WATER-RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS REPORT 85-4’171 

WATER-QUALITY APPRAISAL OF NASQAN STATIONS 

BELOW IMPOUNDMENTS, EASTERN TENNESSEE 

Kentuckv Study area 

. Virainia 

North Carolina 

Mississippi Alabama 

1 I 

! Georgia 

i 

U.S. GEOLOGKAL SURVEY 
WATER-QUALITY APPRAISAL OF NASQAN STATIONS 

BELOW IMPOUNDMENTS, EASTERN TENNESSEE 

R.D. Evaldi and J.G. Lewis 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 85-4171 

Knoxville, Tennessee 

1986 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

DONALD PAUL HODEL, Secretary 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

For additional information Copies of this report can be 

write to: purchased from: 

District Chief 

U.S. Geological Survey 

A-4 13 Federal Bldg. 

Nashville, TN 37203 

Open-File Services Section 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Box 25425, Federal Center 

Lakewood, CO 80225 
CONTENTS 

Abstract 1 

Introduction 1 

Objective 2 

Basin description 2 

Location 2 

Topography 2 

Climate 2 

Population 5 

Geology 5 

Soils 6 

Land use 6 

Surface drainage 9 

Hydrologic modifications 1 1 

Quality of water data 14 

Data sources 14 

NASQAN data 14 

Trend analysis techniques 18 

Water-quality summaries and trend test results 

Water type 25 

Common constituents 

Dissolved solids 2255 

Specific conductance 25 

Hydrogen-ion activity (pH) 40 

Sulfate 4 1 

Trace constituents 4 1 

Mercury 41 

Iron 42 

Nutrients 42 

Nitrogen 42 

Phosphorus 4 2 

Organics and biological 43 

Fecal coliform bacteria 43 

Organic carbon 43 

Sediment 43 

Suspended sediment 44 

Bed material 44 

Water tern perature 4 5 

Load computations 45 

Reservoir stratification 47 

Analysis of trend procedures 48 

Summary and conclusions 48 

References cited 4 9 

19 

. . . 

111 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

Figure 1-4. Maps showing: 

1. Location of the study area and relation to physiographic provinces 3 

2. Generalized geology and cross section of the NASQAN 

accounting unit above Watts Bar Dam 4 

3. Generalized soils of the NASQAN accounting unit 

above Watts Bar Dam 7 

4. Land use and land cover of the N ASQA N 

accounting unit above Watts Bar Dam 6 

5. Graph showing July to Junecoal production 

in the 1%county study area from 1971 through 1983 9 

6. Map showing principal sub-basins and drainage networks 

of the NASQAN accounting unit above Watts Bar Dam 10 

7. Graph showing discharge and specific conductance of releases from 

Melton Hill Dam and Watts Bar Dam on September l-3, 1981 12 

8. Map showing wastewater discharge sites in the NASQAN 

accounting unit above Watts Bar Darn 13 

9. Map showing hydrologic data-collection sites in the NASQAN 

accounting unit above Watts Bar Dam 17 

10. Graphs showing specific-conductance profiles of the main-channel 

system in the NASQAN accounting unit above Watts Bar Dam 39 

11. Graph comparing estimated water temperatures from harmonic 

analyses to the average observed water temperatures at the 

Watts Bar and Melton Hill NASQAN stations 46 

TABLES 

Table 1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

Population of Tennessee and counties upstream 

of Watts Bar Reservoir in East Tennessee 5 

Average discharge of main-channel stations at and above Watts Bar Dam 9 

Flow duration of releases from Tennessee River and Clinch River Dams 1 1 

Hydrologic data stations in the study area 15 

Daily specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter at 25 OC, 

that was equaled or exceeded for the indicated percentage of time 

at the Melton Hill and Watts Bar NASQAN stations 16 

Results of trend tests of discharge and specific conductance 

obtained at daily record stations at or above Watts Bar Darn 

during the 1972-82 water years 19 

Median value of selected water-quality parameters and number 

of samples obtained at stations in the sub-basins of the study 

area during the 1972-82 water years 20 

Summaries of selected constituent values obtained in sub-basins 

above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 22 

Summary of water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel stations 

at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 26 

Summary of trace-constituent data obtained at main-channel stations 

at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 29 

iv 
Table II. Trends in water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam 32 

12. Mean values of m illiequivalent ratios expressed as percentage 

of cations (Ca+Mg+Na+K) or anions (SOq+Cl+HC03+C03) 35 

13. Trend test of percent composition data for the Watts Bar 

N ASQAN station (site T19) 35 

14. Regression statistics describing the relations between specific 

conductance and several water-quality parameters obtained 

at main-channel stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during 

the 1972-82 water years 37 

15. Regression statistics describing the relations between daily 

specific conductance obtained at the Watts Bar NASQAN station 

and instantaneous specific-conductance observations obtained 

at main-channel stations above Watts Bar Dam 40 

16. Sediment yield, accumulation, and outflow of Norris, Melton 

Hill, Fort Loudoun, and Watts Bar Reservoirs 43 

17. Mean concentrations of trace constituents in bed material samples 

obtained from streams above Watts Bar Dam during the period 1970-83 

18. Harmonic analyses of stream temperature records of Melton 

Hill Dam and Watts Bar Dam 45 

19. Load estimates of selected constituents sampled at the Watts 

Bar and Melton Hill N ASQAN stations 4 7 

20. Water-quality parameters obtained the same day above and below 

Watts Bar Dam (sites T17 and T19) 48 

44 

FACTORS FOR CONVERTING INCH-POUND UNITS TO 

INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF (SI) 

Multiply EY To obtain 

cubic foot per second 

(f t3/s) 

cubic foot per second 

per square mile 

C(f t3/s)/m i2] 

foot (ft) 

mile (mi) 

square mile (mi2) 

pound (lb) 

ton, short 

0.02832 

0.01093 

0.3048 

1.609 

2.590 

0.4536 

0.9072 

cubic meter per second 

(m3/s) 

cubic meter per second 

per square kilometer 

C(m 3/s)/km 21 

meter (m) 

kilometer (km) 

square kilometer (km2) 

kilogram (kg) 

metric ton 

Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit (“F) can be converted to degrees Celsius (“C) as 

follows: 

“C= “F- 32 

1.8 

V 
APPRAISAL OF WATER-QUALITY DATA FROM NASQAN STATIONS 

BELOW IMPOUNDMENTS, EASTERN TENNESSEE 

by Ronald D. Evaldi and James G. Lewis 

ABSTRACT 

The National Stream Quality Accounting 

Network (NASQAN) is a network of stations at 

which systematic and continuing water-quality 

data are collected. Major objectives of this U.S. 

Geological Survey program are (1) to depict area1 

variability of streamflow and iKater-quality conditions nationwide on a year-by-year basis and (2) 

to detect long-term changes in streamflow and 

stream quality. 

Several NASQAN stations in East Tennessee 

are downstream from impoundments which have a 

significant effect on water quality. NASQAN data 

obtained from the Tennessee River below Watts 

Bar Dam and the Clinch River below Melton Hill 

Dam were compared to water-quality data from 

the basins upstream. The comparison indicates 

that NASQAN data obtained below impoundments 

may not be adequate to describe a composite 

picture of water quality in the accounting unit. 

Detention time of storage in the impoundments is 

believed to moderate the range of constituent 

values observed at the N ASQAN stations. Data 

obtained upstream and downstream from Watts Bar 

Dam indicate that the water sampled at the 

NASQAN station comes from stratified layers of 

the impoundment and is not representative of an 

integrated sample of water from the impoundment. Values of total recoverable iron suggest 

that, because of adsorption to sediments in 

impoundments, some constituents are not accurately described by sampling below impoundments. 

Relations between water-quality constituents and flow at stations on the Clinch River and 

Tennessee River are not well defined due to regulation. Direct load computations for many constituents were therefore not possible, which 

diminished the utility of data from these NASQAN 

stations to account for quantity versus quality of 

the water. Load computations were only possible 

for ionic constituents through use of a continuous 

specific-conductance record as an intermediary. 

Compensation for the effects of discharge prior 

to application of the Seasonal Kendall test for 

trends could not be done and identification of 

trends in water-quality constituents caused by 

some process (source) change was not possible. 

Some water-quality trends indicated by data from 

the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers might reflect the 

decreasing trend in discharge during the 1972-82 

water years. Thus the stations below Watts Bar 

Dam and below Melton Hill Dam do not adequately 

meet the NASQAN objective to detect and assess 

long-term changes in stream quality. 

INTRODUCTION 

The National Stream Quality Accounting 

Network (NASQAN) is a network of stations at 

which systematic and continuing water-quality 

data are collected. The major objectives of this 

U.S. Geological Survey program are: 

Iill 

(2) 

(3) 

To obtain information on the quality and 

quantity of water moving within and from the 

United States through a systematic and uniform process of data collection, summarization, analysis, and reporting such that the 

data may be used for: 

Description of the area1 variability of water 

quality in the Nation’s streams through 

analysis of data from this and other programs. 

Detection of changes or trends with time in 

the pattern of occurrence of water-quality 

characteristics. 
(4) Providing a nationally consistent data base 

useful for water-quality assessments and 

hydrologic research. 

The spatial distribution of NASQAN stations 

is based on a system of hydrologic subdivisions 

developed by the U.S. Water Resources Council 

and the Geological Survey. In this system, drainage basins in the United States are divided into 21 

regions, 222 subregions, and 352 accounting units; 

the latter two divisions being progressively 

smaller parts of a region. 

However, this study was restricted, in general, 

the 2,201 mi* area above Watts Bar Dam that 

corresponds to the Area 19 hydrologic reporting 

area of the Eastern Coal province. This 2,201 

mi2 is downstream from other impoundments 

the NASQAN accounting unit. The following 

descriptive information about the study area was 

excerpted mainly from the Geological Survey 

publication “Hydrology of Area 19, Eastern Coal 

Province, Tennessee” (Gaydos and others, 1982). 

Location 

NASQAN stations generally are located at 

or near the most downstream point of accounting The study area, in eastern Tennessee, 

units. Some NASQAN sites are being operated includes parts of 15 counties (fig. I). This area 

downstream of impoundments. For example, all lies in parts of two physiographic provinces, 

NASQAN stations in East Tennessee are located Cumberland Plateau (a section of the Appalachian 

on highPy regulated streams and several are Plateau province) and the Ridge and Valley 

located immediately below dams. province. 

OBJECTIVE Topography 

The objective of this study was to describe 

the area1 variability and long-term trends in water 

quality at NASQAN stations on the Tennessee 

River below Watts Bar Dam and the Clinch River 

below Melton Hill Dam in East Tennessee. The 

NASQAN station data was compared with the 

area1 and temporal variability of water quality in 

the upstream NASQAN accounting unit. Comparison of NASQAN data obtained below an 

impoundment to water quality of the upstream 

basin will help to determine whether NASQAN 

stations located on regulated stream systems provide a composite picture of water quality within 

the accounting unit. Constituent concentrations 

which might be expected in a free-flowing stream 

may be changed due to storage in the impoundments, and samples obtained below the impoundments may not adequately describe the water 

quality of the drainage basin. 

The Cumberland Plateau, in the northwest 

part of the study area, has a genera1 altitude 

1,500 to 1,700 feet and an area of more than 

1,100 mi2. The terrain is mostly rolling hills. 

However, a line of mountains near the eastern edge 

of the Cumberland Plateau is more than 1,000 feet 

higher than the surrounding plateau, and some 

streams have incised more than 600 feet below 

the plateau surface. Separating the Cumberland 

Plateau from the Ridge and Valley is a highly 

dissected southeast-facing escarpment which 

700 to 900 feet relief in most areas. 

The Ridge and Valley, in the southeast part 

of the study area, is characterized by long ridges 

separated by valleys trending in a northeastsouthwest direction (figs. 1 and 2). These valleys 

are usually flat with a general altitude of 800 

900 feet. Intervening ridges reach altitudes 

1,000 to 1,300 feet. 

BASIN DESCRIPTION 

Climate 

The Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam is 

the outlet for all surface flow leaving the study The study area is in parts of two climatoarea. The drainage area at the streamflow- logical divisons, eastern Tennessee and 

measuring and water-sampling station on the Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam is 17,310 mi2. 

Cumberland Plateau. Mean annual precipitation 

is about 52 inches, with extremes ranging from 

2 
GRAINGER 

CAMPBELL 

, \ 

EXPLANATION 

Cumberland Plateau section of 

Appalachian Plateaus provcnce 

c 1 Ridge and Valley province 

Kentucky Study area 

, Virainia 

i Mississippi ‘I i 

I Alabama 

! 

Georgia 

0 50 100 MILES 

N--w I 

0 

N 

0 50 100 KILOMETERS 

Figure I.--Location of study area and relation to physiographic 

provinces (physiography from N. M. Fenneman, 1938) 

the 

3 
SCALE 1 750.000 

0 10 20 30 MILES 

c---t - I 

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS GRAINGER ClMWrrl’. I CAMPBELL \ 

A. 

EXPLANATION 

Pennsylvanian rocks 

r----J Pre-Pennsylvanian rocks - Fault 

.,. .Y l kz.3 :-I-. 

.-58 Karst areas 

Contain sinkholes, caves, 

and disappearing streams 

A Obed River 

Sequatchie Valley 

Anticline 

Crab Orchard 

Mountains I Wald?n Ridge 

2000’ 

1000’ 

Sea Level 

Clinch River 2000 

1000 

Sea Level 

VERTICAL EXAGGERATION X 20 

Figure Z.--Generalized geology and cross section of the NASQAN accounting unit above Watts Bar 

Dam (geology from W. D. Hardeman, 1966; karst areas from R. A. Miller and P. D. Sitterly, 1977). 
about 35 inches in dry years to about 70 inches in 

wet years (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1961). 

Average annual temperature is about 58 “F with 

extremes seldom above 100 “F or below -5 “F. 

Population 

The 1980 population of the 15 counties, in 

which the study area is located, was 699,100, or 

about 15 percent of the total population of Tennessee. This represents an increase of 26 percent 

over the 1960 population (554,900). Several 

counties had a decrease in population between 

1960 and 1970, but all showed a significant 

increase between 1970 and 1980. Distribution of 

the 1960, 1970, and 1980 population by counties is 

presented in table 1. 

Geology 

The Cumberland Plateau (fig. 2) is underlain 

by gently dipping Pennsylvanian sandstone and 

shale, some conglomerate, and coal, with a combined thickness of about 1,500 feet. These 

Pennsylvanian rocks overlie Mississippian carbonate rocks and are separated by the Pennington 

Formation of Mississippian age which is a transitional formation to the basal Pennsylvanian sandstone and shale. The Mississippian rocks are 

predominately limestone, calcareous shale, and 

siltstone with a maximum thickness of about 1,000 

feet. These rocks crop out along the escarpment 

which separates the Cumberland Plateau from the 

Ridge and Valley. Chattanooga Shale of Devonian 

age and the Rockwood Formation of Silurian age 

underlie the Mississippian rocks and crop out 

along the base of the escarpment. 

