ML110871475

Additional Information Related to NRC Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. Md8203)

ML110871475
Person / Time
Site:	Watts Bar
Issue date:	03/24/2011
From:	Stinson D Tennessee Valley Authority
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC MD8203
Download: ML110871475 (34)

Text

Tennessee Valley Authority, Post Office Box 2000, Spring City, Tennessee 37381-2000 March 24, 2011 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 10 CFR 50.4 NRC Docket No. 50-391

Subject:

WATTS BAR NUCLEAR PLANT (WBN) UNIT 2 -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (TAC NO. MD8203)

References:

1. TVA Letter dated January 4, 2011, "Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 -Additional Information Related To U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request For Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Environmental Review (TAC No. MD8203)" The purpose of this submittal is to provide two additional TVA reports to support NRC Environmental Review. Enclosure 1 provides a report entitled, "Discussion of the Results of the 2010 Mollusk Survey of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Rhea County, Tennessee)." TVA has previously provided the 2010 Mollusk Survey via Reference 1.Enclosure 2 provides a report entitled, "Comparison of 2010 Peak Spawning Seasonal Densities of Ichthyoplankton at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Tennessee River Mile 528 with Historical Densities during 1996 and 1997." There are no new commitments made in this letter. If you have any questions, please contact William Crouch at (423) 365-2004.I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 2 4 th day of March, 2011.Respectfully, David Stinson Watts Bar Unit 2 Vice President U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 March 24, 2011

Enclosures:

1. Discussion of the Results of the 2010 Mollusk Survey of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Rhea County, Tennessee)

2. Comparison of 2010 Peak Spawning Seasonal Densities of Ichthyoplankton at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Tennessee River Mile 528 with Historical Densities during 1996 and 1997 cc (Enclosures):

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Ave., NE Suite 1200 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1257 NRC Resident Inspector Unit 2 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 1260 Nuclear Plant Road Spring City, Tennessee 37381 Enclosure I Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Report Entitled "Discussion of the Results of the 2010 Mollusk Survey of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Rhea County, Tennessee)"

Discussion of the results of the 2010 Mollusk Survey of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Rhea County, Tennessee)

John T. Baxter March 2011 Tennessee Valley Authority Biological Compliance Knoxville, Tennessee The purpose of this document is to evaluate and compare data reported from the 2010 mussel survey conducted for Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) by Third Rock Consultants, LLC (TRC 2010) to data collected at the three mussel beds (Figure 1) previously monitored by TVA.Specifically, the 2010 data are compared to mussel data collected by TVA for preoperational (1983 -1994) and operational (1996 -1997) monitoring for Unit 1 of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN), located on the Tennessee River in Rhea County, Tennessee (TVA 1998). As described further below, these data indicate that the current mussel community adjacent to WBN is substantially similar to conditions near the end (1996-1997) of the WBN Unit 1 operational and pre-operational monitoring period. Both species composition and the number of mussels collected are similar.1983 -1997 Collection Methods Between 1983 and 1985, collection was conducted by two pairs of SCUBA divers collecting mussels for 11 minutes each (for an aggregate total of approximately 45 minutes of diver search time) in four sampling sites within each of three mussel beds. Collections conducted from 1985-1997 were conducted by two divers, each collecting mussels for 22 minutes from each of the three mussel beds. This sampling was semi-quantitative in nature and was designed to maximize the number of individuals collected by each diver (TVA, 1998).1983 -1997 Collection Data Examining the entire dataset from these monitoring sites (Figure 2) indicates that there was a decline in both species numbers and abundance between the 1988 and 1992 sampling efforts near WBN. A drop in the number of individual mussels collected was observed between 1988 and 1990. A similar drop in species numbers is seen between the 1990 and 1992 sampling efforts.An extreme drought period occurred across the Tennessee Valley from 1986 to 1992, with particularly extreme conditions seen from 1987 to 1988 (Riebsame et al. 1991). Sustained periods of low flow and extremely low dissolved oxygen levels (DO) were seen in Watts Bar Reservoir and the Watts Bar Dam tailwater during this time. These effects are believed to be primarily responsible for the decline in species numbers and abundance observed after the drought peaked in 1988 in the Southeast.

Changes to Watts Bar Dam releases during and following the collection of pre-operational data In 1991, under the Lake Improvement Plan (LIP) (TVA 1990), TVA adopted efforts to increase DO concentrations in the releases from 16 dams (including Watts Bar Dam) and to provide project specific minimum flows. In 1996, TVA installed an aeration system in the forebay of Watts Bar Reservoir to reduce reservoir stratification and associated dissolved oxygen problems in the vicinity of Watts Bar Dam. This has resulted in higher dissolved oxygen levels in the dam releases and appears to have mitigated some of the effects of the more recent 2007 -2008 drought period on aquatic communities (based on TVA Reservoir Fisheries Assemblage Index data).1 TVA also established a "system minimum flow" operating scheme as a result of the Reservoir Operations Study (TVA 2004). These changes established a weekly average minimum flow at Chickamauga Dam (downstream of Watts Bar Dam) of 13,000 cfs/week from June 1 to July 31, and 25,000 cfs/week from August 1 to Labor Day. This effectively institutes a minimum flow at Watts Bar Dam, which replaces an operating scheme that previously resulted in extended periods of low flow (or essentially no flow) during summer months.Because the observed mussel declines from 1988 to 1992 pre-date WBN Unit 1 operation in 1996 and the LIP release improvements at Watts Bar Dam, the decline cannot be attributed to operation of WBN Unit 1. It is therefore appropriate to examine the potential effects of WBN Unit 2 operation with 1992 and 1994 numbers as the environmental baseline for mussel communities near WBN.2010 Collection Methods Semi-quantitative and quantitative mollusk sampling was conducted September 28-30, 2010, at the three sampling areas that were part of the pre-operational (1983-1994) and operational (1996-1997) monitoring for WBN Unit 1. Details of the methodology are discussed in the full 2010 survey report (TRC 2010). A total of 120 semi-quantitative and forty quantitative samples were taken during the 2010 survey. This methodology is designed to be more repeatable than the semi-quantitative (timed search) samples taken previously.

No quantitative sampling was conducted in previous years. In addition to sampling in the three mussel beds surveyed in previous sampling, a survey of the experimental boulder field placed by TVA (Fraley et al. 2002)was conducted.

Very few mussels were found in the boulder field, and that sampling effort is not discussed further in this document.2010 Collection Data A total of 17 species (902 individuals) was collected in the semi-quantitative (17 species, 852 individuals) and quantitative

.(6 species, 50 individuals) sampling (TRC 2010). The data are well within the range of variation for samples collected from 1992 and 1994 (pre-operational monitoring), and 1996 and 1997 (operational monitoring) (Figure 2). One individual of the federally listed endangered pink mucket and one individual of the federal candidate sheepnose mussel were collected at transects downstream of the WBN discharge.

