Kreiser1, Jacob F. Schaefer1, Mark A. Dugo3 1Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, Mississippi 39406, USA 2US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory EEA, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, USA 3Mississippi Valley State University, Department of Natural Sciences and Environmental Health, Itta Bena, Mississippi 38941, USA 4Present address: Department of Biology and Museum of Southwestern Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, USA ABSTRACT: The southeastern United States represents one of the richest collections of aquatic biodiversity worldwide; however, many of these taxa are under an increasing threat of imperil- ment, local extirpation, or extinction. The pearl darter Percina aurora is a small-bodied freshwater fish endemic to the Pearl and Pascagoula river systems of Mississippi and Louisiana (USA). The last collected specimen from the Pearl River drainage was taken in 1973, and it now appears that populations in this system are likely extirpated. This reduced the historical range of this species by approximately 50%, ultimately resulting in federal protection under the US Endangered Species Act in 2017. To better understand the current distribution and general biology of extant popula- tions, we analyzed data collected from a series of surveys conducted in the Pascagoula River drainage from 2000 to 2016. Pearl darters were captured at relatively low abundance (2.4 ± 4.0 ind.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Improving Rock Ramp Fishways for Small-Bodied
    THESIS IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES Submitted by Tyler R. Swarr Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the Degree of Master of Science Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Summer 2018 Master’s Committee: Advisor: Christopher A. Myrick Kevin R. Bestgen Brian P. Bledsoe Copyright by Tyler R. Swarr 2018 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT IMPROVING ROCK RAMP FISHWAYS FOR SMALL-BODIED GREAT PLAINS FISHES The growing global need to improve the longitudinal connectivity of lotic systems is often met by using fish passage structures (fishways). When designing fishways in the past, biologists and engineers focused primarily on strong swimming species such as salmonids. However, the majority of riverine species in the interior United States are not salmonids and may be excluded by fishways built using salmonid criteria due to lower swimming abilities and/or behavioral differences. I designed and built a 9.1-m long adjustable hydraulic research flume at the Colorado State University Foothills Fisheries Laboratory (FFL) to test fish passage and evaluate the effects of grade (slopes of 2 – 10%, in 2% increments) on the passage success of three Great Plains fish species: Flathead Chub Platygobio gracilis, Stonecat Noturus flavus, and Arkansas Darter Etheostoma cragini. A 6.1-m long rock ramp fishway was installed in the flume and four PIT tag antennas were used to detect full or partial passage success. In order to test the key assumption that tagging does not affect fish performance, I evaluated the impacts of 8-mm PIT tags on Arkansas Darter and found no significant difference in the survival and swimming abilities of PIT tagged fish versus non-tagged fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Species of Greatest Conservation Need
    APPENDIX A. VIRGINIA SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Scientific Name Tier Cons. Opp. Habitat Descriptive Habitat Notes Name Ranking Amphibians Barking Hyla gratiosa II a Forest Forests near or within The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System indicates treefrog shallow wetlands the loss suitable wetlands constitute the greatest threats to this species. DGIF recommends working to maintain or restore forested buffers surrounding occupied wetlands. These needs are consistent with action plan priorities to conserve and restore wetland habitats and associated buffers. Recently discovered populations within its known range, may indicate this species is more abundant than previously believed. An in-depth investigation into its status may warrant delisting. This species will be prioritized as Tier 2a. Amphibians Blue Ridge Desmognathus IV c Forest High elevation seeps, This species' distribution is very limited. Other than limiting dusky orestes streams, wet rock faces, logging activity in the occupied areas, no conservation salamander and riparian forests actions have been identified. Unless other threats or actions are identified, this species will be listed as Tier 4c. Amphibians Blue Ridge Eurycea III a Wetland Mountain streams and The needs of this species are consistent with priorities for two-lined wilderae adjacent riparian areas maintaining and enhancing riparian forests and aquatic salamander with mixed hardwood or habitats. This species will be listed as Tier 3a. spruce-fir forests up to 6000 feet. Amphibians Carpenter Lithobates III a Wetland Freshwater wetlands with The needs of this species are consistent with action plan frog virgatipes sphagnum moss priorities to preserve and restore aquatic and wetland habitats and water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 194
    Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Rules and Regulations 69425 the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we References Cited Regulation Promulgation readily acknowledge our responsibility Accordingly, we amend part 17, to communicate meaningfully with A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available on the subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the recognized Federal Tribes on a Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: government-to-government basis. In Internet at http://www.regulations.gov accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 and upon request from the Panama City PART 17—ENDANGERED AND of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 Responsibilities, and the Endangered Authors Species Act), we readily acknowledge continues to read as follows: our responsibilities to work directly The primary authors of this final rule Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– with tribes in developing programs for are the staff members of the Panama 1544; 4201–4245; unless otherwise noted. healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that City Ecological Services Field Office. ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an tribal lands are not subject to the same List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 entry for ‘‘Moccasinshell, Suwannee’’ to controls as Federal public lands, to the List of Endangered and Threatened remain sensitive to Indian culture, and Endangered and threatened species, Wildlife in alphabetical order under to make information available to tribes. Exports, Imports, Reporting and CLAMS to read as set forth below: The Suwannee moccasinshell is not recordkeeping requirements, § 17.11 Endangered and threatened known to occur within any tribal lands Transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • Watts Bar, Unit 2
    WATTS BAR WBNP 92 2.4 HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is located on the right bank of Chickamauga Lake at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528 with plant grade at elevation 728 MSL. The plant has been designed to have the capability for safe shutdown in floods up to the computed maximum water level, in accordance with regulatory position 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977. Determination of the maximum flood level included consideration of postulated dam failures from seismic and hydrologic causes. The maximum flood Elevation 734.9 would result from an occurrence of the probable maximum storm. Allowances for concurrent wind waves could raise lake levels to Elevation 736.2 with run up on the 4:1 slopes approaching the plant reaching about Elevation 736.9. The nearest surface water user located downstream from Watts Bar Nuclear Plant is Dayton, Tennessee, at TRM 503.8, 24.2 miles downstream. All surface water supplies withdrawn from the 58.9 mile reach of the mainstream of the Tennessee River between Watts Bar Dam (TRM 529.9) and Chickamauga Dam (TRM 471.0) are listed in Table 2.4-4. The probable minimum flow past the site is estimated to be 2000 cfs, which is more than adequate for plant water requirements. 2.4.1 Hydrological Description 2.4.1.1 Sites and Facilities The location of key plant structures and their relationship to the original site topography is shown on Figure 2.1-5. The structures which have safety-related equipment and systems are indicated on this figure and are tabulated below along with the elevation of exterior accesses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hoosier- Shawnee Ecological Assessment Area
    United States Department of Agriculture The Hoosier- Forest Service Shawnee Ecological North Central Assessment Research Station General Frank R. Thompson, III, Editor Technical Report NC-244 Thompson, Frank R., III, ed 2004. The Hoosier-Shawnee Ecological Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-244. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 267 p. This report is a scientific assessment of the characteristic composition, structure, and processes of ecosystems in the southern one-third of Illinois and Indiana and a small part of western Kentucky. It includes chapters on ecological sections and soils, water resources, forest, plants and communities, aquatic animals, terrestrial animals, forest diseases and pests, and exotic animals. The information presented provides a context for land and resource management planning on the Hoosier and Shawnee National Forests. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Key Words: crayfish, current conditions, communities, exotics, fish, forests, Hoosier National Forest, mussels, plants, Shawnee National Forest, soils, water resources, wildlife. Cover photograph: Camel Rock in Garden of the Gods Recreation Area, with Shawnee Hills and Garden of the Gods Wilderness in the back- ground, Shawnee National Forest, Illinois. Contents Preface....................................................................................................................... II North Central Research Station USDA Forest Service Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]