The Ridge and Valley is underlain by Ordovician and Cambrian rocks which are predominately carbonate, siltstone, shale, and some 

sandstone. Topographic relief consists of ridges 

underlain by resistant sandstone or cherty limestone, and valleys underlain by shale and soluble 

limestone. Formations within the Ridge and 

Valley have been deformed by folding and faulting 

(fig. 2). 

Table 1. --Population of Tennessee and counties upstream of Watts Bar 

Reservoir in East Tennessee 

[Source : U.S. Bureau of the Census] 

Percent Percent 

1960 

Year 

1970 1980 

change change 

1960- 70 1970- 80 

Tennessee 3,567,089 3,926,018 4,591,120 10.0 16.9 

Anderson 60,032 60,300 67,346 .4 11.6 

Bledsoe 7,811 7,643 9,478 -2.1 24.0 

Campbell 27,936 26,045 34,923 -6.7 34.1 

Cumberland 19,135 20,733 28,676 8.3 38.3 

Fent ress 13,288 12,593 14,826 -5.2 17.7 

Grainger 12,506 13,948 16,751 11.5 20.0 

Knox 250,523 276,293 319,694 10.2 15.7 

Loudon 23,757 24,266 28,553 2.1 17.6 

Mciiinn 33,662 35,462 41,878 5.3 18.0 

Meigs 5,160 5,219 7,431 1.1 42.3 

Monroe 23,316 23,475 28,700 .6 22.2 

Morgan 14,304 13,619 16,604 -4.7 21.9 

Rhea 15,863 17,202 24,235 8.4 40.8 

Roane 39,133 38,881 48,425 ii:“7 24.5 

Union 8,498 9,072 11,707 29.0 

5 
Karst topography occurs mainly in the Valley 

and Ridge section of the study area (fig. 21, and in 

the Sequatachie anticline area of the Cumberland 

Plateau. 

Soils 

Soils of the Cumberland Plateau are predominately loamy and well-drained. Their thickness ranges from less than 1 foot to as much as 5 

feet over most of the plateau. The potential for 

erosion is slight to moderate except on steep 

slopes where erosion can become severe if the 

vegetation cover is removed. 

Soils of the Ridge and Valley are predominately clayey and loamy and are well drained to 

excessively drained. Their thickness ranges from 4 

feet to more than 8 feet over most of the Ridge 

and Valley. These soils have a slight to moderate 

potential for erosion. 

The soil associations of the study area are 

shown on figure 3. Also presented on figure 3 is a 

description of the groups of soils within each soil 

association. 

Land Use 

Changes in land use may alter infiltration 

and runoff rates as well as the quality of the 

water draining from the basin. Land use and land 

cover for the study area is shown in figure 4. The 

locations of coal-mining activities are based on 

permits issued by the Tennessee Division of 

Conservation since 1972. Locations of mine sites 

abandoned prior to 1972 or unlicensed mine sites 

are unknown. 

Urban development reduces the amount of 

infiltration, increases runoff rates, and may 

adversely affect water-quality. Pollutants accumulate on urban surfaces, especially impervious 

areas which are subject to washoff by storm 

events. Automobile emissions, fertilizers applied 

to lawns, industrial effluents and many other 

pollutants are washed from the atmosphere or 

urban landscape into storm-drainage systems and 

eventually into streams. 

Forest cutting may cause long-term changes 

in streamflow and water quality. Following forest 

cutting, streamflow increases and then declines 

with the logarithm of time as the forest regrows 

(Swift and Swank, 1981). Much of the tree 

harvesting activity can lead to soil disturbance. 

This, coupled with steep terrain and storm runoff, 

makes erosion and the transport of sediment to 

surface streams highly probable. Logging activities around streams may result in debris being 

left in streams that can lead to bank erosion, 

leaching of toxic compounds, biodegradation of 

organic matter, and a general reduction in the 

dissolved oxygen level (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a). 

Agricultural activities can affect water 

quality. In a study involving rural areas of North 

Carolina, Simmons and Heath (1979) stated 

activities that most likely affect water quality 

include: 

1. The use of fertilizers and pesticides on row 

crops and pastures, 

2. Pollution from farm animals, especially cattle 

and poultry, 

3. Pollution originating from septic tanks used 

for the disposal of domestic wastes, and 

4. Exposure of the land to erosion during cultivation of fields and land clearing for buildings, 

roads, or other developments. 

The first three activities generally increase 

concentrations or densities of select water-quality 

constituents leaving a drainage basin. While the 

last activity is expected to increase concentrations of suspended sediment and constituents 

sorbed on or in some way associated with 

sediment. 

Construction and surface-mining activities, 

though not as wide-spread as agricultural activities, can yield large quantities of sediment to 

nearby waterways, causing severe adverse effects 

(EPA, 1976b). In addition to the sediment, contamination of streams draining stripmined coal 

areas generally results from overland runoff or 

ground-water seepage contacting iron-sulfur compounds or minerals and introducing deleterious 

chemicals into solution (Bevans, 1980). Annual 

coal production for the years 1971-83 of the 15 

county study area is shown in figure 5. Production 

exhibited an increasing trend from 1973 through 

1977 and a decreasing trend from 1978 into 1983. 

6 
SCALE 1 750.000 

0 10 20 30 MILES 

C---r I N 

0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS 

0 

z-ae4Y-t~’ GRAINGER 

CAMPBELL 

FENTRESS 

LOUDON 

Map reference 

number Sail association Description 

5-rHartsells-LonewoodRamsey-GIlpIn 

Moderately deep, well-dramed. loamy solIs 

from sandstone and shale 

Hartsells-RamseyGllpm 

BoutdIn-Ramsey 

Moderately deep to shallow, well-drained. 

loamy solIs from sandstone and shale 

Well-dralned, stony and loamy sOlIs with rock 

outcrops from colluvlum sandstone and shale 

Ramsey-HartselisGrlmsley-Gllpm 

Musklngum-GIlpInJefferson 

Well-dralued stony and loamy solls from 

sandstone and shale 

Well-dralned. loamy solIs from shale and 

sandstone 

Fullerton-Dewey Deep, well-dralned, cherty and clayey solIs 

from dolomite and llniestone 

Fullerton-Bodlne Deep. well-drdlned. cherly and clayey solIs 

from dolomte and llmestone 

Decatur-Dewey- Deep well-dralned. clayey solIs from 

Waynesboro alluvium nnd llrnestorle 

Waynesboro-Etowah 

Sequatchle-Allen 

Deep well-drained, clayey and loamy solIs 

front JIIUVIUITI and colluvium 

Talbott-Etowah Shallow to deep well-dralned. Llayey and 

loamy sotls with rock outcrops from shale 

and llrnestone 

6-L Wallen-TalbottMontevallo 

Shallow to moderately deep, excesswely to 

well-drdlllec stony and t:layey solIs from 

sandstone shale and llmestone 

Figure 3 --Generalized soils of the NASQAN accountjng unit above 

Watts Bar Dam (soils from ] A. Elder and M. E. Springer, 1978). 

7 

- 

- 

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 

YEAR 

Figure 5.--July to June coal production in the 15- 

county study area from 1971 through 1983. 

Surface Drainage 

Principal sub-basins and drainage networks 

of the study area are shown on figure 6. Drainage 

basins for all streams in the study area except the 

Tennessee and Clinch Rivers are contained within 

the area. The Clinch River enters the study area 

at Norris Dam and drains an area of 2,912 mi2 

at that point. The Tennessee River enters the 

study area at Fort Loudoun Dam and drains an 

area of 12,197 mi2 at that point. 

Average discharge of sub-basin streams in 

the study area is approximately 2 (ft3/s)/mi2. 

However, during dry months the minimum 

monthly flows per square mile are much lower for 

streams on the Cumberland Plateau than for 

streams in the Ridge and Valley due to differences in underlying geology. Average discharge 

of long-term gaging stations on the main-channel 

systems of the study area are given in table 2. 

Flow duration information for the four dam sites 

in the study area are presented in table 3. 

Table 2. --Average discharge of main-channel stations 

at and above Watts Bar Dam 

Average discharge 

Station Period of record (ft3/s> ((ft3/s>/mi2> 

Clinch River at 1936-64, 4,650 1.4 

Melton Hill Dam. 1967-68, 

1978- 82 

Emory River 

at Oakdale. 

1928-82 1,460 1.9 

Tennessee River 1935-39, 28,700 1.7 

at Watts Bar Dam. 1975- 82 

9 
a 

E 

d .- 

0 Z 
Table 3. --Flow duration of releases from Tennessee River and Clinch River Dams 

Flow, in cubic feet per second, equaled 

or exceeded for percentage of time indicated 

99 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1 

Clinch River at Norris Dam 1936-74 

24 74 468 1,890 2,860 3,730 4,590 5,460 6,520 8,000 19,600 

Clinch River at Melton Hill Dam 1962-1980 

1,540 2,740 3,700 4,600 5,490 6,470 7,620 9,460 22,400 

Tennessee River 10.8 miles below Fort Loudoun Dam 1941-55 

4590 9,900 12,500 14,300 15,600 16,900 18,300 19,900 22,400 28,700 61,900 

Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam 1960-80 

5900 14,100 18,000 21,100 23,800 26,300 28,700 32,000 35,900 45,900 102,000 

Hydrologic Modifications 

Many farm ponds and small recreation lakes 

are scattered throughout the study area. In 

regions where strip-mining occurs, temporary 

settling ponds were constructed at many of the 

mine sites. 

Upstream from Watts Bar Dam, the Tennessee River is regulated by several dams. These 

darns were placed into operation between 1936 and 

1963. Release patterns for these dams vary daily 

and seasonally with different uses. The impoundments are used for flood control, power generation, and recreation. A typical pattern of flow 

releases from Melton Hill and Watts Bar Reservoirs is shown in figure 7. 

Watts Bar Dam, at the outlet of the study 

basin (fig. 61, is a concrete dam with earth 

embankments. Storage began December 12, 1941. 

Total level pool capacity at an elevation of 745.00 

feet, top of the gates, is 51.2 billion f t3. 

Fort Loudoun-Tellico Dam is just upstream 

from the study area (fig. 6). Closure of Fort 

Loudoun Dam was made August 2, 1943. Closure 

of the Tellico Dam was made November 29, 1979. 

Maximum combined level-pool capacity at an elevation of 8 15.00 feet, top of the gates, is 56.1 

billion f t? The Tellicc+Fort Loudoun canal, which 

connects Tellico and Fort Loudoun Lakes, was 

opened January 19, 1980. The spillway gates of 

Tellico Dam were closed February 7, 1980, diverting all flow from the Little Tennessee River. 

Since that date the two reservoirs have been 

operated as one. Prior to November 1979, all 

streamflow in the Little Tennessee River was 

discharged into the Watts Bar Lake below Fort 

Loudoun Dam. 

Clinch River flow is regulated by Norris Dam 

just upstream of the study area and by Melton Hill 

Darn within the area (fig. 6). Closure of Norris 

Dam occurred on March 4, 1936, and the total 

capacity at an elevation of 1,034.11 feet, top of 

the gates, is 111 billion ft3. Melton Hill Dam 

was closed May 1, 1963, and the total capacity at 

an elevation of 796 feet, top of the gates, is 5.5 

billion f t3. 

The system of dams and reservoirs on the 

Clinch and Tennessee Rivers has resulted in backwater along much of the main-channel reaches of 

the study area. Backwater from Melton Hill Dam 

at normal maximum reservoir level extends about 

44 miles upstream. Backwater from Watts Bar 

Dam at normal maximum reservoir level extends 

upstream along the Tennessee River to Fort 

Loudoun Dam, upstream along the Clinch River to 

Melton Hill Dam, and to about 13.5 miles above 

the mouth of the Emory River. 

Locations of wastewater discharge sites in 

the study area as compiled by the Tennessee 

Department of Public Health (1978) are shown in 

figure 8. The degree of treatment that the 

wastewater receives prior to discharge at these 

sites has not been compiled. 

11 
U 

30,000 

t 

:‘: 

I I I 

I”::: h 

I 

W tts Bar Da 

’ 

I I 

40,000 

t 

r-l 

i I 

70,000 

d-J 

r 

\: 

LP 

KZ 

LG 250 - 

=ti 0u-l 

ZL 

Om 

UO 

cj, F$ 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 1200 2400 

;L”v L”z Sept. 1, 1981 Sept. 2, 1981 Sept. 3, 1981 

Figure 7.--Discharge and specific conductance of releases from 

Melton Hill Dam and Watts Bar Dam on September 1-3, 1981. 

12 

QUALITY OF WATER DATA 

Data Sources 

Most data collected by State and Federal 

agencies other than the U.S. Geological Survey 

and used in this report were obtained from 

STORET, the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency’s computer file. The station locations and 

principal data-collection agency for each station 

are listed in table 4 and shown on figure 9. 

NASQAN Data 

NASQAN stations are operated in the study 

area on the Clinch River at mile 23.1 (below 

Melton Hill Dam), and on the Tennessee River at 

mile 529.9 (below Watts Bar Dam), and are 

referred to as “Melton Hill” and “Watts Bar” in 

this report. Continuous observations (hourly) of 

water temperature and specific conductance were 

obtained at Watts Bar from February 1976 to 

September 1981. Continuous observations (hourly) 

of water temperature and specific conductance 

were begun at Melton Hill in March 1981 and are 

currently being collected. Hourly discharge record 

for both stations is maintained by the Tennessee 

Valley Authority. 

The NASQAN stations are sampled at relatively uniform time intervals, without consideration of streamf low. This temporal sampling 

scheme was designed to obtain water-quality data 

representative of what would be expected in a 

stream on an average day. In a natural stream 

system, this sampling pattern might be expected 

to reflect the full range of flow variability at the 

station. However, the NASQAN stations in the 

study area are not located on natural, uncontrolled stream systems. 

Instantaneous flows at the time of sample 

collection at the NASQAN stations were compared 

to the daily mean flow duration tables for those 

stations (table 3). At Melton Hill, approximately 

7 1 percent of the samples were collected during 

the upper 30 percent of the duration table, and 

approximately 16 percent were collected during 

the lower 30 percent of the duration table. At 

Watts Bar, approximately 71 percent of the 

samples were collected during the upper 30 percent of the duration table, and approximately 11 

percent were collected during the lower 30 

percent of the flowduration table. These comparisons show the streamflow data obtained at the 

time of sample collection below Melton Hill Dam 

and Watts Bar Dam are not randomly distributed. 