The highest densities of mussels occurred in the two sampling sites downstream of the WBN discharge (TRC 2010).Only the semi-quantitative data from 2010 were used in Table 1 in order to provide a reasonable comparison to previous sampling methods. As noted above, the quantitative sampling added no new species to the survey, and relatively few (50) individual mussels. There is a lack of sampling data between 1997 and 2010, and therefore it is difficult to speculate how mussel numbers may have fluctuated over this period. The expectation is that LIP and ROS improvements to Watts Bar Dam releases would have at least provided a relatively stable environment for the mussel community when compared to conditions prior to 1996.Of note in the data is evidence that recent recruitment (individuals aged at < 5 years) has occurred in at least five mussel species (Cyclonaias tuberculata, Leptodeafragilis, Megalonaias 2

nervosa, Potamilus alatus, and Utterbackia imbecillis).

Fifteen of the seventeen species collected contained individuals that were less than 40 years old (TRC 2010), indicating that reproduction in these species has occurred since closure of Watts Bar Dam. Previous data (TVA 1998) indicated "that individual mussels in the Tennessee River near WBN are continuing to grow slowly, but some species are disappearing from the communities and the some more abundant populations are demonstrating statistically significant declines.

The freshwater mussels in the vicinity of WBN are quite old and most of the 30 species found may not have reproduced in the past 50 years." Data on young mussels collected in 2010 indicates that this statement may no longer be true, or that previously indicated downward trends have shown improvement.

Conclusions The species that declined between 1992 and 1994 were present in the mussel community at extremely low densities prior to 1994 and are usually represented by the collection of only one or two individuals during any sampling effort (Table 1). These species may still be present at extremely low densities within the community and were simply not collected in subsequent sampling.

A good illustration of this is the collection of a single sheepnose mussel in 2010.Prior to this collection, this species was found only in 1983 (2 individuals), 1992 (1 individual) and 1994 (1 individual).

This indicates an extremely low frequency of occurrence in the population, and a corresponding low probability of detection, but does not necessarily indicate that the species is no longer present.Since 1992, mussel species numbers and abundance appear to be relatively stable (Figure 2).The relative stability in the number of mussel species present in the samples sites, along with reasonable population sizes, indicates that operation of WBN Unit 1 has not led to any decline in the mussel community in the Tennessee River near WBN when compared to the 1992-1994 data.Evidence of reproduction in many of the mussels sampled, and evidence of very recent recruitment of five mussel species is further evidence that operation of WBN Unit 1 is not having a significant adverse effect on this resource.Hydrothermal and water quality analyses conducted by TVA indicate that water quality conditions (particularly thermal conditions) in the Tennessee River in the vicinity of the WBN discharge would not change significantly with the addition of WBN Unit 2. No adverse impacts to mussel resources in the Tennessee River adjacent to WBN are anticipated to occur as a result of operating both WBN Unit 1 and WBN Unit 2.3 References Fraley et al. 2002. S.J. Fraley, J.J. Jenkinson, and Brennan T. Smith. Watts Bar Native Mussel Enhancement Project. Preliminary Evaluation of an Artificial Boulder Field for Enhancing Native Mussel Habitat in the Watts Bar Tailwater, Tennessee River Mile 528.5. Tennessee Valley Authority, River Systems Operation and Environment, Resource Stewardship.

Norris, Tennessee.

Riebsame, W. E., S. A. Changnon, and T. R. Karl. 1991. Drought and natural resources management in the United States: impacts and implications of the 1987-89 drought. Westview Press 11-92.TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority).

1990. Lake Improvement Plan, Tennessee River and Reservoir System Operating and Planning Overview.

Final Environmental Impact Statement.(TVA/RDG/EQS-91/1.)

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority).

1998. Aquatic Environmental Conditions in the Vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during two years of operation, 1996-1997.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority).

2004. Reservoir Operations Study. Final Environmental Impact Statement.

TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority).

2007. Completion and Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Rhea County, Tennessee.

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

TRC (Third Rock Consultants).

2010. Mollusk Survey of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (Rhea County, Tennessee).

Prepared for Tennessee Valley Authority by Third Rock Consultants, LLC, Lexington, KY. October 28, 2010. Revised November 24, 2010.4 PAXP-i~.,t FiIpsT-n--k~pTNI0-076 TVA WnttqRnr MuIiýp\qMnnninn\GIS\Exyhihit1 Uonnpr Mu~ijqpl WrO 10/21/10 N I??'t'I Figure 1 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Mussel Survey Area Chickamauga Reservoir, Tennessee River (TRM 520 -529)Rhea County, Tennessee 0 1,250 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 Feet 0 250500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Meters N THIRDROCK CONSULTANTS Figure 2. Comparison of historical and current mussel species and abundances in the Tennessee River in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant 2000 1800 1600.~1400 Ow 1200*~1000.0 S800 E z 600 400 200 n l,-, V063: 75 A 1986 ý1989'1 Periodliof extended drought inal!14 846-~V. !17 iliz 852 2007 4 2008 Drought'p~riod efects appear to have been mitigated bV reservoir opoerations irmprovements

!basdd on evidenqe from RFAI monitoring data I 25 20 15 CL 10 %In 0 E z 5 0.0 1.0 W. LO 1.0 LO,1. W .w 1.0. w. W. W. w. 1.0 W. w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 00 00 00 00 00- 00. 00 OO ,00 W W W LO k o o 0 0 o o 0 0 -W W .M. .00 0 I rJ M ,jI 00 -NJ wo P0 10 Y C 0 0 0 00 LO 0-n. .:-.n: ;Year-0--Mussel Abundance

-Number or individuals present in semi-quantitative samples 0 Number of Species Present Table 1. Total numbers of each native mussel species collected during preoperational (1983-1994) and operational (1996-1997) surveys near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.Source: Table 3-7 from TVA SEIS (TVA, 2007) revised to include 2010 collection data (TRC, 2010).I -. ... Y-Y~( lnGrotlhn 2010 Total Times 2010 Semi- 2010 Fd Quantitative Quantitative Excluding 1983 1984 1985 1986 oun Data Data Boulder Scientific Name Common Name 1983 Fall 1984 Fall 1985 Fall 1986 Fall 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1997 Totals Fioli Elliptio crassidens elephant ear 754 836 779 984 738 929 734 765 970 524 424 583 594 489 10103 14 521 13 534 Pleurobema cordatum Ohio pigtoe 264 275 220 156 113 177 110 169 224 139 82 95 94 101 2219 14 125 0 125 Cyclonaias tuberculata purple wartyback 88 70 73 62 60 66 55 76 93 90 68 64 38 47 950 14 81 2 83 Quadrula pustulosa pimpleback 99 75 85 53 53 85 31 41 80 79 48 65 30 24 848 14 53 21 74 Potamilusalatus pink heelsplitter 14 29 18 29 34 43 41 27 55 45 16 10 35 12 408 14 24 7 31 Ellipsariafineolata butterfly 24 29 24 25 8 27 19 18 23 28 14 11 15 8 273 14 27 0 27 Amblema plicata threeridge 18 33 19 11 17 25 23 24 49 10 13 13 11 5 271 14 2 0 2 Pyganodon grandis glant floater 18 10 5 4 3 7 9 7 29 20 5 7 7 1 132 14 1 0 1 Quadrulametanevra monkeyface 14 24 11 13 6 10 7 7 8 8 8 4 2 2 124 14 3 0 3 Tritogonia verrucosa pistogrip 6 12 5 5 4 15 8 13 18 9 9 7 4 1 116 14 0 0 0 Obliquaria reflexa threehorn wartyback 14 6 8 3 7 5 9 3 7 11 6 11 6 3 99 14 5 5 10 Liguumia recta black sandshell 6 3 4 10 3 8 8 10 7 2 3 1 2 1 68 14 0 0 0 Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket 3 7 6 2 1 7 6 2 12 4 6 2 4 0 62 13 1 0 1 Leptodea fragilis fragile papershell 1 3 4 2 3 2 6 3 12 8 0 3 1 2 50 13 3 2 5 Actinonaias figamentina mucket 3 2 2 0 4 7 0 8 3 5 1 0 0 0 35 9 0 0 0 Megalonaias nervosa washboard 2 1 0 1 1 4 5 1 9 3 4 2 1 0 34 12 1 0 1 Lampsilis ovata pocketbook 3 1 1 4 5 4 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 26 11 0 0 0 Elliptio dilatata spike 4 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 18 10 2 0 2 Pleurobema oviforme Tennessee clubshell 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 9 6 0 0 0 Utterbackia imbeclls paper pondshell 0 o -2 .0 0 1 1--U-- -U 4 1 0 1 Cyprolenia stelaria fanshell 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 Pleurobema plenum rough pigtoe 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 Plethobasus cyphyus sheepnose 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 3 1 0 1 Pleurobema rubrum pyramid pigtoe 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 Fusconaia subrotunda longsolid 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 Anodonta suborbiculata flat floater 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lasmigona costata flutedshell 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 Ptychobranchus fasciolaris kidneyshell 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 Dromus dromas 1dromedary pearlymussel 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Lasmigona complanata white heelsplitter 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 T%*~I M,.o~I~I 4~A4 I 4AV~ I 1~7fl I 4~A5 I I IA~7 I 1fl7~ I H~fl I Ii~Ifl I 001 I 7na I ann a~n I A07 I 1~R7R 852 50 902 Number of Species Collected1 221 21 201 191 20 201 181 201 221 221 16 171 17 141 30 17 617 Enclosure 2 Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Report Entitled "Comparison of 2010 Peak Spawning Seasonal Densities of Ichthyoplankton at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Tennessee River Mile 528 with Historical Densities during 1996 and 1997" Comparison of 2010 Peak Spawning Seasonal Densities of Ichthyoplankton at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant at Tennessee River Mile 528 with Historical Densities during 1996 and 1997 TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND POLICY APRIL 2011 Table of Contents Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................

i List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................

i List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................

ii Abbreviations and A cronym s .........................................................................................................

ii Introduction

.....................................................................................................................................

1 Plant D escription

.........................................................................................................................

1 M aterials and M ethods ....................................................................................................................

1 D ata Collection

............................................................................................................................

1 Laboratory Analysis ....................................................................................................................

1 D ata Analysis ...............................................................................................................................

2 Results and Comparison with Historical Data (1996 through 1997) ..........................................

3 Fish Eggs .....................................................................................................................................

3 Fish Larvae ..................................................................................................................................

3 Estim ated Entrainm ent ............................................................................................................

4 Conclusion

...................................................................................................................................

4 References

......................................................................................................................................

5 List of Figures Figure 1. Locations of intake (Intake Pumping Station) and reservoir transects and sampling stations used to collect ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Rhea County, TN .........................................................................................................

6 Figure 2. Weekly densities of fish eggs collected from sampling stations located in the Intake Pumping Station canal and in the Reservoir transect (combined) in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Rhea County, TN, during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010.. 7 Figure 3. Weekly densities of larval fish collected from sampling stations located in the Intake Pumping Station (IPS) canal and in the Reservoir transect (combined) in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Rhea County, TN, during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2 0 10 .....................................................................................................................................

8 i List of Tables Table 1. Total volume of water filtered weekly April through June 2010-2011 at stations at the Intake Pumping Station canal and the reservoir transect near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant to estimate densities and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae ............................................

9 Table 2. List of fish and eggs by family collected near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010, and lowest level of taxonomic resolution for each fam ily ................................................................................................................................

10 Table 3. Actual numbers and percent composition of fish eggs and larvae collected in impingement samples during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 in the vicinity of W atts B ar N uclear Plant ...............................................................................................

12 Table 4. Densities (number/1,000 M 3) by sample period of fish eggs and larvae collected at reservoir, intake, and reservoir and intake combined during April through June 1996 and 1997 (biweekly) and 2010 (weekly) at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ..................................

13 Table 5. Average and peak density (number per 1,000 mi 3) of fish eggs and larvae (reservoir and intake combined) with mean water temperatures collected in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 ..................................

15 Table 6. Species list, total number collected, percent composition and occurrence spans of fish eggs and larvae collected during operational monitoring at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 ..............................................................................

16 Table 7. Estimated entrainment results of fish eggs and larvae during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant including intake and reservoir flow, sample periods, average densities, and total numbers and percent entrained and transported past W B N .................................................................................................................................

18 Abbreviations and Acronyms cfs cubic feet per second CTB cooling tower blowdown fps feet per second msl mean sea level SCCW Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water TRM Tennessee River Mile TVA Tennessee Valley Authority WBH Watts Bar Hydroelectric Dam WBN Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ii Introduction Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is conducting additional monitoring during 2010-2011 in Chickamauga Reservoir to estimate entrainment mortality of fish in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) due to the proposed operation of an additional nuclear reactor (Unit 2) at the Plant site. This monitoring began March 2010 and will serve to update and verify historical monitoring conducted in 1996 and 1997. This report will present taxonomic composition, densities and estimated entrainment during April through June 2010 and compare these data from the same period during 1996 and 1997.Plant Description WBN is located on the right descending (west) bank of upper Chickamauga Reservoir at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 528 approximately

1.9 miles

downstream of Watts Bar Hydroelectric Dam (WBH; TRM 529.9) and one mile downstream of the decommissioned Watts Bar Fossil Plant (Figure 1). Unit 1 went into commercial operation on May 27, 1996 and is designed for a net electrical output of 1,160 megawatts (gross electrical output of 1,218 megawatts).