Duration statistics for daily specific-conductance values obtained at the two NASQAN 

stations are presented in table 5. A comparison 

was made of instantaneous specific conductance 

obtained at the time of sample collection to the 

parts of the daily specific-conductance duration 

table to which the values coincided. It was 

expected that by random sampling approximately 

25 percent of the instantaneous observations of 

specific conductance should fall in the range of 

daily specific c conductance values equaled or 

exceeded 25 percent of the time, and approximately 25 percent of the instantaneous values 

should fall below the daily specific-conductance 

value equaled or exceeded 75 percent of the 

time. At Melton Hill, approximately 11 percent of 

the instantaneous specific-conductance observations were obtained during the upper 25 percent 

of the duration table and approximately 71 percent 

were obtained during the lower 25 percent. However, the duration table of continuous specific 

conductance for Melton Hill is based on only 

years of record. At Watts Bar, which has 6 years 

of data, approximately 22 percent of the instantaneous conductance observations were obtained 

during the upper 25 percent of the duration table, 

and approximately 32 percent were obtained during 

the lower 25 percent. The specific-conductance 

duration table comparisons for Watts Bar indicates 

that the relatively uniform titne interval sampling 

scheme of the NASQAN program was effective 

obtaining randomly distributed samples. 

Discharge relations to water quality could 

not be well defined. This conclusion is supported 

by comparisons of specific conductance to discharge using the following procedures: 

(1) The relation between instantaneous discharge 

and specific conductance at the time of sample collection was obtained. 

(2) The relation between daily mean discharge 

and daily mean specific conductance for stations with continuous water-quality monitors 

was obtained. 

14 
Table 4.--Hydrologic data stations in the study area 

[Agency codes: USGS, U.S. Geological Survey; TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority; 

TN, Tennessee Department of Health and Environment; EPA, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency] 

Site Latitude Longitude Drainage River 

No. Station name Agency 0 I 11 0 I " area (mi2> mile 

Cl 

C2 

c3 

c4 

c5 

C6 

c7 

C8 

c9 

Cl1 

Cl2 

Cl3 

Cl4 

Cl5 

Cl6 

Cl7 

Cl8 

c20 

c21 

c22 

El 

E2 

E3 

E4 

Tl 

T2 

T3 

T4 

T5 

TT?6 

T8 

T9 

TlO 

Tll 

T12 

T13 

Tl.4 

Clinch River below Norris Dam USGS 36 12 56, 84'04 56 

Clinch River near Clinton USGS 36 07 22, 84 06 52 

Clinch River at Clinton USGS 36 05 45, 84 07 57 

Clinch River TUA 36 02 43, 84 12 02 

Clinch River TVA 36 02 25, 84 11 51 

Clinch River TW 36 01 47, 84 11 13 

Clinch River at Edgemoor USGS 36 01 32, 84 10 03 

Clinch River TV4 36 01 32, 84 10 03 

Clinch River TVA 36 01 00, 84 10 00 

Clinch River Tm 36 00 50, 84 09 45 

Clinch River TVA 36 59 58, 84 09 22 

Clinch River TVA 35 59 30, 84 10 26 

Clinch River at Melton Hill Dam USGS 35 53 07, 84 18 03 

Melton Hill Dam Tailrace TVA 35 53 07, 84 18 02 

Clinch River near Oak Ridge TN 35 55 16, 84 25 53 

Clinch River EPA 35 54 45, 84 26 15 

Clinch River TVA 35 53 36, 84 28 12 

Clinch River T\rA 35 53 20, 84 29 25 

Clinch River TVA 35 53 30, 84 31 25 

Clinch River TW 35 53 27, 84 31 25 

Clinch River TVA 35 53 10, 84 31 41 

Clinch River TVA 35 53 27, 84 31 25 

Clinch River at Watts Bar EPA 35 52 00, 84 31 32 

hory River at Oakdale USGS 35 58 59, 84 33 29 

Emory River TVA 35 58 59, 84 33 29 

Emory River TN 35 57 11, 84 34 35 

Einory River EPA 35 56 25, 84 29 00 

hory River T\dQ 35 54 17, 84 30 12 

Tennessee R at Fort Loudoun Dam USGS 35 47 30, 84 14 36 

Fort Loudoun Dam Tailrace TVA 35 47 30, 84 14 36 

Tennessee R above Union Carbide TN 35 43 45, 84 18 45 

Loudon Water Intake TN 35 43 57, 84 19 45 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) EDI 35 45 47, 84 20 03 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) EPA 35 51 10, 84 32 00 

Tennessee R (Hood Landing Light)TVA 35 49 56, 84 33 41 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 35 50 32, 84 36 10 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 35 49 50, 84 36 33 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 35 48 47, 84 37 08 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) 

35 48 07, 84 37 19 

TVA 35 47 21, 84 39 18 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 35 47 50, 84 39 00 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) TVA 35 48 50, 84 39 09 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) EPA 35 48 56, 84 40 30 

2,913 

2,980 

3,089 

3,343 

3,526 

764 

12,196a 

12,210 

12,470 

16,950 

78.8 

66.3 

58.8 

51.2 

50.8 

49.9 

48.6 

48.7 

48.0 

47.7 

46.6 

45.0 

23.1 

23.1 

10.0 

9.2 

5.7 

4.0 

2.6 

2.5 

2.1 

1.0 

.5 

18.3 

18.3 

14.9 

5.2 

1.9 

602.3 

602.3 

593.3 

592.3 

590.1 

568.5 

564.6 

561.9 

560.8 

559.6 

558.6 

555.7 

555.2 

553.9 

553.0 

15 
Table 4.--I-Iyd ro 1 o g ic data stations in the study area--Continued 

Site Latitude Longitude Drainage River 

No. Station name Agency O ’ ” O ’ ” area (mi’> mile 

T15 

T16 

T17 

T18 

T19 

BCl 

CA1 

CA2 

CA3 

cB1 

cc1 

cc2 

DC1 

ERl 

ER2 

ER3 

ER4 

El25 

ER6 

ER7 

ER8 

EE 

OR1 

OR2 

OR3 

PC1 

PC2 

PC3 

PRl 

FR2 

PR3 

PR4 

TRl 

TR2 

WC1 

WC2 

0 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) 

Tennessee River (Watts Bar) 

Tennessee R at Watts Bar Dam 

Watts Bar Dam Tailrace 

Bullrun Cr nr Halls Crossroads 

Bull run Creek 

Clear Creek near Andersonville 

Clear Creek at Norris 

Coal Creek at Lake City 

Beaver Creek 

White Creek at Twin Bridges 

Clear Creek near Lancing 

Daddys Creek near Hebbertsburg 

Rock Creek near Gobey 

Emory River near Wartburg 

Island Creek near Catoosa 

Crooked Fork near Wartburg 

Crooked Fork at Wartburg 

Crooked Fork Creek 4.22 

Crab Orchard near Deermont 

Emory River at Mahan Village 

Fmory River 34.52 

l%rory River at Gobey 

Flat Fork near Petros 

Obed River near Crossville 

Obed River NW of Crossvile 

Obed River at Adams Bridge 

Obed River near Lancing 

East Fork Poplar Creek 

Poplar Creek at Baily Road 

Poplar Creek near Oak Ridge 

Piney River at Spring City 

Piney River 6.8 

Piney River above Spring City 

Piney River 9.0 

Piney River 12.6 

Piney River 20.9 

Pond Creek near Adolphus 

Caney Creek 0.7 

Whites Creek at Bakers Bridge 

Piney Creek near Westel 

TVA 35 45 38, 84 40 32 548.5 

EPA 35 40 56, 84 44 52 538.0 

TVA 35 39 00, 84 47 00 532.1 

EPA 35 37 21, 84 47 00 530.0 

USGS 35 37 13, 84 47 00 17,310 529.9 

TVA 35 37 12, 84 46 59 529.9 

USGS 36 06 52, 83 59 16 68.5 16.3 

TVA 36 06 52, 83 59 16 

USGS 36 12 58, 84 03 00 

USGS 36 12 48, 84 03 38 

USGS 36 13 14, 84 09 27 24.5 

TN 36 03 31, 83 58 23 

USGS 36 10 40, 84 48 01 38.4 

USGS 36 07 18, 84 44 46 153 

USGS 35 59 53, 84 49 24 139 

USGS 36 08 02, 84 37 31 31.2 

USGS 36 06 46, 84 36 54 83.2 

USGS 36 03 10, 84 40 01 18.4 

USGS 36 05 05, 84 33 18 50.3 

USGS 36 04 56, 84 34 35 

TVA 36 04 55, 84 34 35 

USGS 36 00 40, 84 36 44 33.7 

USGS 36 10 39, 84 28 28 

TVA 36 06 47, 84 36 55 

USGS 36 08 58, 84 35 50 43.3 

USGS 36 07 35, 84 30 11 

USGS 35 58 27, 85 02 55 

TVA 35 58 28, 85 02 55 

USGS 36 03 42, 84 57 42 

USGS 36 04 53, 84 40 15 518 1.5 

USGS 35 57 58, 84 21 30 19.5 3.3 

USGS 36 01 57, 84 18 16 30.3 

USGS 35 59 55, 84 20 23 82.5 13.8 

USGS 35 41 59, 84 51 17 95.9 

TN 35 42 28, 84 51 31 

USGS 35 43 02, 84 53 08 62.3 

TN 35 42 56, 84 52 51 

TN 35 41 28, 84 54 40 

TN 35 37 20, 84 57 52 

USGS 35 42 20, 84 27 35 30.8 

TVA 35 51 19, 84 35 54 

USGS 35 47 50, 84 48 43 33.8 

USGS 35 51 14, 84 44 17 19.0 

WC3 Fall Creek near Ozone USGS 35 50 16, 84 47 56 21.1 

aPrior to November, 1979, drainage area did not include that of the Little 

Tennessee River and was 9,550 mi2. 

16 
!7 
Table 5. --ilaily specific conductance, in microsiemens per centimeter 

at 25 “C, that was equaled or exceeded for the indicated percentage 

of time at the Melton Hill and Watts Bar NASQAN stations 

Site No. of days Percentage of time 

No. Station of record 1 5 10 25 50 75 90 95 99 

Cl3 Melton Hill 547 281 272 269 262 254 240 231 219 199 

(1981-82) 

T19 Watts Bar 1792 208 200 191 177 161 150 137 130 110 

(1976-81) 

None of the regression results are considered significant. For example, the best model 

for comparison of mean daily discharge to mean 

daily specific conductance accounted for only 7 

percent of the relation variation. 

TREND ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES 

The Seasonal Kendall test is a nonparametric 

test for trend applicable to data influenced by 

seasonal variations. By use of this test the 

effects of seasonal variations of the data is 

reduced by comparing only observations from the 

same time interval of the year. 

The null hypothesis for the Seasonal Kendall 

test is that the random variable is independent 

and identically distributed. The resultant statistic 

(tau) has a value between -1 and +l. Negative 

values indicate decreasing trends, positive values 

indicate increasing trends. If no trend exists in 

the data, tau approaches zero. A significance 

probability (p-level) of the trend is computed that 

indicates the probability of erroneously rejecting 

the null hypothesis (that no trend exists). The 

Seasonal Kendall test is specifically designed to 

provide a single summary statistic for the entire 

record and will not indicate when there are trends 

in opposing directions. 

The Seasonal Kendall Slope Estimator is an 

estimate of the magnitude of the trend defined by 

the Seasonal Kendall test. For this estimate the 

data value difference divided by the period of 

time separating the data values is computed. The 

median of these differences (expressed as slopes) 

is defined to be the change per year due to the 

trend. By using the median of these individual 

slope values, the trend estimate is resistant to the 

effect of extreme values in the data. The estimate 

is also unaffected by seasonal variations in the 

data because the slopes are always computed 

between values that are multiples of 12 months 

apart (Hirsch and others, 1982). 

In many streams, some water-quality parameters are related to stream discharge. For 

example, much of the constituent loadings may be 

from point sources and any decrease in flow would 

tend to be accompanied by increases in concent ration. Another example is that of rainfall over 

an urban area that results in washoff of accumulated pollutants into receiving waters thus 

increasing concentrations of some water-quality 

constituents. Conversley, increased stream discharge may result in lower concentrations 

because of dilution. 

Compensation for the effects of discharge 

necessary in order to identify trends in waterquality constituents caused by some process 

(source) change. To minimize the effects of discharge, a time series of flow-adjusted concentrations is developed and this time series is then 

tested for trend. For this report, regression equations were developed for each water-quality 

parameter for each data collection site. 

conditional expected concentration was estimated 

for parameters having a well-defined relation 

discharge. The Seasonal Kendall trend test 

procedures were applied to the actual concentrations minus the estimated conditional expected 

concentration (residual analysis). 

18 
Some common models used for flow adjustment include the following (Crawford and others, 

1983): 

(1) C = a+bQ linear 

(2) C = a+bln(Q) 

(3) C = a+b(l/l+BQ) 

log-linear 

hyperbolic 

(4) C = a+b(l/Q) inverse 

(5) C = a+blQ+b2Q2 

(6) In C = a+blnQ 

quadratic 

(7) In C = a+blnQ+b2(lnQ)2 

log-log 

log-quadratic log 

where 

C is the expected concentration, 

Q is the discharge at the time of sampling, and 

B is a constant typically in the range 1 Oq-l ‘B 5102 q-1 

where q is the mean discharge. 

The model selected for flow adjustment is 

generally the one that explains the greatest relation variance. If the probability of rejecting the 

null hypothesis that b = 0 for the relation is high 

(greater than 0.10 for this study), then no flow 

adjustment is recommended. Note that for C 

models the residuals have the dimensions of C, but 

for In C models the residuals are dimensionless. 

Results of Seasonal Kendall tests on discharge and specific - conductance data for 

continuous-record stations in the study area are 

shown in table 6. Discharge at all continuousrecord stations in the study area shows a 

significant decreasing trend during the 1972-82 

water years. It is important to note that because 

of regulation, discharge versus water-quality relations for the Clinch River and Tennessee River 

stations in the study area are not well defined and 

no flow adjustment was possible. Therefore, the 

water-quality trends indicated in this report for 

the Clinch River and Tennessee River stations 

may only be reflective of the discharge trend 

rather than changes in the processes that affect 

the introduction and fate of a given constituent in 

the river. 

WATER-QUALITY SUMMARIES 

AND TREND TEST RESULTS 

Water-quality data obtained in the study area 

sub-basins are summarized in tables 7 and 8. 

Table 6. --Results of trend tests of discharge and specific conductance 

obtained at daily record stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during 

the 1972-82 water years 

[Nvals, the nmber of seasonal values constructed. Seasons were based on 

weekly median values. Units are the reporting units, cubic feet per second 

or microsiemens per centimeter per year] 

Site 

No. 