Materials and Methods Data Collection Ichthyoplankton samples during 1996 and 1997 monitoring of Unit 1 were collected biweekly, on a diel schedule (day and night), during April through June. Reservoir samples were collected at five stations along a transect located at TRM 528.4, which was perpendicular to river flow just upstream of the cooling tower make-up water intake channel (Figure 1). Four intake samples were collected within the Intake Pumping Station (IPS) canal located at TRM 528 (Figure 1).Samples were taken with a beam net (0.5 m square, 1.8 m long, with 505 micron "nitex" mesh netting) towed upstream at a speed of 1.0 m/s for ten minutes. The volume of water filtered through the net was measured with a large-vaned General Oceanics Inc. flowmeter.

Approximately 150 m 3 of water were filtered per ten-minute sample. Water temperature was recorded using a mercury thermometer calibrated to the tenth degree. Ichthyoplankton samples during 2010 monitoring were collected using the same methods, diel schedule (day and night), sampling period (April through June), and at the same sampling locations as those used in 1996 and 1997 monitoring, with one exception.

During 2010 monitoring, samples were collected weekly instead of biweekly.

Detailed ichthyoplankton sampling procedures used during 1996, 1997, and 2010 monitoring are outlined in S&F OPS-FO-BR-23.5 (TVA, 2010a).Laboratory Analysis Laboratory analyses also followed the same procedures in 2010 as in 1996 and 1997. Larval fish were removed from the samples, identified to the lowest possible taxon, counted and measured to the nearest millimeter total length following procedures outlined in S&F OPS-FO-BR-24.1 (TVA, 20 1Ob). Taxonomic decisions were based on TVA's "Preliminary Guide to the Identification of Larval Fishes in the Tennessee River," (Hogue et al., 1976) and other pertinent 1 literature (Wallus et al., 1990; Kay et al., 1994; Simon and Wallus, 2003; Simon and Wallus, 2006; Wallus and Simon, 2006; and Wallus and Simon, 2008).The term "unidentifiable larvae" applies to specimens too damaged or mutilated to identify, while "unspecifiable" before a taxon implies a level of taxonomic resolution (i.e., "unspecifiable catastomids" designates larvae within the family Catostomidae that currently cannot be identified to a lower taxon). The category "unidentifiable eggs" applies to specimens that cannot be identified due to damage or lack of taxonomic knowledge.

Taxonomic refinement is a function of specimen size and developmental stage. Throughout this report, the designation"unspecifiable clupeids" refers to clupeids less than 20 mm in total length and could include Dorosoma cepedianum (gizzard shad), D. petenense (threadfin shad), and/or Alosa chrvsochloris (skipjack herring) (Table 2). Any clupeid specimen identified to species level represents a postlarva or juvenile 20 mm or longer in total length.Developmental stage of moronids also determines level of taxonomic resolution.

Morone saxatilis (striped bass) hatch at a larger size than either M chrysops (white bass) or M mississippiensis (yellow bass). Although it is currently impossible to distinguish between larvae of the latter two species, M saxatilis can be eliminated as a possibility based on developmental characteristics of specimens 5 mm or less in total length (hence, the taxonomic designation"Morone not saxatilis").

Specimens identified as "Morone sp." are those greater than 5 mm total length that could be any of the three species.Data Analysis Temporal occurrence and relative abundance of eggs and larvae by taxon are presented and discussed for 1996, 1997, and 2010 monitoring periods. Densities of fish eggs and larvae were expressed as numbers per 1,000 m 3 and were calculated using the equation: D = 1,000(Number fish eggs or larvae collected)

Sample volume Estimated entrainment of fish eggs and larvae was calculated by the following equation: Ent = Z-D 1000 where Ent is estimated entrainment of fish eggs and larvae, D is the mean density (number/I,000 mi 3) of fish eggs or larvae and Q is the flow (m 3/d). To calculate estimated entrainment of fish eggs and larvae that were transported past WBN (from reservoir samples), densities of fish eggs and larvae from all stations along reservoir transect at TRM 528 were averaged and multiplied by the corresponding 24-hour river flow past the plant. Entrainment estimates for intake samples were calculated using the same method, except densities of fish eggs and larvae from the intake samples and plant intake (IPS) water demand were used.Percentage of transported ichthyofauna entrained by the plant was estimated using the formula: 2 100D 1 Q, DrQr where Di is the mean density (number/1,000 in 3) of fish eggs or larvae in intake samples; Dr is the mean density (number/ 1,000 in 3) of fish eggs or larvae in the river transect at TRM 528; Qj is the plant intake water demand (m 3/d); and Qr is the river flow past WBN (m 3/d).Results and Comparison with Historical Data (1996 through 1997)During thirteen sample periods in 2010, the average volume of water filtered each period was 676 m 3 for intake samples and 720 m 3 for reservoir samples (Table 1). A list of families of fish eggs and larvae collected April through June during 1996, 1997, and 2010, including the lowest level of taxonomic resolution, is presented in Table 2.Fish Eggs A total of 1,002 fish eggs was collected in weekly sampling during April through June 2010.Composition was 55 percent centrarchids, 38 percent freshwater drum, 4.3 percent moronids and 2.7 percent clupeids.

During this same period in 1996 and 1997 (biweekly sampling), 2,929 and 1,605 fish eggs were collected, respectively (Table 3). Nearly 100 percent of eggs collected in 1996 and 1997 were mutilated and unidentifiable; this was most likely due to turbine passage through Watts Bar Dam. During 2010 monitoring, densities of eggs peaked on 05/17 at 112/1,000 m 3 in intake and on 06/01 at 684/1,000 m 3 in reservoir samples (Table 4). Average seasonal density for eggs was 55/1,000 mn 3 in the intake and reservoir samples combined and peaked the week of 6/1 (Table 5; Figure 2).Fish Larvae A total of 6,249 larval fish was collected in weekly samples during April through June 2010, compared to 4,926 and 9,849 during the same period 1996-1997 (biweekly samples)respectively.