P Slope Water 

Station Nvals Tau level (units/yr) years 

Discharge (cubic feet per second) 

T19 Tennessee K. at Watts Bar Dam 416 -0.197 0 -860 75-82 

Cl3 Clinch R. at Melton Hill Dam 208 -.349 0 -730 79- 82 

El Ehrory River at Oakdale 572 -.123 -15 72-82 

BCl Bullrun Cr. nr Halls Crossroads 572 -.174 ii -1.0 72-82 

PC3 Poplar Cr. near Oak Ridge 572 -.193 0 -2.1 72-82 

PC1 E. Fork Poplar Creek 572 -.195 0 -.67 72-82 

OR3 Obed River near Lancing 499 -.149 0 -11 73-82 

Specific Conductance (microsiemens per centimeter at 25 “C) 

T19 Tennessee R. at Watts Bar Dam 263 .163 0.004 2.4 76-82 

Cl3 Clinch R. at Melton Hill Dan 80 -.679 .OOl -16 81- 82 

19 
Table 7. --Median value of selected water-quality 

in the sub-basins of the study 

Specific Total nitrite plus Suspended 

conductance pH nitrate nitrogen sediment 

Site No. of Median No. of No. of Median No. of Median 

No. samples fi/cm samples Median samples hg/L) samples hg/L > 

68 309 

7 220 

8 225 

8 348 

61 289 

4 27 

11 48 

8 49 

6 54 

12 54 

6 30 

6 218 

16 165 

6 98 

2 200 

16 60 

9 105 

1 34 

17 100 

11 46 

30 60 

43 340 

6 198 

59 240 

6 54 

6 44 

BCl 

CA1 

CA2 

CA3 

CBl 

cc1 

cc2 

DC1 

ERl 

E 

EK4 

RR5 

FR6 

ER7 

ER8 

ER9 

FIR10 

OR1 

OR2 

OR3 

PC1 

PC2 

PC3 

PR1 

PR2 

PR3 

FR4 

TRl 

TR2 

WC1 

WC2 

15 

7 

8 

9 

7.7 

::: 

7.8 

15 0.30 

4 6.6 

11 7.0 

8 7.2 

6 7.0 

13 6.8 

6 6.6 

6 7.0 

17 7.1 

6 5.4 

2 7.3 

17 6.9 

9 6.9 

1 8.0 

18 6.9 

11 5.8 

1 .16 

90 .23 

1 .06 

1 .04 

1 .44 

1 .16 

12 .08 

1 .08 

20 

1 

4 

38 

55 

15 .25 

1 .08 

8 

3 

10 

7 

5 

4 

4 

5 

16 .08 

1 .04 8 7 

15 .61 

11 .25 

272 

191 

29 

50 

6. 

23 

7 

7 

1 

1 

77:: 

7.0 

6.6 

6.3 

5.5 

.ll 

.53 

.12 

.06 

.Ol 

.ll 

5 20 

23 31 

5 3 

5 14 

6 7.8 6 .30 

9 6.9 1 .03 

6 6.9 1 .12 

8 3 

5 8 

WC3 74 6 7.3 1 .06 5 14 

20 
parameters and number of samples obtained at stations 

area during the 1972-82 water years 

'Total iron Dissolved sulfate Dissolved solids 

No. of Median No. of Median No. of Median 

samples tug/L) samples (mg/L) samples (mg/L) 

15 

7 

8 

9; 

4 

ii 

6 

12 

6 

6 

16 

6 

440 

40 

35 

510 

1300 

390 

200 

755 

880 

525 

240 

560 

410 

480 

16 560 

8 470 

15 360 

11 350 

6 

21 

7' 

1 

1 

565 

570 

150 

250 

180 

400 

465 

200 

215 

390 6 8.2 1 85 

15 10 

7 2.9 

8 3.0 

9 84 

91 12 

4 4.0 

9 7.3 

8 5.8 

6 7.4 

12 15 

-6 7.7 

6 72 

16 49 

6 34 

2 72 

16 16 

9 30 

1 7.6 

17 10 

10 7.0 

6 48 

22 39 

6 7.8 

6 7.2 

9 5.2 4 20 

6 5.7 1 64 

12 180 

7 127 

8 124 

4 258 

1 43 

5 33 

1 79 

1 88 

12 40 

1 26 

1 259 

16 110 

1 337 

2 101 

16 45 

4 68 

1 46 

12 55 

11 30 

25 

1 

1 

226 

146 

56 

39 

21 
Table 8. --Summaries of selected constituent values obtained in sub-basins 

above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

Sub-basin 

Number of Standard 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation 

Dissolved solids, residue at 180 OC (mg/L) 

Cl inch River 19 85 270 131 146 58 

above Bull run Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Iinory River 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

12 

24 

: 

23 

67 

6 

2 

160 210 180 182 18 

69 226 157 154 48 

79 

25 46 34 36 7.7 

20 180 40 59 42 

20 337 80 90 67 

18 85 26 40 28 

39 56 

Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter at 25 “C 

Clinch River 23 115 580 230 250 110 

above Bullrun Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed Rivera 

Fmory River 

Cl inch River 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

Clinch River 

above Bullrun Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Fmory River 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

80 17 400 310 291 

108 80 480 268 267 

8 36 130 49 70 

15 22 67 48 45 

68 36 350 69 98 

92 20 695 108 130 

61 4 379 289 282 

21 26 195 41 61 46 

12 26 120 46 

14 2;; 

32 

25 310 222 72 

pH (standard units) 

24 6.8 8.7 

27 7.0 8.1 7.7 

29 5.8 8.1 7.5 

8 6.6 7.8 7.2 

15 6.1 7.5 6.9 

40 5.1 7.9 6.8 

96 4.0 8.3 6.9 

21 6.3 7.9 6.9 

16 5.3 8.1 6.6 

6 7.4 8.3 7.8 

7.6 

8’: 

39 

15 

81 

110 

49 

22 
Table 8. --Summaries of selected constituent values obtained in sub-basins 

above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years--Continued 

Sub-basin 

Number of Standard 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation 

Cl inch River 

above Bull run Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Emory River 

Cl inch River 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SOS) 

24 2.0 130 3.5 

27 1.0 16 10 9.3 

28 21 88 40 42 

8 5.0 5 8 6.2 

13 2.9 9”:; 5:7 6.1 

37 5.0 32 8.0 9.8 

92 210 

91 E 43 

24 49 

12 13 

21 4.1 13 5.6 6.5 2.4 

12 4.8 13 7.4 8.3 3.2 

Clinch River 

Iron, total recoverable (pg/L as Fe) 

24 10 44.000 45 

above Bullrun Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Emory River 

Cl inch River 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

27 130 1,600 440 652 450 

27 220 12,000 570 1900 3200 

8 180 3,400 755 1100 1100 

13 50 950 260 308 240 

36 150 2,000 368 478 410 

88 80 10,000 495 999 1900 

91 150 3,900 1300 1360 750 

21 60 3,400 200 454 720 

16 100 7,400 215 910 2000 

3 305 670 465 480 180 

Clinch River 

Nitrogen, total NO2 + NO3 (mg/L as N) 

1 0.16 

above Bullrun Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Eh~ory River 

Cl inch River 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

27 

3 

; 

io” 

90 

3 .03 

6 .Ol 

6 .O8 

0.01 

.ll 

.04 

.05 

.Ol 

.Ol 

31 41 

4.6 

17 

1.2 

2.2 

5.0 

56 

6.9 

2150 8900 

.61 0.30 0.29 

.58 .48 .39 

.44 

.06 

5.6 .42 .95 

5.2 .14 .36 

.87 .23 .24 

.12 .06 .07 

.23 .06 .08 

.73 .30 .33 

0.1s 

.25 

1.3 

.94 

.15 

.05 

.09 

.25 

23 
Table 8. --Summaries of selected constituent values obtained in sub-basins 

above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years--Continued 

Sub-basin 

Number of Standard 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation 

Cl inch River 

above Bull run Cr. 

Bullrun Creek 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Clear Creek 

Obed River 

Emory River 

Cl inch River 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 

1 0.05 

27 0.01 0.11 0.03 0.03 0.02 

3 .02 .33 .08 .14 .16 

1 .Ol 

2 .Ol .02 

36 .Ol 4.0 .13 .91 1.3 

60 .Ol .lO .02 .02 .02 

90 .Ol .93 .07 . 10 .ll 

3 .Ol .Ol .Ol 

6 .Ol .04 .02 .02 .Ol 

6 .02 .04 .02 .02 .Ol 

Fecal coliform, 0.45 pm-MF (colonies/100 mLj 

Bull run Creek 5 20 630 250 

Obed River 

hory River 

Tennessee River 

below Fort Loudoun 

29 10 1200 200 

31 10 670 60 

3 10 30 10 

Organic carbon, total (mgli as C) 

Glory River 8 1.0 7.2 2.7 3.3 2.6 

Cl inch River 83 1.0 19 5.0 5.7 4.5 

below Bullrun Cr. 

Tennessee River 3 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.1 .25 

below Fort Loudoun 

Clinch River 

above Bullrun Cr. 

Poplar Creek 

Daddys Creek 

Cl ear Creek 

Obed River 

6not-y River 

Whites Creek 

Piney River 

Suspended sediment (mg/L) 

8 2.0 2170 20 

28 2.0 685 28 66 130 

7 3.0 379 38 113 150 

2’: 

1.0 17 3.0 5 5.6 

13 60 26 27 14 

26 1.0 569 9.5 54 120 

18 1.0 187 6.5 22 44 

10 1.0 709 8.5 112 230 

294 760 

aIncludes summary of data obtained at Obed River mile 1.5 (Map 

No. OR3, table 4) which is located below confluence with the Daddys 

Creek and Clear Creek sub-basins. 

24 
Long-term data were generally unavailable at 

specific stations in the sub-basins to define trends; 

therefore, trend test results are not presented. 

Water-quality data obtained at mainchannel stations at or above the Watts Bar NASQAN station 

are summarized in table 9 for selected constituents. Trace constituents obtained at mainchannel stations at or above Watts Bar are summarized in table 10. Water-quality data obtained 

at main-channel stations at or above Watts Bar 

Dam were tested for trend using the Seasonal 

Kendall test and the results are presented in table 

11. Trend tests were applied to data unadjusted 

for the effects of flow for all stations, and also to 

flow adjusted concentrations for the Emory Kiver 

station at mile 18.3 (site E 1). 

Water Type 

Water can be classified on the basis of the 

predominant inorganic constituents, and the relation between concentrations of constituents helps 

describe sirnilarities and differences in water quality. Major constituent percent composition of 

water from main-channel stations and sub-basins 

of the study area are given in table 12. Water 

from both the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers is 

classified as a calcium bicarbonate type, but water 

from the Emory River is a calcium sulfate 

bicarbonate type which is believed to be a result 

of coal-mining activities on the Cumberland 

Pleateau. 

The Seasonal Kendall test was applied to the 

percent composition data for Watts Bar and the 

results are shown in table 13. The percentage of 

individual constituents of the total cations or 

anions (in milliequivalents) was calculated. Slopes 

generated by the Seasonal Kendall tests are estimates of the change in percent composition (unitless) per year. Results of the trend tests based on 

percentage composition cannot estimate increases 

or decreases in specific constituent concentrations, but rather indicate the proportional change 

of water type over time. The following changes 

in the water from Watts Bar can be estimated 

using the percentage of composition from table 

12, and the slope estimates from table 13: 

Katio 

Change per year 

expressed as percent 

of mean ratio 

Ca / Cations - 0.6 

Mg / Cations + .8 

(Na t K) / Cations + 1.7 

SO4 / Anions + 4.8 

Cl / Anions + 6.3 

(HC03 t CO31 / Anions - 2.6 

Common Constituents 

Dissolved solids 

Values of median dissolved solids for stations 

in the Ridge and Valley physiographic province are 

generally higher than those for stations on the 

Cumberland Plateau (table 7). Two major sources 

of dissolved solids are indicated in the study area; 

dissolved calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate 

from dissolution of the carbonate rocks of the 

Ridge and Valley, and dissolved sulfate resultant 

from mining activities of the Cumberland Plateau. 

In general, concentrations of dissolved solids 

in streams of the study area show an increasing 

trend, at least in the Clinch and Emory River 

basins (table 11). No significant trend is evident 

in dissolved-solids concentrations in the Tennessee 

River as flow enters the study area at Fort 

Loudoun Dam, but an increasing trend is indicated 

at Watts Bar Dam. An increasing trend of dissolved solids is indicated on the Clinch River at 

mile 78.8 as it enters the study area at Norris 

Dam, and at mile 23.1 below Melton Hill Dam. 

However, data on the Clinch River at miles 66.3 

and 48.6, although indicating the possibility of an 

increasing trend, are not considered to define a 

significant trend. Data on the Emory River at 

mile 18.3 indicate an increasing trend in dissolved 

solids. 

Specific conductance 

Specific conductance is a measure of the 

ability of water to conduct an electrical current 

and is related to the quantity and types of ionized 

substances in water. Specific conductance can be 

25 
Table 9. --Summary of water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

[Estimated median, value estimated from specific-conductance regressions using the median 

value of continuous conductance record for the Tennessee River at mile 529.9 (site Tl9)J 

Site 

No. Station 

Number of Standard Estimated 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation median 

Tl 

Tl!? 

cc; 

c7 

Cl3 

El 

i 1 

E 

T8 

Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter at 25 OC) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 63 140 270 200 195 28 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 54 101 230 160 159 26 

Tennessee River at mile 560.8 14 125 250 167 169 32 

Dissolved solids, residue at 180 OC (mg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 142 90 230 120 119 16 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 104 60 180 95 17 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 50 100 250 132 20 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 33 60 160 130 130 20 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 79 60 170 130 130 17 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 10 190 140 135 22 

Einory River at mile 18.3 20 192 40 50 28 

Tll Tennessee River at mile 555.7 14 113 260 

Tl.3 Tennessee River at mile 553.9 14 126 260 

Tl5 Tennessee River at mile 548.5 14 125 260 

Tl7 Tennessee River at mile 532.1 12 154 251 

Tl9 Tennessee River at mile 529.9 127 97 320 

Cl Clinch River at mile 78.8 54 160 440 

C2 Clinch River at mile 66.3 38 200 270 

C3 Clinch River at mile 58.8 11 210 250 

C7 Clinch River at mile 48.6 84 94 310 

Cl3 Clinch River at mile 23.1 86 156 290 

Cl4 Clinch River at mile 10.0 54 173 370 

El Hnory River at mile 18.3 105 37 305 

E2 Emory River at mile 14.9 58 18 360 

Tl Tennessee River at mile 602.3 63 

pH (standard units) 

6.2 8.0 

T17 Tennessee River at mile 532.1 12 7.3 8.2 

T19 Tennessee River at mile 529.9 123 6.0 8.9 

Cl Clinch River at mile 78.8 54 6.5 .8. 1 

C2 Clinch River at mile 66.3 38 6.4 8.6 

C7 Clinch River at mile 48.6 72 6.4 8.6 

Cl3 Clinch River at mile 23.1 88 6.8 8.6 

El &nory River at mile 18.3 76 4.9 8.5 

167 169 

171 173 

170 173 

178 179 

160 162 

230 229 

220 222 

230 227 

220 221 

235 232 

247 246 

60 79 

60 78 

7.4 

7.6 

7.5 

7.6 

7.7 

7.6 

7.7 

6.8 

36 

34 

35 

26 

28 

36 

16 

13 

30 

25 

33 

43 

50 

117 

96 

135 

50 

196 

164 

161 

233 

248 

77 

82 

7.4 

6.7 

26 
liable 9. --Sunnary of water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel stations 

at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years--Continued 

Site 

NO. Station 

Number of Standard Estimated 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation median 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

z3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Tl 

T3 

T17 

Tl9 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

Dissolved sulfate (mg/L as SOlt) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 150 2.0 37 18 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 110 3.0 61 11 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 110 3.0 20 13 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 51 7.0 25 18 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 33 14 32 16 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 67 11 40 17 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 81 4.0 24 17 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 56 4.0 68 17 

Emory River at mile 18.3 71 3.0 86 13 

Ek~ory River at mile 14.9 88 7.0 35 12 

Iron, total recoverable (pg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 141 50 1900 390 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 111 70 3800 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 76 70 2500 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 48 10 840 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 37 10 1600 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 20 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 :; 80 

8600 

1000 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 56 25 2600 

l%nory River at mile 18.3 66 50 3700 

Glory River at mile 14.9 89 70 2800 

600 

322 

80 

90 

290 

290 

400 

245 

390 

17 4.1 16 

12 8.2 9.5 

13 2.6 13 

18 3.3 

18 4.3 

17 4.8 

17 3.9 17 

20 11 

17 12 17 

14 6.5 .13 

446 245 

758 658 

415 338 

136 158 

285 413 

457 974 

356 221 

550 553 

398 519 

633 587 

Nitrogen, total NO2 + NO3 (mg/L as N) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 148 0.28 6.2 0.49 0.60 0.58 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 102 

Tennessee River at mile 532.1 10 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 107 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 38 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 21 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 67 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 80 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 99 

Emory River at mile 18.3 54 

E2 Emory River at mile 14.9 

.03 

.06 

.ll 

.19 

.19 

.12 

.09 

.Ol 

.Ol 

1.1 .44 .44 .16 

.55 .25 .29 .15 

.68 .35 .36 .12 

1.1 .51 .54 .24 

.72 .46 .47 .17 

1.1 .50 .48 .18 

1”:; 

.52 .56 .47 

.42 .44 .27 

.39 .14 .15 .lO 0.14 

89 .Ol .89 .15 .20 .16 .14 

27 
liable 9. --Summary of water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel stations 

at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years--Continued 

Site 

No . Station 

Number of Standard Estimated 

samples Minimum Maximum Median Mean deviation median 

Tl Tennessee River at mile 602.3 151 

T3 Tennessee River at mile 592.3 109 

T17 Tennessee River at mile 532.1 9 

T19 Tennessee River at mile 529.9 114 

Cl CIinch River at mile 78.8 38 

c2 Clinch River at mile 66.3 19 

C7 Clinch River at mile 48.6 64 

Cl3 Clinch River at mile 23.1 86 

Cl4 Clinch River at mile 10.0 109 

El Emory River at mile 18.3 54 

E2 &ory River at mile 14.9 89 

total 

0.01 

.Ol 

.02 

.Ol 

.Ol 

.Ol 

.Ol 

.Ol 

(mg/L as P> 

0.11 0.04 

.Ol 

.Ol 

.30 .07 

.04 .02 

.27 .03 

.04 .Ol 

.05 .02 

.41 .02 

1.0 .02 

.99 .05 

.07 .Ol 

1.0 .05 

0.05 0.01 

.08 .06 

.03 .Ol 

’ .03 .02 

.Ol .Ol 

.02 .Ol 

.03 .05 

.03 .ll 0.03 

.09 .12 

.02 .Ol 

.09 .12 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c7 

Cl3 

El 

Fecal colifonn, 0.45 um-MF (colonies/100 mL) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 15 10 340 10 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 27 6.0 13,000 55 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 32 1.0 100 10 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 5 10 10 10 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 6 10 160 10 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 256 10 10 10 

Einory River at mile 18.3 10 210 10 

Tl 

T2 

T17 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Organic Carbon, total (mg/L as C) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 30 1.5 4.2 3.0 2.9 

Tennessee River at mile 593.3 100 

Tennessee River at mile 532.1 10 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 46 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 20 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 31 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 37 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 35 

Emory River at mile 18.3 30 

Emory River at mile 14.9 84 

0 

::i 

.4 

1.0 

.4 

.3 

0 

.4 

1.0 

24 4.0 4.8 

4.1 

12 

-3.6 

2.1 

13 

7.6 

35 

4.2 

14 

2.2 2.4 

2.4 3.2 

1.9 1.9 

1.6 

1.7 2.0 

2.1 2.4 

6.0 7.4 

1.6 1.8 

2.8 3.6 

0.71 

4.0 

.72 

2.1 

0.95 

2.1 

1.4 

6.7 

.77 

3.2 

119 

Cl3 

Suspended sediment .(mg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 78 1.0 43 8.0 9.4 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 30 2.0 19 8.0 8.4 

- -_ _^ _^ 

6.8 

4.4 

El 13nory River at mile 18.3 23 1.0 194 6.0 18 40 

Phosphorus, 

28 
Table 10. --Summary of trace-constituent data obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

Site 

No. Station 

Number of Date of 

samples Minimum Median Maximum maximum 

T19 

Cl3 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

T19 

Cl3 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

c”; 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

T19 

Cl3 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Arsenic, dissolved (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 < 1 < 1 3 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 <l 1 2 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 58 

Arsenic, total recoverable (pg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 17 

<l <l 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 47 

< 2 

<l <2 

< 5 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 6 <2 <5 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 <2 <2 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 

Es 

<2 <4 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 <l <5 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 64 <l <l 

Emory River at mile 18.3 17 1 <5 

Emory River at mile 14.9 62 <l (1 

< 20 

< 10 

< 10 

<5 

<2 

9 4- 5-77 

6 6-18-75 

25 lo- 4-76 

7 8-12-75 

4 9- l-74 

Cadmium, dissolved (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 ND ND 3 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 ND <2 5 

Cadmium, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 123 < 2 < 2 15 11-11-74 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 85 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 49 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 23 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 35 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 38 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 65 

Emory River at mile 18.3 34 

Emory River at mile 14.9 89 

<2 <2 

ND <2 

t2 <2 

<2 <2 

<2 t2 

ND <2 

t2 <2 

ND <2 

ND <2 

240 8- 9-72 

10 8- 5-75 

<2 

<2 

<2 

4 3-12-74 

20 5-18-77 

<2 

3 ll- l-77 

Chromium, dissolved (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 ND 6 40 12- 3-79 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 < 20 < 20 20 

Chromium, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 16 < 5 < 5 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 84 

Tennessee River,at mile 529.9 47 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 6 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 3: 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 29 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 64 

Dnory River at mile 18.3 17 

Fmory River at mile 14.9 84 

<2 <2 

<2 8 

<5 <5 

<5 (5 

K5 <5 

t5 <5 

<2 <2 

<5 <5 

<2 <2 

<5 

5 

40 12- 3-79 

14 7-19-76 

<5 

51 3- 7-78 

30 7-lo- 79 

< 40 

36 8- 9-76 

21 9- l-80 

29 
Table 10. --Summary of trace-constituent data obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

--Continued 

Site 

NO. Station 

Number of Date of 

samples Minkmum Median Maximum maximum 

T19 

Cl3 

Cobalt, dissolved (pg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 ND ND 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 ND t2 

11 

T19 

Cl3 

El 

Cobalt, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 2 ( 5 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 27 ND ~2 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 15 ND (2 

Emory River at mile 18.3 2 <5 

Copper, dissolved (ug/L) 

119 Tennessee River at mile 529.9 30 ND 2 

Cl3 Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 ND (2 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

C2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Copper, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 125 < 20 < 20 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 85 2 117 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 49 ND < 20 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 23 < 20 < 20 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 20 600 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 37 < 20 45 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 39 < 2 12 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 65 < 20 < 20 

l%rory River at mile 18.3 34 5 < 20 

Emory River at mile 14.9 89 13 239 

T19 

Cl3 

Lead, dissolved (ug/L> 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 30 ND 2 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 ND <2 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Lead, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 123 < 2 < 10 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 86 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 48 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 23 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 35 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 39 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 66 

lkory River at mile 18.3 34 

Jkory River at mile 14.9 89 

<5 

ND 

< 10 

< 10 

< 10 

ND 

<2 

2 

<5 

10 

< 10 

< 10 

21 

< 10 

< 10 

< 10 

< 10 

< 10 

Tl 

T19 

Cl 

Cl3 

El 

Manganese, dissolved (vg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 13 < 10 20 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 48 < 10 < 10 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 8 < 10 35 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 18 ND 2 

Emory River at mile 18.3 71 < 10 50 

30 

3 

2 

<5 

<5 

<5 

(5 

5 l-29-75 

8 9- 4-80 

840 9-27-74 

1350 4- l-80 

470 5-23-78 

140 ll- 20- 78 

5400 4-28-77 

220 1-15-74 

80 5-15-78 

20 8- 9-72 

40 ll- 8-76 

1850 9- l-74 

4” 

60 

90 

72 

25 

27 

19 

33 

100 

22 

10 

50 

75 

410 

40 

140 

6-13-77 

6-22-81 

4-18-73 

8- 9-72 

2- 4-75 

3-15-77 

ll- 2-76 

3-11-75 

8- 9-72 

5- 6-75 

4-18-73 

8- 4-76 

11-19-80 

ll- 6-74 
Table 10. --Summary of trace-constituent data obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

- -Continued 

Site 

No. Station 

Number of Date of 

samples Minimum Median Maximum maximum 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

C2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

‘II9 

Cl3 

Tl 

T3 

T19 7 

:; 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

‘II9 

Cl3 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

Manganese, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 141 20 50 330 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 111 <1 67 390 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 75 c 10 50 280 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 31 < 10 20 500 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 20 c 10 40 370 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 60 c 10 60 450 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 67 < 10 40 130 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 56 <5 60 280 

Tory River at mile 18.3 65 20 60 920 

Emory River at mile 14.9 89 33 79 1350 

Mercury, dissolved (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 ( .l < .5 .5 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 c.1 <.l .5 

Mercury total recoverable (pg/L) 

Tennessee Kiver at mile 662.3 120 < .2 < .2 7.6 3-12-74 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 7 < .2 < .2 < .5 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 49 < .l < .2 .9 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 23 < .2 < .2 2.2 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 < .2 < .5 < .5 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 34 < .2 < .2 < .5 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 38 <.l <.2 9.1 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 64 < .2 < .2 (1.0 

Tory River at mile 18.3 33 .l < .2 1.4 

Zinc, dissolved (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 31 ND <4 40 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 14 ND <4 30 

Zinc, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 126 < 20 < 20 150 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 85 4 17 130 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 49 < 20 20 160 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 23 < 20 40 150 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 3 50 80 200 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 35 < 20 70 150 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 39 9 20 90 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 11 <2 < 20 63 

Emory River at mile 18.3 34 c 20 20 90 - 

11-16-76 

5- 1-81 

ll- 7-78 

lo-18- 76 

g-11- 74 

4- 5-77 

8-16-76 

l-10- 77 

8- 3-77 

8- l-74 

5-15-74 

l-21-80 

4-23-74 

5-13-74 

5- 5-76 

3- 5-80 

l-27-75 

8- 9-72 

5-23-78 

6-12-77 

12- 7-76 

7-ll- 78 

6-18-74 

5-30-79 

5- 4-77 

E2 Emory River at mile 14.9 89 < 2 14 112 6- l-79 

31 
Table 11. --Trends in water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam 

[,Flow adjustment equation used: HYP, hyperbolic; INV, inverse; QJU, quadratic; LOG, 

logarithmic; NST indicates no significant trend at the 90 percent confidence 

interval; a, Units means the individual constituent reporting units; for example 

milligrams per liter. 

slope is unitless] 

However, if a logarithmic flow adjustment equation is used the 

Site 

No. Station 

P Slope Water 

Nvals Tau level (units/yr)a Notes years 

Tl 

Tl9 

E’z 

c7 

Cl3 

El 

Tl 

T3 

Tl9 

Cl 

C2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Tl 

T-l9 

Cl 

C2 

c7 

Cl3 

El 

Tl 

T3 

E” 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Dissolved solids, residue at 180 OC (mg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 49 -0.122 0.426 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 86 .216 .019 1.42 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 50 .411 .003 1.16 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 33 .094 .751 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 68 .121 .272 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 66 .382 .OOl 2.68 

Emory River at mile 18.3 63 .383 . 001 2.83 

62 ,328 .005 2.82 

NST 74-80 

74-82 

72-80 

NST 72-77 

NST 72-78 

74-82 

74-81 

INV 74-81 

Specific conductance (microsiemens per centimeter at 25 “C) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 58 - .222 .077 -2.00 72-80 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 52 .152 .280 NST 75-81 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 92 .270 .002 1.67 73-82 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 54 .233 .072 .33 72-80 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 38 ,395 .026 5.00 72-77 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 72 .187 .070 2.50 72-79 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 76 .227 .023 2.33 73-82 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 53 - .129 .363 NST 77-82 

Emory River at mile 18.3 81 .407 .ooo 3.46 73-82 

79 .444 . 000 3.27 HYP 73-82 

Emory River at mile 14.9 56 .171 .189 NST 74-81 

pH (standard units) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 58 .060 .668 NST 72-80 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 90 - ,046 .625 NST 73-82 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 54 .046 .772 NST 72-80 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 38 - .047 .887 NST 72-77 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 60 .117 .348 NST 72-79 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 77 .091 .375 NST 73-82 

Ekrory River at mile 18.3 69 .0512 0 74-81 

Dissolved sulfate (mg/L as SOhI 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 57 - .036 .827 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 104 - .156 .050 -0.33 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 90 .234 .008 .20 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 

3”: 

.457 .OOl .50 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 .o 1.000 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 61 .271 .020 .50 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 71 .508 . 000 .86 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 56 - .179 .168 

Iinory River at mile 18.3 65 .467 . 000 .88 

63 .307 .008 .65 

Iinory River at mile 14.9 84 .052 ,583 

32 

NST 72-80 

72-82 

73-82 

72-80 

NST 72-77 

72-78 

73-82 

NST 72-77 

73-81 

LOG 73-81 

NST 74-82 
Table 11. --Trends in water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam--Continued 

Site 

No. Station 

P Slope Water 

Nvals Tau level (units/yr) Notes years 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c2 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