Relative abundance for all taxa of larval fish collected during the thirteen weekly sample periods of 2010 was dominated (64 %) by clupeids (gizzard and threadfin shad and skipjack), centrarchids (17%), Morone (12.4 %) and freshwater drum (5.1%). Table 3 provides a comparison of relative abundance of eggs and larvae by taxon during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010. Clupeids were the dominant family of larvae all three years. Occurrence by sample period for all taxa of eggs and larvae is presented for April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 in Table 6. Larval Morone and percids (darters and sauger) were the first taxa to be collected all three years.Average densities (525, 924, 347), peak seasonal densities (1,387; 1,699; 1,288) and dates of peak densities (06/03, 05/15, 05/17) for larvae during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010, respectively, are presented in Table 5. All of these values for samples collected during 2010 were within the range of the two previous years (1996 and 1997) of monitoring.

During 2010, average seasonal density for larvae was 347/1,000 m 3 in the intake and reservoir samples combined and the peak density occurred on the week of 5/17 (Table 5; Figure 3). It should be 3 noted that this peak density of fish larvae on 05/17 was coincidentally the date that there was no turbine flow through WBH to accommodate a hydrothermal survey of the WBN SCCW thermal plume under no-flow condition (TVA, 2011).Estimated Entrainment Entrainment estimates for fish eggs and larvae by sample period for during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 and total percent entrainment for the period sampled are presented in Table 7. Highest seasonal entrainment recorded for eggs was 0.29% and for larvae 0.57% both in 1996. During April through June 2010, seasonal entrainment for fish eggs and larvae was estimated to be 0.14% and 0.38%, respectively.

During one sample period (May 17) in 2010, density of fish eggs in intake samples (112/1,000 mi 3) was significantly higher than in reservoir samples (14/1,000 m 3) and resulted in a higher entrainment estimate (3.5%) for that period.Similarly for fish larvae in 2010, during sample periods 8 through 12 (05/24 through 06/21)densities were higher in intake samples and entrainment estimates ranged from 0.60% to 8.65%(Table 7).Conclusion Seasonal entrainment percentages for both fish eggs and larvae during April through June 2010 were similar to those estimated for previous operational monitoring during the same period 1996 and 1997. It was concluded in the report on those data (TVA, 1998) that those entrainment levels would not be detrimental to the ichthyoplankton population of upper Chickamauga Reservoir.

Therefore, the April through June 2010 ichthyoplankton population in upper Chickamauga Reservoir was not adversely affected due to entrainment by WBN.Historically, adult fish communities measured by TVA's Reservoir Fish Assemblage Index in the vicinity of WBN have averaged a "Good" rating annually since monitoring began in 1999 (TVA, 2010c). This is further evidence that operations of WBN have not adversely affected the fish community in Chickamauga Reservoir.

4 References Hogue, Jacob J., Jr., Robert Wallus, and Larry Kay. 1976. Preliminary guide to the identification of larval fishes in the Tennessee River. TVA Tech. Note B 19. 67pp.Kay, L.K., R. Wallus, and B.L. Yeager. 1994. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 2: Catostomidae.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN, USA.Simon, T.P., and R. Wallus. 2003. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 3: Ictaluridae-Catfish and Madtoms. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Simon, T.P., and R. Wallus. 2006. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 4: Percidae.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Tennessee Valley Authority.

1998. Aquatic environmental conditions in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during two years of operation, 1996-1997.

Norris, TN.Tennessee Valley Authority.

2010a. Standard Operating Procedures (S&F OPS-FO-BR-23.5) for "Ichthyoplankton Sampling." Knoxville, TN.Tennessee Valley Authority.

2010b. Standard Operating Procedures (S&F OPS-FO-BR-24.1) for "Ichthyoplankton Sample Processing." Knoxville, TN.Tennessee Valley Authority.

2010c. Biological Monitoring of the Tennessee River Near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Discharge, Autumn 2009. Chattanooga, TN.Tennessee Valley Authority.

2011. Hydrothermal Effects on the Ichthyoplankton from the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Supplemental Condenser Cooling Water Outfall in Upper Chickamauga Reservoir.

Biological and Water Resources, Knoxville, TN, USA.Wallus, R., B.L. Yeager, and T.P. Simon. 1990. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 1: Acipenseridae through Esocidae.

Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN, USA.Wallus, R. and T.P. Simon. 2006. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 5: Aphredoderidae through Cottidae, Moronidae, and Sciaenidae.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.Wallus R. and T.P. Simon. 2008. Reproductive Biology and Early Life History of Fishes in the Ohio River Drainage.

Volume 6: Elassomatidae and Centrarchidae.

CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.5 0 0.25 0.5 mMiles Ichthyplankton Sampling Stations 3 Reservoir Samples11-15_ Intake Samples 01-04 Figure 1. Locations of intake (Intake Pumping Station) and reservoir transects and sampling stations used to collect ichthyoplankton (fish eggs and larvae) during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Chickamauga Reservoir, Rhea County, TN.6 1200 1000 199--01997",.=_ 2010 S800 A-600 E 400 200..... " , .r~.... ,_Week4 Week 5 Week 1 2 eek 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3] Week 4 AWeek 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 March April May June Figure 2. Weekly densities of fish eggs collected from sampling stations located in the Intake Pumping Station canal and in the Reservoir transect (combined) in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Rhea County, TN, during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010.7 1800 1600 1400 ET 1200 E4 -, 1996 o =I"-=-1997 1000 2010.01 E.S. 800 o 600 400/ ' ______________

200 i 0 Week 4 Week 5 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week5 March April May June Figure 3. Weekly densities of larval fish collected from sampling stations located in the Intake Pumping Station (IPS) canal and in the Reservoir transect (combined) in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Rhea County, TN, during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010.8 Table 1. Total volume of water filtered weekly April through June 2010-2011 at stations at the Intake Pumping Station canal and the reservoir transect near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant to estimate densities and entrainment of fish eggs and larvae.2010 Month Week Intake Reservoir Total April 1 744 595 1,338 2 751 612 1,363 3 760 623 1,382 4 809 609 1,419 May 1 800 618 1,419 2 588 774 1,362 3 616 699 1,315 4 621 797 1,418 June 1 594 816 1,409 2 587 814 1,401 3 628 799 1,427 4 647 813 1,460 5 647 787 1,434 Total 8,792 9,356 18,147 Average 676 720 1,396 9 Table 2. List of fish eggs and larvae by family collected near Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010, and lowest level of taxonomic resolution for each family.1996 1997 2010 Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Fish Eggs Eggs Unidentifiable fish eggs Unidentifiable fish eggs Clupeidae spp. eggs Unidentifiable clupeid eggs Dorosoma cepedianun eggs Gizzard shad eggs Moronidae spp. eggs Leponis spp. eggs Lepomid eggs Aplodinotus grunniens eggs Freshwater drum eggs Aplodinotus grunniens eggs Freshwater drum eggs Aplodinotus g-runniens eggs Freshwater drum eggs Fish Larvae Clupeidae Clupeidae Clupeidae Unspecified shad and/or Unspecified shad and/or Unspecified shad and/or Unspecifiable clupeids herring Unspecifiable clupeids herring Unspecifiable clupeids herring Alosa chiysochloris Skipjack herring Alosa chi'sochloris Skipjack herring Dorosorna cepedianum Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianumn Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad Dorosomna petenense Threadfin shad Dorosoma petenense Threadfin shad Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Cyprinidae Unspecifiable cyprinids Unspecified minnow or carp Unspecifiable cyprinids Unspecified minnow or carp Cvprinus carpio Common carp Cprinus carplo Common carp Notropis volucellus Mimic shiner Cvprinella spp. Various shiners Fathead, bullhead or bluntnose Pimephales spp. minnow Catostomidae Catostomidae Unspecified Ictiobines Ictiobinae (buffalofish)