Iron, total recoverable (ug/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 48 -0.346 0.019 -56.7 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 104 -.258 .OOl -35.0 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 70 -.500 . 000 -34.6 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 48 .545 .ooo 20.0 

Clinch River at mile 66.3 37 .714 . 000 40.0 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 73 .267 .OlO 32.5 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 64 -. 269 .018 -22.0 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 56 -.151 .255 

Emory River at mile 18.3 65 -.093 .436 

63 -.163 .171 

72- 79 

72-82 

73-82 

72- 79 

72-77 

72-79 

73-82 

NST 72-77 

NST 73-81 

NST UQD 73-81 

E2 Emory River at mile 14.9 84 .366 -80.0 - 74-82 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Nitrogen, total NO:! + No3 (mg/L as N) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 55 -.095 .496 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 96 .009 .945 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 85 -.253 .006 -.Ol 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 38 .319 .082 .04 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 55 .297 .023 .03 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 70 -.136 .209 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 98 -.126 .134 

Emory River at mile 18.3 53 .216 .108 

Iinory River at mile 14.9 84 ,547 0 .03 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

73-80 

73-82 

73-82 

75-80 

74-79 

73-81 

73-82 

73-80 

74-82 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

:'7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 58 -.333 .007 .002 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 103 -.254 .OOl -.005 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 91 .OlO .940 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 38 .213 .215 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 53 .o 1.000 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 76 .O 1.000 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 108 .103 .187 

13-nor-y River at mile 18.3 53 .175 .176 

Emory River at mile 14.9 85 .150 .006 -.007 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

72-80 

72-82 

73-82 

75-80 

74- 79 

73-82 

72-82 

73-80 

74-82 

T3 

Tl9 

El 

Fecal coliform, 0.45 um-MF (colonies/100 mL) 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 27 -.368 .197 NST 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 26 -.080 .860 wr 

Einory River at mile 18.3 26 .174 .551 NST 

72-82 

72-82 

73-82 

24 .053 1.000 NST Q4i) 73-82 

33 
Table 11. --’ Trends in water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam--Continued 

Tite 

No. -- Station 

P Slope Water 

Nvals Tau level (units/yr> Notes years 

Tl 

T3 

T19 

Cl 

c7 

Cl3 

Cl4 

El 

E2 

T19 

Cl3 

El 

Organic carbon, total (mg/L as C> 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 30 0.351 0.110 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 95 -.219 .OlO -0.33 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 41 .198 .201 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 20 .333 .359 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 28 0 1.000 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 34 .104 .640 

Clinch River at mile 10.0 35 .073 .789 

Emory River at mile 18.3 30 .095 .706 

hory River at mile 14.9 80 -.121 .198 

Suspended sediment (mg/L) 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 74 -.175 .087 - .33 

Clinch River at mile 23.1 24 -.550 .043 -1.88 

Emory River at mile 18.3 22 -.833 .014 -8.00 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

NST 

74- 80 

72- 82 

73- 82 

75-80 

74- 78 

73- 82 

72-77 

73-80 

74- 82 

72-82 

72-82 

73- 82 

22 -.167 .784 NST Q&D 73-82 

34 
Table 12. --Mean values of milliequivalent ratios expressed as percent 

of cations (Ca + Mg + Na + K) or anions (SO4 + Cl + HcO3 + 03) 

Site 

No. Station 

Tl Tennessee River at mile 602.3 

Ca Mg Na+K SO,, Cl HcO,+CO, 

21 17 62 

T19 Tennessee River at mile 529.9 60 23 17 18 11 71 

Cl Clinch River at mile 78.8 65 29 6 15 4 82 

C2 Clinch River at mile 66.3 64 29 6 16 4 80 

C7 Clinch River at mile 48.6 64 29 6 16 4 80 

Cl3 Clinch River at mile 23.1 64 28 8 15 5 80 

El Emory River at mile 18.3 53 28 19 46 21 33 

Sub-basin 

Clinch River above Bullrun Cr 59 36 5 3 3 94 

Poplar Creek 59 32 10 

Daddys Creek 66 11 23 

Clear Creek 48 19 33 

Emory River 51 32 17 73 5 22 

Whites Creek 62 17 21 

Piney River 55 28 17 

Table 13. --Trend test of percent composition data for the Watts Bar NASQIN 

station (site T19) 

P 

Composition Nvals Tau level Slope 

ca 73 -0.361 0.000 - 0.00363 

Mg 73 .144 ,171" .00186 

Na + K 73 .206 .048 .00295 

SO4 26 .368 .204* .00841 

HCO3+033 2266 -.368 .204* - .01846 

Cl ,263 .397* .00720 

*Not significant at the 90 percent confidence interval. 

35 
used as a general indicator of dissolved solids. 

Median specific-conductance values for stations in 

the Ridge and Valley physiographic province are 

generally higher than those for stations on the 

Cumberland Plateau (table 7). This is in agreement with the dissolved-solids data obtained in 

the study area. 

In general, conductance of water from 

streams in the study area shows an increasing 

trend, at least in the Clinch and Emory River 

basins (table 111. The dissolved-solids trends of 

the main-channel stations generally agree with 

the pattern of specific-conductance trends. 

Conductance of water from the Tennessee 

River shows a slight decreasing trend at Fort 

Loudoun Dam as water enters the study area. 

Instantaneous observations of specific conductance 

indicate a slight increasing trend at the outlet of 

the study area at Watts Bar Dam, which is in 

agreement with the trend test of continuous specific conductance record. Trend tests of instantaneous specific-conductance observations on the 

Clinch River between Norris and Melton Hill Dams 

indicate increased conductance during the 1972-82 

water years. This does not agree with the trend 

test of continuous specific-conductance record of 

Melton Hill Dam (table 61, perhaps because the 

daily record reflects only the period 1981-82. The 

Clinch Ri.ver at mile IO does not show a signif icant 

trend in conductance. But, since this station is 

affected by backwater from Watts Bar Reservoir, 

the data are inconclusive. Trend tests of the 

Emory River at mile 18.3 indicate an increasing 

trend in specific conductance, whereas no significant trend is indicated at mile 14.9. No major 

inflow occurs between these sites, but less data 

were available for analysis at mile 14.9 than at 

mile 18.3 which may be the cause for this 

inconsistency. 

Sufficient data for trend analysis were available at only five sub-basin stations. No significant 

trends were indicated by two stations in the Poplar Creek sub-basin, nor were trends indicated by 

stations in the Bullrun Creek or Clinch River below 

Bullrun Creek sub-basins. An increasing conductance trend was indicated at mile 1.5 on the Obed 

River which includes drainage from the Clear 

Creek, Daddys Creek, and Obed River sub-basins. 

Because of its relation to ionized substances, specific conductance can be used to 

estimate dissolved-solids concentrations and concentrations of some individual dissolved chemical 

constituents in water. If a satisfactory set of 

relations between conductance and other constituents can be developed, individual constituent 

concentrations can be estimated simply by measuring conductance. Sampling could be directed 

toward determination of constituents which do 

not correlate with conductance. 

Regression statistics describing the relation 

between specific conductance and several waterquality constituents were determined for stations 

on the Clinch, Emory, and Tennessee Rivers. Statistical parameters for these relations are given in 

table 14. Sufficient data were generally unavailable at stations of the sub-basins for regression 

analysis. The concentration of a particular constituent can be estimated by the equation: 

where 

C = R (SC) + B 

C is concentration, in milligrams per liter; 

R is the regression coefficient; 

SC is specific conductance in microsiemens per 

centimeter at 25 “C; and 

B is the regression constant. 

Note: The regression equations should be 

used with caution in estimating concentrations of constituents at some stations due to 

relatively small sample sizes. To guide the 

data user, table 14 contains the values of 

percent explained variance of the relations 

between conductance and the other constituents, as well as the standard error of estimate for each regression. 

A specific-conductance profile of the mainchannel system of the study area based on observations obtained during the same day at several 

main-channel stations is shown in figure 10. Also 

displayed in figure IO is a profile based on the 

median values of specific conductance obtained at 

main-channel stations which had at least 12 observations (see table 9). The median value profiles 

generally agree with the shapes of the “same-day” 

profiles and are considered a good representation 

of specific-conductance variability along the main 

channels of the study area. 

36 
Table 14. --Regression statistics describing the relations between specific 

conductance and several water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years 

[All relations shown are above the 90 percent confidence interval] 

Constituent 

Number Standard Percent 

of Slope Intercept error of explained 

comparisons R B estimate variance 

Tennessee River at mile 602.3 (site Tl) 

Specific-conductance range = 140 to 270 microsiemens 

Chloride, dissolved (mg/L as Cl) 61 1.249x10-1 -13.2 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 35 2.524x10-1 21.4 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SO4) 62 9.679x10-2 -3.23 

Silica, dissolved (mg/L as Si02) 23 -2.172x10-2 9.49 

Solids, residue @ 180°C, dissolved 54 3.326x10-l 52.3 

Tennessee River at mile 592.3 (site T3) 

Specific-conductance range = 101 to 230 microsiemens 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 53 3.080x10-1 16.7 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as S04) 54 4.402x10-2 2.32 

Tennessee River at mile 529.9 (site T19) 

Specific-conductance range = 97 to 230 microsiemens 

pH (standard units) 122 5.490x10-5 6.50 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as H033) 34 1.308x10-1 46.8 

Carbonate (mg/L as C03) 29 2.918x10-2 -4.63 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 100 3.212x10-1 15.1 

Calcium, dissolved (mg/L as Ca) 77 7.376x10-2 7.66 

Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L as Mg) 78 2.045x10-2 1.27 

Sodium, dissolved (mg/L as Na) 78 6.399x10-2 -4.74 

Potassium, dissolved (mg/L as K) 78 4.047x10-3 .748 

Chloride, dissolved (mg/L as Cl) 109 1.023x10-1 -9.93 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as S04) 108 4.330x10-2 6.14 

Solids, residue @ 180°C dissolved 103 5.524x10-1 7.38 

Solids, sum of constituents, 

dissolved (mg/L) 63 4.407x10-1 18.2 

Clinch River at mile 78.8 (site Cl) 

Specific-conductance range = 160 to 440 microsiemens 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as HC03) 29 3.911x10-1 30.4 

Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L as Mg) 17 2.337x10-2 3.38 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as S04) 49 2.613~10-~ 11.6 

Solids, residue @ 18O”C, dissolved 48 4.173x10-1 42.1 

Clinch River at 66.3 (site C2) 

Specific-conductance range = 200 to 270 microsiemens 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as HC03) 27 2.662x10-l 54.0 

Nitrogen,total NO2+N03 (mg/L as N) 21 -4.926x10-3 1.59 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 30 2.778x10-2 48.6 

Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L as Mg) 17 5.334x10-2 -3.02 

Sodium, dissolved (mg/L as Na) 17 -1.550x10-2 6.06 

Solids, residue @ 18O”C, dissolved 33 4.505x10-1 30.3 

4.37 39 

14.6 14 

4.87 23 

.94 19 

21.9 12 

7.77 50 

2.25 2’0 

.43 12 

5.22 39 

.54 78 

6.10 53 

1.76 41 

.41 48 

1.11 56 

.17 18 

2.04 62 

2.38 18 

9.35 70 

4.27 82 

9.16 46 

.6S 30 

3.28 8 

11.3 66 

8.58 22 

.15 26 

11.5 9 

1.01 29 

.30 27 

19.2 9 

37 
Table 14. --Regression statistics describing the relations between specific 

conductance and several water-quality parameters obtained at main-channel 

stations at or above Watts Bar Dam during the 1972-82 water years--Continued 

- 

Constituent 

Number Standard Percent 

of Slope Intercept error of explained 

comparisons R B estimate variance 

Clinch River at mile 48.6 (site C7) 

Specific-conductance range = 94 to 130 microsiemens 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as HCO3) 24 4.949x10-1 7.47 

Phosphorus, total (mg/L as P) 63 - 7.017x10-4 .184 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 55 2.729x10-1 47.6 

Magnesium, dissolved (mg/L as M ) 

B 

17 5.044x10-2 -2.34 

Chloride, dissolved (mg/L as Cl 67 5.746x10-3 2.00 

Solids, residue @ 18O”C, dissolved 79 3.481x10-1 53.1 

Solids, sum of constituents, 17 2.447x10-1 72.9 

dissolved (mg/L) 

Cl inch River at mile 23.1 (site C13) 

Specific-conductance range = 156 to 290 microsiemens 

sic> 

Phosphorus, total (mg/L zs P) 

7.890x10- -61.9 

85 9.299x10-4 -.184 

Hardness (mg/L as Ca@3) 55 2.935x10-1 

Calcium, dissolved (m /L as Ca) 

Magnesium, dissolved $ 

30 7.820x10-2 

mg/L as M ) 

Potassium, dissolved (mg/L as K 7 

30 3.636x10-2 

30 2.352x10-3 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SO4) 80 8.567~10-~ 

Silica, dissolved (mg/L as SiO2) 54 -2.007x10-2 

Solids, Residue @ 180°C, dissolved 76 5.483x10-1 

Solids, sum of constituents, 30 3.906x10-1 

dissolved (mg/L) 

42.1 

13.1 

.014 

.843 

-3.23 

8.70 

7.27 

37.7 

Emory River at mile 18.3 (site El) 

Specific-conductance range = 156 to 290 microsiemens 

Streamflow, instataneous (ft”/s) 103 -2.102x10 3100 

pH (standard units) 

Bicarbonate (mg/L as HC03) 

Nitrogen, total NO2 + NO3 

(mg/L as N) 

75 6.962x10-3 

10 1.884x10-1 

54 -1.095x10-3 

Hardness (mg/L as CaC03) 39 3.313x10-1 

Chloride, dissolved (mg/L as Cl) so 1.226x10-2 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SO4) 71 2.429x10-l 

Silica, dissolved (mg/L as Si02) 24 -1.548~10’~ 

Solids, residue @ 18O”C, dissolved 68 5.469x10-1 

6.18 

1.28 

.229 

2.18 5.14 84 

2.50 1.29 10 

-1.91 5.12 83 

4.19 .89 28 

7.48 11.1 84 

Emory River at mile 14.9 (site E2) 

Specific-conductance range = 18 to 360 microsiemens 

Nitrogen, total NO2 + NO3 57 -4.537x10-4 .175 

(mn/L as N) 

Har&ess (mg/L as CaCO3) 57 5.509x10-1_ -11.3 

8.06 78 

.03 21 

15.7 16 

.86 43 

.86 4 

14.6 30 

6.98 21 

8.56 80 

.lO 4 

11.0 31 

1.54 70 

.61 76 

.20 11 

3.35 27 

1.16 16 

17.7 33 

5.72 81 

1921 18 

.58 24 

2.82 81 

.07 14 

.08 7 

12.0 84 

Sulfate, dissolved (mg/L as SO4 58 6.599x10“ 8.05 3.90 42 

38 
h E 

1323WllN33 13d SN3W3lS083lW 

2 

NI ‘33NV13MlN03 31433dS 
The daily mean values of specific conductance at the Watts Bar NASQAN station were 

regressed against the instantaneous observations 

of specific conductance made the same day at 

other main-channel stations (table 15). Sufficient 

concurrent data were not available for regressions 

based on the daily conductance record of the 

Melton Hill NASQAN station. The regression relations presented in table 15 were used to estimate 

the specific conductance at other main-channel 

stations ,that correspond to the 50 percent duration interval (median) value of the Watts Bar daily 

conductance record. These estimated median 

values compare favorably with the medians of 

observed conductance values and are plotted on 

figure 10. It is considered that through specificconductance relations the NASQAN station is able 

to represent the water-quality of the main-channel 

system of the accounting unit. The specific-conductance profile of estimated median values were 

used with the regression statistics presented in 

table I4 to generate the estimated median values 

of selected constituents presented in table 9. 

Hydrogen-ion activity (pi-0 

The most acidic waters of the study area 

(minimum pH values, table 8) come from subbasins in which known mining activities have 

occurred. 

No significant pH trends were indicated from 

data of the Clinch River and Tennessee River 

stations, however an increasing pH trend was 

indicated on the Emory River at mile 18.3 (table 

11). This trend for the Emory River, which drains 

an area of extensive coal mining, may be in part 

due to reduced acid-mine runoff since implementation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87). The Act 

specifies that the pH of mine effluents must be 

between 6.0 and 9.0 units. It is not surprising that 

this increasing pH trend is not reflected at the 

NASQAN station at Watts Bar because the Emory 

River basin is only 5 percent of the drainage area. 

Table 15. --Regression statistics describing the relations between daily 

specific conductance obtained at the Watts Bar NASQW station and 

instantaneous specific-conductance observations obtained at main 

channel stations above Watts Bar Dam 

Site 

No. Station 

Number Standard Percent 

of Slope Intercept error of explained 

comparisons R *B estimate variance 

Tl Tennessee River 27 0.7832 69.7 20.0 37 

at mile 602.3. 

T2 Tennessee River 46 .5357 78.0 22.0 18 

at mile 593.3. 

Cl3 Clinch River 44 .4989 153 25.1 14 

at mile 23.1. 

Cl4 Clinch River 39 .6997 136 31.0 19 

at mile 10.0. 

El Emory River 72 .6201 -22.7 35.5 11 

at mile 18.3. 

E2 Bmory River 46 1.214 -114 48.8 19 

at mile 14.9. 

40 
Sulfate 

Median values of dissolved sulfate obtained 

at stations in the sub-basins of the study area 

during the 1972-82 water years are presented in 

table 7. As might be expected, the highest 

dissolved sulfate values were obtained on streams 

that drain coal-mining areas of the Cumberland 

Plateau (CA3 84 mg/L and ER4 72 mg/L). 

In general, dissolved sulfate concentrations 

showed an increasing trend in the Clinch and 

Emory River basins during the 1972-82 water 

years (table 11). These rivers drain areas in which 

coal-mining is prevalent. No increasing trend in 

dissolved sulfate was indicated on the Tennessee 

River above its confluence with the Clinch River, 

but below the confluence, a slightly increasing 

trend was indicated. 

No significant trend in dissolved sulfate was 

indicated on the Tennessee River at mile 602.3, 

but a decreasing trend was indicated at mile 592.3. 

The major inflow between Tennessee River miles 

602.3 and 592.3 is from the Little Tennessee 

River. An increasing trend in sulfate was indicated on the Clinch River at miles 78.8, 48.6, and 

23.1 (Melton Hill), but no significant trend was 

indicated at mile 66.3. Fewer determinations of 

dissolved sulfate were obtained at Clinch River 

mile 66.3 than at the other locations which may 

be the reason for this inconsistency. No significant trend was indicated on the Clinch River at 

mile 10.0 which is affected by backwater from 

Watts Bar Reservoir. An increasing trend in 

dissolved sulfate was indicated on the Emory River 

at mile 18.3 but not at mile 14.9. This inconsistency cannot be fully explained, but it should 

be noted that a trend test of flow-adjusted concentrations performed on Emory River at mile 

18.3 data indicates a lesser increasing trend than 

the unadjusted trend test. A slightly increasing 

trend in dissolved sulfate was indicated at the 

outlet of the study area at Watts Bar Dam. 

Trace Constituents 

Concentrations of a variety of constituents 

occur naturally in surface waters in trace amounts 

only. Certain trace constituents such as arsenic, 

cadmium, lead, and mercury can be highly toxic 

to both humans and wildlife. Other constituents, 

such as copper and zinc, are believed to be essential to life. Some trace constituents, such as iron 

and manganese, may cause undesirable water 

taste, or may cause industrial problems such as 

scaling in pipes and boilers. 

Several different analytical procedures with 

different levels of detection were used to determine trace constituent data during the 1972-82 

water years. Differing, detection levels and accuracies can be attributed to both laboratory procedure inconsistencies of the various data collection agencies and improvements of analytical 

techniques during the period. To reduce the 

possibility of detecting false trends, the following 

procedure was used: 

(1) The least sensitive detection limit of all 

the analytical procedures used for each constituent at each station was determined. 

(2) All values reported as less than the least 

sensitive detection limit were set to one-half the 

value of the detection limit. 

The Seasonal Kendall test was applied only 

to data from the main-channel stations due to a 

lack of trace constituent data in most of the 

sub-basins. The test, which was performed on a 

quarterly seasonal basis, showed no significant 

trends except for the following: 

. Total recoverable copper on the Clinch River 

at mile 48.6, indicated a decreasing trend 

estimate of 10 fig/L per year. 

. Total recoverable manganese on the Clinch 

River at mile 48.6, indicated a decreasing 

trend of about 12 ug/L per year. 

. Total recoverable manganese on the Clinch 

River at mile 23.1, indicated a decreasing 

trend estimate of 2 bg/L per year. 

Mercury 

Very few natural waters contain readily 

detectable concentrations of mercury (Hem, 1970). 

Concentrations of mercury in unpolluted rivers in 

areas where no natural mercury deposits are 

41 
known is generally less than 0.1 ~,rg/L (Wershaw, 

1970). The national drinking-water regulations 

recommend a limit of 2 ug/L dissolved mercury 

for domestic water supply. 

An estimated 2.4 million pounds of mercury 

were lost or otherwise unaccounted for from the 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory between 1950 and 

1977, with an estimated 475,000 pounds discharged 

to streams in the Poplar Creek basin (TVA, 1983). 

This mercury entered the stream system at the 

headwaters of East Fork Poplar Creek, which 

flows into Poplar Creek at mile 5.5, and then into 

the Clinch River at mile 12. 

The maximum value of total recoverable 

mercury determined 1972-82 in water obtained at 

the Watts Bar NASQAN station (below the mercury spill) or at the Melton Hill NASQAN station 

(above the mercury spill) did not exceed 0.5 ug/L. 

Iron 

The maximum values of total recoverable 

iron in sub-basins of the study area (table 8) are 

highest in basins where coal mining is known to 

have occurred. However, comparison of median 

total recoverable iron values obtained at stations 

in the sub-basins (table 7) to land-use information 

(fig. 4) shows high iron values in some streams 

draining areas in which no mining activities have 

been documented. Notably, a median value of 

1,300 Ng/L was obtained on Beaver Creek which 

drains a predominately urban area. 

Total recoverable iron data indicate decreasing trends at stations on the Tennessee River 

at miles 602.3, 593.3, and 529.9 (Watts Bar) (table 

11). Total recoverable iron also shows a decreasing trend or no significant trend near the mouths 

of the Clinch and Emory Rivers. However, increasing trends in iron concentrations are indicated on the Clinch River from mile 78.8 to 48.6. 

Between Clinch River miles 48.6 and 23.1 (Melton 

Hill) the indicated trend reverses. It is probable 

that iron adsorption to sediment that settles-out 

in the reservoir above Melton Hill Dam may be 

the reason that the total recoverable iron increasing trend is not observed below the reservoir. 

Nutrients 

Nitrogen 

Median values of total nitrite plus nitrate 

nitrogen (NO2 + NO3 mg/L as N) obtained at 

stations in the sub-basins of the study area during 

the 1972-82 water years are presented in table 

Although not conclusive, comparisons of median 

total nitrite plus nitrate-nitrogen values obtained 

at sub-basin stations to wastewater discharge sites 

(fig. 8) suggest that stations downstream of known 

wastewater discharge sites have higher nitrogen 

values than stations above known wastewater 

discharges. 

Trend test results for main-channel station 

nitrogen data are given in table 11. An increasing 

trend in total nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen is indicated on the Clinch River at mile 78.8 and mile 

48.6, however no significant trend is indicated 

below Melton Hill Dam at Clinch River mile 23.1. 

No significant trends are indicated on the Tennessee River at mile 602.3 and mile 593.3, but a slight 

decreasing trend in nitrogen is indicated below 

Watts Bar Dam at Tennessee River mile 529.9. 

Station data for the Emory River, which flows 

into Watts Bar Reservoir, indicates no significant 

trend at mile 18.3 but an increasing trend in total 

nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen at mile 14.9. 

Phosphorus 

In general, a desirable guideline for allowable 

limits of total phosphorus is 0.1 mg/L for rivers, 

and 0.05 mg/L where streams enter lakes or reservoirs (Nationai Technical Advisory Committee, 

1968). The median values of total phosphorus for 

main-channel stations in the study area are generally within the recommended limit for streams 

entering reservoirs (table 9). However, the maximum total phosphorus values obtained at many 

these main-channel stations exceeded the recommended limit. 

No significant total phosphorus trends were 

indicated on the Clinch River from mile 78.8 

mile 10.0. A slightly increasing trend in total 

phosphorus was indicated on the Tennessee River 

at mile 602.3, and a slightly decreasing trend was 

indicated at mile 592.3. Most of the samples 

42 
collected at Tennessee River mile 602.3 did not 

include the flow of the Little Tennessee River; 

which may account for the difference in trends at 

these two locations. No significant trend in total 

phosphorus was indicated on the Emory River at 

mile 18.3, however a decreasing trend was indicated on the Emory River at mile 14.9 where a 

greater number of samples were obtained. No 

significant trend in total phosphorus was indicated 

at Watts Bar Dam, the discharge end of the study 

area. 

Organics and Biological 

Fecal coliform bacteria 

The maximum values of fecal coliform bacteria obtained in the Bullrun Creek, Obed River, 

and Emory River sub-basins ranged from 630 to 

1,200 colonies per 100 mL (table 8). However, 

insufficient data were available on an area-wide 

basis to determine the possible sources. The 

maximum value of fecal coliform bacteria obtained 

on the Tennessee River at mile 593.3 was 13,000 

colonies per 100 mL (table 9). According to the 

Knoxville News-Sentinel (May 20, 19831, raw 

sewage has occasionally bypassed treatment plants 

and entered Fort Loudoun Lake above the study 

area. Samples taken from one tributary to Fort 

Loudoun Lake showed a fecal coliform bacteria 

count of 8 1,000 colonies per 100 mL. The report 

also states that during wet weather 5 to 10 

million gallons of raw sewage bypasses the treatment plant daily. No other main-channel station 

of the study area had unusually high fecal coliform 

values, however, data were very limited. 

Organic Carbon 

No significant trends in total organic carbon 

were indicated at main-channel stations except on 

the Tennessee River at mile 592.3 (table 11). 

Sediment 

According to a sediment study by Trimble 

and Carey (19841, the Tennessee River and Clinch 

River Reservoirs in the study area act as sediment 

traps. Sediment yield, accumulation, and outflow 

of reservoirs in the study areas as computed by 

Trimble and Carey are given in table 16. 

Table 16. -- Sediment yield, accumulation, and outflow of Norris, 

Melton Hill, Fort Loudoun, and Watts Bar Reservoirs 

[a, Average yield of contributing drainage area between reservoirs. Watts Bar calculations include 

the drainage area of the Little Tennessee River and the Fort Loudoun calculations do not; from Trimble 

and Carey, 19841 

Bulk Local Sediment Sediment Trap Local trap Outflow trap Outflow 

Reservoir (%% 

sediment outflow accumu- 

(tons/yr) 

efficiency efficiency efficiency routed 

yielda lation 

[(ton/mi2)lyrl 

(Brune (Churchill (Churchill to: 

(tons/yr) percent) percent) percent) 

Norris 5s 310 0 884,000 100 100 95 Melton Hill 

Melton Hill 55 150 9,700 56,000 75 85 60 Watts Bar 

Fort Loudoun 50 490 160,000 620,000 75 80 SO Watts Bar 

Watts Bar 5s 630 343,000 1,650,OOO 80 85 60 

43 
Suspended sediment 

The maximum known values of suspended 

sediment in sub-basins of the study area range from 

17 mg/L in the Clear Creek basin where little or 

no coal mining has occurred, to 2,170 mg/L in the 

Clinch River basin above Bullrun Creek where 

mining is prevalent (table 8). Maximum known 

values of suspended sediment below Watts Bar 

Dam and Melton Hill Dam are only 43 mg/L and 

19 mg/L, respectively. 

Suspended-sediment data unadjusted for the 

effects of flow indicate decreasing trends at 

Watts Bar, Melton Hill, and the Emory River at 

mile 18.3 (table 11). However, the trend test of 

flow adjusted concentrations of the Emory River 

at mile 18.3 showed no significant trend. This 

probably indicates that the decreasing sediment 

trends of unadjusted concentrations reflect the 

decreasing flow trend of the study area during the 

1972-82 water years. 

Bed material 

Small particle-size bed material is virtually 

nonexistent in the channel reaches below Watts 

Bar Dam and Melton Hill Dam where water-quality 

sampling for NASQAN is conducted. This is 

probably due to high flow energies during dam 

operations. Available data for constituents in bed 

material are summarized in table 17 and show that 

concentrations of mercury, chromium, copper, 

lead, and nickel in East Fork Poplar Creek, Poplar 

Creek, and the Clinch River are generally above 

background concentrations (TVA, 1983). 

Table 17. -- Mean concentrations of trace constituents in bed material samples obtained from streams 

above Watts Bar Dam during the period 1970-83 

[Values in microgram per gram dry weight] 

Location Mercury Cadmium Chromium Copper Lead Nickel Zinc Aluminum Beryllium Manganese 

East Fork Poplar Creek 

mile 15 - i0, 45.6 

mile 10 - 5, 24.0 

mile 5 - 0. 21.9 

Poplar Creek 

mile 6 - 3, 

mile 3 - 0. 