Minitrenia inelanops Spotted sucker Ictaluridae Ictaluridae lctalurus punctatus Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish Moronidae Moronidae Moronidae Morone sp. Unspecified temperate bass Morone sp. Unspecified temperate bass Morone sp. Unspecified temperate bass Morone chrvsops White bass Morone chn'sops White bass Morone chrvsops White bass Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass Morone mississippiensis Yellow bass Morone (not saxatilis)

Unspecified temperate bass(not Morone (not saxatilis)

Unspecified temperate bass(not Morone (not saxatilis)

Unspecified temperate bass striped bass) striped bass) (not striped bass)Centrarchidae Centrarchidae Centrarchidae Lepomis sp. Unspecified sunfish Lepomis sp. Unspecified sunfish Lepomis sp. Unspecified lepomid Micropterus sp. Unspecified black bass Micropterus (not dolonmieu)

Unspecified black bass (not smallmouth bass)10 Table 2. (Continued) 1996 1997 2010 Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name Common Name Pomoxis sp. Unspecified crappie Pomoxis sp. Unspecified crappie Potnoxis sp. Unspecified crappie Pomnoxis annularis White crappie Percidae Percidae Percidae Unspecifiable darter Unspecified darter Unspecifiable darter Unspecified darter Unidentifiable darter (not Unidentifiable darter Percina caprodes)Unidentifiable darter Unidentifiable darter, (Percina caprodes type) Logperch type Percaflavescens Yellow perch Percaflavescens Yellow perch Sander sp. Walleye or sauger Sander canadensis Sauger Sciaenidae Sciaenidae Sciaenidae Aplodinotus gninniens Freshwater drum Aplodinotus gnmniens Freshwater drum Aplodinotus gninniens Freshwater drum Atherinopsidae Atherinopsidae spp. Unspecified silverside (brook or inland)Menidia bevllina Inland silverside 11 Table 3. Actual numbers and percent composition of fish eggs and larvae collected in impingement samples during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.1996 1997 2010 Total Total Total Taxon Numbers % Comp Numbers % Comp Numbers % Comp Collected Collected Collected EGGS Unidentifiable fish eggs 2,908 99.28% 1,591 99.13%Clupeidae eggs 3 0.30%Clupeidae (not skipjack) eggs 20 2.00%Dorosoma cepedianum eggs 4 0.40%Centrarchidae (Lepomis) eggs 553 55.19%Moronidae (not sayatilis) eggs 43 4.29%Aplodinotus grunniens eggs 21 0.72% 14 0.87% 379 37.82%Total 2,929 100% 1,605 100% 1,002 100%LARVAE Clupeidae Unspecifiable clupeids 4,132 83.88% 8,083 82.07% 3,805 60.89%Alosa chrvsochloris 8 0.08% 1 0.02%Dorosoma cepedianum 74 1.50% 1 0.01% 216 3.46%Dorosoma petenense 50 1.02% 2 0.02% 3 0.05%Cyprinidae Unspecifiable cyprinids 2 0.04% 6 0.06%Cyprinidae (Cyprinella group) 1 0.02%Cyprinidae (Pimephales group) 26 0.42%Cprinus carpio 2 0.04% 2 0.02%Notropis volucellus 2 0.02%Catostomidae Ictiobinae 2 0.03%Mintrema melanops 3 0.06%Ictaluridae Iltalurus punctatus 2 0.04% 1 0.02%Moronidae Morone sp. 41 0.83% 820 8.33% 127 2.03%Morone chrvsops 5 0.10% 2 0.02% 89 1.42%Morone mississippiensis 16 0.32% 6 0.06%Morone (not saxatilis) 161 3.27% 382 3.88% 560 8.96%Centrarchidae Lepomnis sp. 95 1.93% 130 1.32% 522 8.35%Microptenrs sp. 3 0.03%Micropterus (not dolomieu) 19 0.30%Pomoxis sp. 8 0.16% 125 1.27% 487 7.79%Pomoxis annularis 15 0.24%Percidae Unidentifiable darter 5 0.10% 8 0.08%Unidentifiable darter (not Percina caprodes) 1 0.02%Unidentifiable darter (Percina caprodes type) 4 0.06%Perca flavescens 6 0.12% 7 0.11%Sander sp. 2 0.02%Sander canadensis 1 0.02%Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens 324 6.58% 267 2.71% 318 5.09%Atherinopsidae Atherinopsidae sp. 43 0.69%Menidia bervllina 1 0.02%Total 4,926 100% 9,849 100% 6,249 100%12 Table 4. Densities (number/1,000 M 3) by sample period of fish eggs and larvae collected at reservoir, intake, and reservoir and intake combined during April through June 1996 and 1997 (biweekly) and 2010 (weekly) at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.Fish Eggs 1996 1997 2010 Month Week Intake Reservoir Combined*

Intake Reservoir Combined*

Intake Reservoir Combined*M arch 4 .........-

17 7 1,0 7 0 1,0 0 4 .........5..........................

April 1 17 382 354 .........-

0 7 4 2 .........-

0 16 15 0 48 26 3 109 1,528 1,095 .........-

0 3 1 4 .........-

0 11 10 0 0 0 May 1 59 26 28 .........-

3 38 23 2 .........-

0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 84 78 .........-

112 14 60 4 .........-

0 3 3 6 105 62 June 1 9 10 10 .........-

19 684 404 2 .........

0 0 0 49 105 81 3 0 7 7 .........-

43 28 34 4 .........-

9 18 .17 2 22 13 5 .... ... ... ... ... ..-0 1 0 6 13 Table 4. (Continued)

Fish Larvae 1996 1997 2010 Month Week Intake Reservoir Combined*

Intake Reservoir Combined*

Intake Reservoir Combined*M arch 4 .........-

35 52 5 1 ....................................

April 1 0 1 1 .........-

0 0 0 2 ---..--.---

232 319 312 278 264 270 3 0 22 15 .........-

151 217 187 4 .........-

427 1,115 1,063 406 372 386 May 1 294 426 419 .........-

377 646 529 2 .........-

1,822 1,689 1,699 663 570 610 3 1,348 594 648 " -696 998 856 4 .........-

625 550 555 488 465 475 June 1 5,575 1,065 1,387 .........

627 549 582 2 ----.-.. 2,260 1,032 1,107 380 230 293 3 2,354 551 682 .........-

358 74 199 4 .........-

2,646 1,600 1,683 221 14 106 5 ..................

9 25 18--- denotes no sample collected during sample period.*Values in the "Combined" column are not sums of corresponding values in "Reservoir" and "Intake" columns. Densities in"Combined" column were calculated using total (reservoir and intake combined) numbers of fish eggs and/or larvae collected and total volumes sampled (see "Data Analysis" section).14 Table 5. Average and peak density (number per 1,000 M 3) of fish eggs and larvae (reservoir and intake combined) with mean water temperatures collected in the vicinity of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010.1996 1997 2010 Fish Eggs Average Density 262 150 55 Peak Density 1,095 1,004 499 Date of Peak Density 4/22 3/21 6/2 Fish Larvae Average Density 525 924 347 Peak Density 1,387 1,699 1,288 Date of Peak Density 6/3 5/15 5/17 Mean Water Temperature

(°C) 18.4 22.4 22.3 15 Table 6. Species list, total number collected, percent composition and occurrence spans of fish eggs and larvae collected during operational monitoring at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010.1996 TOTAL PERCENT OCCURRENCE BY TAXON COLLECTED COMPOSITION SAMPLE PERIOD FISH EGGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 Unidentifiable fish eggs 2,908 99.28% X X X X X Aplodinotus grunniens eggs 21 0.72% X X X Total 2,929 100%FISH LARVAE Clhpeidae 4,132 83.88% X X X X Dorosoina cepedianum 74 1.50% X X Dorosomapetenense 50 1.02% X X Cvprinidae 2 0.04% X Cprinus carpio 2 0.04% X X Minytrema inelanops 3 0.06% X Ictalurus punctatus 2 0.04% X Morone sp. 41 0.83% X X X Morone chpvsops 5 0.10% X Morone mnississippiensis 16 0.32% X Morone (not saxatilis) 161 3.27% X X X Lepomis sp. 95 1.93% X X Pomoxis sp. 8 0.16% X X X Percidae (not Sander) 5 0.10% X X X Percaflavescens 6 0.12% X X Aplodinots grunniens 324 6.58% X X X TOTAL 4,926 100% 1 1997 TOTAL PERCENT OCCURRENCE BY SAMPLE TAXON COLLECTED COMPOSITION PERIOD FISH EGGS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Unidentifiable fish eggs 1,591 99.13% X X X X X Aplodinotus grunniens eggs 14 0.87% X X Total 1,605 100%FISH LARVAE Clupeidae 8,083 82.07% X X X X X X X Alosa chrysochloris 8 0.08% X X Dorosoma cepedianum 1 0.01% X Dorosoma petenense 2 0.02% X X Cyprinidae 6 0.06% X X Cyprinus carpio 2 0.02% X Notropis volucellus 2 0.02% -X X Morone sp. 820 8.33% X X X X X X Morone chrysops 2 0.02% X X Morone mississippiensis 6 0.06% X X X Morone (not saratilis) 382 3.88% X X X X X Lepomnis sp. 130 1.32% X X X Micropterus sp. 3 0.03% X X Pomoxis sp. 125 1.27% X X X X X Percidae (not Sander) 8 0.08% X X X Sander sp. 2 0.02% X Aplodinotus grunniens 267 2.71% X X X X TOTAL 9,849 100%16 Table 6. (Continued) 2010 TOTAL PERCENT OCCURRENCE BY SAMPLE PERIOD TAXON COLLECTED COMPOSITION FISH EGGS 3 0.30% 1 2 34 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Clupeidae eggs 20 2.00% X Clupeidae (not skipjack) eggs 4 0.40% X X X Dorosoma cepedianum eggs 553 55.19% X X Centrarchidae (Lepomis) eggs 43 4.29% X X Moronidae (not saxatilis) eggs 379 37.82% X X Aplodinotus grunniens eggs 3 0.30% X X X X X X TOTAL 1,002 100%FISH LARVAE Unspecifiable clupeids 3,805 60.89% X X X X X X X X X X Alosa chrsochloris 1 0.02% X X Dorosoma cepedianunm 216 3.46% X X X X X X X Dorosoma petenense 3 0.05% X X X Cyprinidae (Cyprinella group) 1 0.02% X Cyprinidae (Pimephales group) 26 0.42% X X X X X X X X X Catostomidae (Ictiobinae) 2 0.03% X Ictalurus punctatus 1 0.02% X X X Morone sp. 127 2.03% X X X X X X X X Morone chrlysops 89 1.42% X X XX X X X Morone (not sax allfis) 560 8.96% -X X X X X Lepomis sp. 522 8.35% X X X X X X X Micropterus (not dolomieu) 19 0.30% XX X Pomoxis sp. 487 7.79% X X X X X X X X X X.Pomoxis annularis 15 0.24% X X X X X Unidentifiable darter (not Percina caprodes) 1 0.02% X Unidentifiable darter (Percina caprodes type) 4 0.06% X X X Percaflavescens 7 0.11% X X X _ I X Sander canadensis 1 0.02% X Aplodinotus grmniens 318 5.09% X X X X X X X X X Atherinopsidae sp. 43 0.69% X X X X X X X Menidia bervllina 1 0.02% X X X TOTAL 6,249 100%17 Table 7. Estimated entrainment results of fish eggs and larvae during April through June 1996, 1997, and 2010 at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant including intake and reservoir flow, sample periods, average densities, and total numbers and percent entrained and transported past WBN.1996-E gs Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Density/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date Period 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Entrained 1,000 m, m 3/d Transported Entrained D, Qj D, Qr April 8 1 17.1 1.27E+05 2.18E+03 382.2 2.04E+07 7.80E+06 0.03%April 22 2 108.9 7.1OE+04 7.73E+03 1527.5 6.29E+07 9.6 1E+07 0.01%May 6 3 58.8 1.62E+05 9.54E+03 25.7 2.41 E+07 6.17E+05 1.55%May 20 4 0.0 1.54E+05 O.OOE+00 83.6 4.36E+07 3.64E+06 T June 3 5 8.8 1.1 7E+05 1.03E+03 9.5 8.20E+07 7.80E+05 0.13%June 17 6 0.0 2.26E+05 O.OOE+00 7.0 6.94E+07 4.84E+05 T Total: 2.05E+04 Total: 1.09E+08 0.29%*1996-Larvae Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Density/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date Period 1,000 M 3 ma/d Entrained 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Transported Entrained D, QL Dr Qr April 8 1 0.0 1.27E+05 0.OOE+00 1.4 2.04E+07 2.93E+04 T April 22 2 0.0 7.1OE+04 0.OOE+00 22.1 6.29E+07 1.39E+06 T May 6 3 294.1 1.62E+05 4.77E+04 426.2 2.41E+07 1.03E+07 0.47%May 20 4 1348.2 1.54E+05 2.08E+05 594.2 4.36E+07 2.59E+07 0.80%June3 5 5575.2 1.17E+05 6.51E+05 1065.3 8.20E+07 8.73E+07 0.75%June 17 6 2354.0 2.26E+05 5.32E+05 550.6 6.94E+07 3.82E+07 1.39%Total: 1.44E+06 Total: 1.63E+08 0.57%*1997-E Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Density/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date .Period 1,000 min , mn/d Entrained