13.1 (4.55 92.5 81.4 40.7 178 113 40,372 588 

10.0 <4.46 111 73.6 52.5 139 127 48,866 <.60 593 

Cl inch River 

at mile 10.0. 6.39 <4.0 69.5 29.2 23.1 32.4 57.8 

Tennessee River 

mile 565 - 530. 1.24 1.13 25.7 7.8 52.7 25.2 85.0 

Bear Creek 

mile 8 - 0. 

White Oak Creek 

mile 4 - 0. 

2.03 

2.05 

(400 

<83.2 

150 

76.0 

75.1 

135 

64.4 41.5 

a00 (800 76,250 

76.9 190 45,714 (10 584 

34,917 

3,000 

45,000 

624 

<.60 670 

<400 <lDO 50 <lOO (1350 GO 

.65 6.5 8.9 20.0 6.5 48.0 <.60 1255 

Clinch River and tributaries 

above mile 23.1. < .16 1.43 19.3 18.2 31.6 30.5 69.6 7,452 U.0 1093 

Compilation by the Tennessee Valley Authority. 

44 
WATER TEMPERATURE LOAD COMPUTATIONS 

Measurements of continuous water temperatures were obtained at the two NASQAN stations 

in the study area. Daily average water temperatures were analyzed using a statistical technique 

of Steele (1974) to fit the data to a harmonic 

(sinusoidal) equation. The harmonic expression 

used to represent daily temperature has the form: 

T’(D) = M + A sin IO.0172 x (D) + Cl 

where 

T’(D) is estimated temperature on the Dth day, 

in “C; 

D is a day of the year (October 1, the beginning of the water year, is represented by 

integer 1); 

M is the harmonic mean temperature, in “C; 

A is the harmonic amplitude of the stream 

temperature curve, in “C; and 

C is the phase angle, in radians. 

The harmonic coefficients (M, A, and C), 

the standard error of estimate of a daily temperature value in OC, and the percentage of the 

variation in daily temperature values that is 

accounted for by the harmonic function are shown 

in table 18. Standard errors of estimate of stream 

temperature at the two NASQAN stations were 

less than 2 OC, and the explained variations were 

85 percent or greater. Comparisons of estimated 

water temperatures from the harmonic analyses 

to average observed water temperatures at Watts 

Bar and Melton Hill are shown in figure 11. 

As stated previously, the relation between 

water-quality constituents and discharge are not 

well defined on the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers 

due to regulation. However, relations of specific 

conductance to other water-quality parameters 

were evaluated, and continuous specific-conductance and discharge records were available at the 

NASQAN stations. This information was used to 

estimate constituent loads of the two NASQAN 

stations presented in table 19 by the following 

procedure: 

. Constituent to specific-conductance linear 

regressions were computed (table 14). 

. Duration tables of daily specific conductance 

were compiled from the NASQAN station 

records (table 5). 

. Duration tables of other constituents were 

computed from the specific-conductance duration tables by use of constituent to specific 

conductance regressions. A weighted mean 

concentration was estimated from the constituent duration tables. 

. These average yearly constituent concentrations were then multiplied by the average 

discharge of the station (table 2) to give an 

estimate of yearly constituent loads. 

Constituent load estimates for other 

main-channel stations were not possible using this 

method because continuous specific-conductance 

records were not available. Also, sufficient data 

were not available for estimates of sub-basin 

constituent loads. 

Table 18. --Harmonic analyses of stream temperature records of 

Melton Hill.Dam and Watts Bar Dam 

[Form of equation: T’D = M * A x sin (0.0172 x D + C)] 

Harmonic Amplitude Phase Variation Standard 

Site Station Sample mean A angle-C explained error 

No. size M (OC) ( “C> (radians) (percent) (“Cl 

Cl3 Melton Hill 547 14.50 6.44 2.60 85 1.84 

T19 Watts Bar 1808 16.29 10.29 2.52 95 1.59 

45 
Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam (site T19J, 1976-81 

e A 6 0 Average observed 

0 A Estimated 

01 I I I I I I I I I I I 

ONDJFMAMJJAS 

Clinch River at Melton Hill Dam (site C131, 1981-82 

I I I I I I I I I I 

0 

A 

0 

A 

0 A A 

A o 

0 

4 

4 

A A 

0 Average observed 

A Estimated 

I I I I I I I I I I 

oND]FMAMJJAS 

Figure Il.--Comparison of estimated water temperatures from harmonic analyses to the 

average observed water temperatures at the Watts Bar and Melton Hill NASQAN stations. 

[Form of equation: T’D z M + A sin (0.0172 x D + 0)) 
Table 19. --Load estimates of selected constituents sampled at the 

Watts Bar and Melton Hill NASQ4N stations 

Weighted mean Load 

Constituent concentration estimate estimate 

(mg/L) (tons/yr) 

Tennessee River at Watts Bar Dam (site T19) 

Solids, residue at 180 “C, dissolved 99 2,800,OOO 

Solids, sum of constituents, dissolved 90 2,550,OOO 

Calcium, dissolved 20 566,000 

Magnesium, dissolved 4.6 130,000 

Sodium, dissolved 5.7 161,000 

Sulfate, dissolved 13 368,000 

Chloride, dissolved 6.7 190,000 

Bicarbonate 68 1,930,000 

Clinch River at Melton Hill Dam (site C13) 

Solids, residue at 180 “C, dissolved 145 664,000 

Solids, sum of constituents, dissolved 135 618,000 

Calcium, dissolved 33 151,000 

Magnesium, dissolved 5.1 42,000 

Sulfate, dissolved 18 82,000 

Bicarbonate 135 618,000 

Silica, dissolved 3.7 17,000 

RESERVOIR STRATIFICATION 

Signif icant water-quality differences can 

occur between the surface, mid-depth, and bottom 

of a lake or reservoir. Water released from an 

impoundment from one vertical position therefore 

may not be fully representative of the upstream 

impoundment. The river profile of specific conductance presented in figure 10 indicates that 

specific conductance is higher upstream of Watts 

Bar Dam than downstream. Additional same-day 

data show higher specific-conductance values upstream of Watts Bar Dam than downstream of the 

dam (table 20). Values of pH obtained above Watts 

Bar Dam are also generally higher than those 

obtained below the dam, however neither total 

phosphorus nor total nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen 

data showed discernible differences above or 

below Watts Bar Dam. 

Flow through the power-generation turbines 

accounted for more than 95 percent of the dam 

releases for the dates of sample collection listed 

in table 20. The normal minimum operating level 

of Watts Bar Reservoir is at an elevation of 735 

feet. There are five turbine intakes with three 

bays each. Each bay opening is 2 1.08 feet wide by 

47.46 feet high, with the top of the intake located 

at an elevation of 712.5 feet. The center line of 

the turbine distributor is at an elevation of 676 

feet. Design of the turbine intakes may result in 

releases from stratified layers of the impoundment; therefore, further study is needed to determine whether the NASQAN data obtained below 

Watts Bar Dam is representative of the water 

quality of Watts Bar Reservoir. No data were 

available both above and below Melton Hill Dam 

for comparison. 

47 
Table 20. --Water-quality parameters obtained the same day above and 

below Watts Bar Dam (sites Tl7 and Tl9) 

Date 

‘lotal 

Total NO2 + NO3 

Specific phosphorus nit rogen 

conductance pH (mg/L as P> (mg/L as N) 

above below above below above below above below 

5-19-75 154 150 7.5 7.4 

2-12-76 178 150 7.5 7.5 0.040 0.040 0.55 0.53 

5- 5-76 169 141 7.8 7.5 .020 .020 .21 .21 

8- 4-76 159 150 7.6 7.2 .023 .030 .21 .29 

ll- 4-76 178 177 7.4 7.4 .023 .024 .29 .31 

2- 9-77 193 180 7.9 7.8 .017 .020 -47 .42 

5- 3-77 154 140 7.5 6.5 .023 .020 .36 .37 

t-b 2-77 183 162 7.7 7.5 ,020 .027 .15 .25 

ll- 8-77 180 180 7.3 7.4 ,043 .025 .38 .35 

ANALYSIS OF TREND PROCEDURES 

The major problem with the use of trend procedures for this study was the lack of a means to 

perform flow adjustments. Identification of trends 

caused by process (source) change was therefore 

not possible on the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers. 

The fact that flow itself indicated a decreasing 

trend throughout the study area compounded this 

problem. Thus indicated trends in concentrations 

of chemical constituents may be reflections of 

the trends in discharge rather than of source 

changes. 

The Seasonal Kendall test provides a single 

summary statistic for the available record. Comparison of constituent trends from two or more 

stations along a channel should be restricted to 

periods of concurrent record because trends in 

opposing directions outside of the concurrent 

record period could result in inconsistent trend 

indications. For example, an increasing trend in 

specific conductance is indicated at Emory River 

mile 18.3 but no significant trend is indicated at 

mile 14.9. No major inflows occur between these 

sites and both locations are above backwater from 

Watts Bar Reservoir. The reason for this inconsistency was judged to be differences in completeness of the record and some nonconcurrent record 

periods. Trends of data from Emory River miles 

18.3 and 14.9 are not in agreement for several of 

the other constituent tests [total phosphorus, total 

nitrite plus nitrate nitrogen, total recoverable 

iron, and dissolved sulfate]. 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

The Clinch, Emory, and Tennessee Rivers compose the main-channel systems of the study area. 

The Clinch and Tennessee Rivers are highly regulated by flood-control and power-generation control structures. Two NASQAN stations are located 

in the study area; one is below Watts Bar Dam on 

the Tennessee River, and the other is below Melton 

Hill Dam on the Clinch River. Comparison of 

data from these NASQAN stations to waterquality data from the drainage basins upstream of 

the dams was made to determine if NASQAN 

data obtained below impoundments can be used to 

meet the objectives of the NASQAN program. 

The following findings of this study have 

shown that NASQAN data obtained below impoundments may be inadequate to describe a composite picture of water quality in the accounting 

unit: 

48 
Extreme concentrations of constituents that 

might be expected in a free-flowing stream 

appear to be moderated due to storage in the 

reservoirs. Comparison of the ranges of constituent values obtained in study area subbasins to the ranges of values observed at the 

two NASQAN stations shows sub-basin data 

to be much more variable. 

Significant water-quality differences can 

occur between the surface, mid-depth, and 

bottom of a lake or reservoir. Comparisons 

of data obtained above and below Watts Bar 

Dam suggest that the water sampled at the 

NASQAN station comes from stratified layers 

of the impoundment. 

Total recoverable iron data suggests that 

because of adsorption to sediments in the 

impoundments, some constituents are not 

accurately described by data obtained below 

dams. 

Relations between specific conductance and 

common ionic constituents were defined for several main-channel stations. Relations were also 

defined between the continuous specific-conductance record of the NASQAN station below Watts 

Bar Dam and the instantaneous observations of 

specific conductance obtained at upstream mairr 

channel stations of the study area. Using these 

specific-conductance relations, the variability of 

several common constituents along the main-channel system could be described. Estimates of common constituent loads at the two NASQAN 

stations were developed from specific-conductance relations and from duration tables of 

specific conductance. 

Relations between water-quality constituents 

and flow at stations on the Clinch and Tennessee 

Rivers are not well defined because of regulation. 

Compensation for the effects of discharge prior 

to application of the Seasonal Kendall test for 

trends was therefore impossible and identification 

of trends in water-quality constituents caused by 

some process (source) change was impossible. 

Some water-quality trends indicated at stations 

on the Clinch and Tennessee Rivers might be 

reflections of the decreasing trend in discharge 

during the 1972-82 water years. Thus the stations 

below Watts Bar Dam and below Melton Hill Dam 

inadequately meet the NASQAN objective to 

detect and assess long-term changes in stream 

quality. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bevans, H.E., 1980, A procedure for predicting 

concentrations of dissolved solids and sulfate 

ion in streams draining areas strip mined for 

coal: U.S. G eological Survey Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 80-764, 17 p. 

Crawford, C.G., Slack, J.R., and Hirsch, R.M., 

1983, Nonparametric tests for trends in 

water-quality data using the Stastical Analysis System: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 83-550, 102 p. 

Elder, LA., and Springer, M.E., 1978, General 

soil map, Tennessee: U. S. Soil Conservation 

Service, scale 1:750,000. 

Fenneman, N .M., 1938, Physiography of eastern 

United States: New York and London, 

McGraw-Hill, 714 p. 

Gaydos, M.W., and others, 1982, Hydrology of area 

19, eastern coal province, Tennessee: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 81-901, 75 p. 

Hardeman, W .D., 1966, Geologic map of Tennessee, east-central sheet: Tennessee Division of Geology, scale 1:250,000. 

Hem, J.D., 1970, Study and interpretation of the 

chemical characteristics of natural water (2d 

ed.): U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply 

Paper 1473, 363 p. 

Hirsch, R.M., Slack, J.R., and Smith, R.A., 1982 

Techniques of trend analysis for monthly 

water quality data: Water Resources Research, v. 18, no. 18, p. 107-121. 

Miller, R.A., 1974, The geologic history of 

Tennessee: Tennessee Division of Geology Bulletin 74, 63 p. 

National Technical Advisory Committee, 1968, 

Water-quality criteria, a report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the 

Secretary of the Interior: Washington, D. C., 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Simmons, C.E., and Heath, R.C., 1979, Waterquality characteristics of streams in forested 

and rural areas of North Carolina: U.S. 

Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 79-l 08, 49 p. 

Steele, T.D., 1974, Harmonic analysis of stream 

temperatures: U.S. Geological Survey Computer Center Contribution, Program no. B260, 

PB-239 016/AS, 48 p. 

49 
Swift, L.W., and Swank, W.T., Jr., 1981, Longterm responses of streamflow following clearcutting and regrowth: Hydrological Sciences 

Bulletin, v. 26, p. 245-256. 

Tennessee Department of Public Health, 1978, 

Water quality management plan for the Clinch 

River basin: Nashville, Tennessee, Division 

of Water Quality Control, 89 p. 

Tennessee Valley Authority, 1983, Summary of 

existing water, sediment, fish, and soil data 

in the vicinity of the Oak Ridge Reservation: 

Knoxville, Tennessee, Tennessee Valley 

Authority. 

Trimble, S.W., and Carey, W.P., 1984, Sediment 

characteristics of Tennessee streams and 

reservoirs: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 84-749, 32 p. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1961, Rainfall 

frequency atlas of the United States: U.S. 

Weather Bureau Technical Paper no. 40, 

115 p. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976a, 

Forest Harvesting and water quality: Environmental Protection Agency Report 625/5-76- 

013, 18p. 

------ 1976b, Erosion and sediment control surface 

mining in the eastern U.S.: Environmental 

Protection Agency Report 625/3-76-006, Part 

1, 102p. 

U.S. 95th Congress, 1977, Public law 95-87, 91 

Statute 445, 88 p. 

Wershaw, R.L., 1970, Mercury in the environment: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 713, p. 29-31. 

50 

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1986-631.262/40012