• 1,000 M 3 m 3/d Transported Entrained D, Q, D, Qr March 21 1 177.0 1.03E+05 1.82E+04 1069.8 1.09E+08 1.17E+08 0.02%April 14 2 0.0 1.24E+05 O.OOE+00 16.0 2.38E+07 3.80E+05 T April 28 3 0.0 1.01E+05 0.OOE+00 10.5 5.43E+07 5.72E+05 T May 15 4 0.0 1.04E+05 0.OOE+00 0.7 4.96E+07 3.35E+04 T May 27 5 0.0 1.1OE+05 0.OOE+00 2.7 4.63E+07 1.25E+05 T June 9 6 0.0 1.19E+05 0.OOE+00 0.0 7.49E+07 0.OOE+00 T June 23 7 9.1 1.23E+05 1.12E+03 18.1 9.99E+07 1.81E+06 0.06%Total: 1.94E+04 Total: 1.20E+08 0.02%*1997-Larvae Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Density/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date Period 1,000 M 3 mi/d Entrained

• 1,000 im nM 3/d Transported Entrained DI Q1 D, Qr March 21 1 35.4 1.03E+05 3.65E+03 52.1 1.09E+08 5.70E+06 0.06%April 14 2 232.1 1.24E+05 2.89E+04 318.5 2.38E+07 7.59E+06 0.38%April 28 3 427.4 1.01E+05 4.30E+04 1115.3 5.43E+07 6.05E+07 0.07%May 15 4 1822.0 1.04E+05 1.89E+05 1688.9 4.96E+07 8.37E+07 0.23%May 27 5 625.0 1.1OE+05 6.88E+04 550.0 4.63E+07 2.55E+07 0.27%June 9 6 2260.4 1.19E+05 2.70E+05 1032.2 7.49E+07 7.74E+/-07 0.35%June 23 7 2645.5 1.23E+05 3.25E+05 1600.0 9.99E+07 1.60E+08 0.20%Total: 9.28E+05 Total: 4.20E+08 0.22%*18 Table 7. (Continued) 2010-E s Fish Eggs Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Density/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date Period 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Entrained 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Transported Entrained D_ Q1 Dr Qr April 5 1 0.0 9.82E+04 0.00E+00 6.7 2.14E+07 1.44E+05 T April 12 2 0.0 9.68E+04 0.OOE+00 47.9 1.74E+07 8.34E+05 T April 19 3 0.0 8.98E+04 0.OOE+00 2.6 1.48E+07 3.89E+04 T April 26 4 0.0 1.01 E+05 0.00E+00 0.0 2.55E+07 0.OOE+00 T May 3 5 3.2 1.56E÷05 5.05E+02 37.5 1.19E+08 4.47E+06 0.01%May 10 6 0.0 1.59E+05 0.00E+00 1.3 3.08E+07 3.98E+04 T May 17 7 112.2 1.64E+05 1.84E+04 14.3 3.65E+07 5.2 1E+05 3.54%May 24 8 6.4 1.64E+05 1.06E+03 105.3 2.88E+07 3.03E+06 0.03%June 1 9 18.5 1.62E+05 3.01E+03 684.2 1.85E+07 1.27E+07 0.02%June 7 10 49.4 1.65E+05 8.13E+03 104.5 3.46E+07 3.62E+06 0.22%June 14 11 43.0 1.66E+05 7.12E+03 27.5 3.04E+07 8.36E+05 0.85%June 21 12 1.5 1.66E+05 2.57E+02 22.1 3.14E+07 6.96E+05 0.04%June 28 13 0.0 1.65E+05 0.OOE+00 10.2 3.11E+07 3.17E+05 T Total: 3.85E+04 Total: 2.72E+07 0.14%*2010-Larvae Fish Larvae Intake Reservoir Water Estimated River Estimated Sample Densitv/ Demand Number Density/ Flow Number Percent Date Period 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Entrained 1,000 m 3 m 3/d Transported Entrained D, Qi Dr Q, April 5 1 0.0 9.82E+04 0.OOE+00 0.0 2.14E+07 0.OOE+00 T April 12 2 277.7 9.68E+04 2.69E+04 263.7 1.74E+07 4.58E+06 0.59%April 19 3 150.9 8.98E÷04 1.35E+04 217.2 1.48E+07 3.21E+06 0.42%April 26 4 405.5 1.01E+05 4.09E+04 371.9 2.55E+07 9.48E+06 0.43%May 3 5 376.9 1.56E+05 5.89E+04 645.7 1.19E+08 7.70E+07 0.08%May 10 6 663.2 1.59E+05 1.05E+05 569.8 3.08E+07 1.76E+07 0.60%May 17 7 695.8 1.64E+05 1.14E+05 997.6 3.65E+07 3.64E+07 0.31%May 24 8 487.9 1.64E+05 8.OOE+/-04 465.1 2.88E+07 1.34E+07 0.60%June 1 9 626.7 1.62E+05 1.02E+05 549.3 1.85E+07 1.02E+07 1.00%June 7 10 379.8 1.65E+05 6.25E+04 229.8 3.46E+07 7.96E+06 0.78%June 14 11 358.4 1.66E+05 5.93E+04 73.8 3.04E+07 2.24E+06 2.65%June 21 12 220.9 1.66E+05 3.68E+04 13.5 3.14E+07 4.25E+05 8.65%June 28 13 9.3 1.65E+05 1.53E+03 25.4 3.11E+07 7.91E+05 0.19%Total: 7.02E+05 Total: 1.83E+08 0.38%*T=less than 0.01 percent composition

• Total percent entrainment is calculated by dividing total Estimated Number Entrained by total Estimated Number Transported.

19