ML17212A697
| ML17212A697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1981 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-81-381, NUDOCS 8109090427 | |
| Download: ML17212A697 (106) | |
Text
REGULATORY
)FORMATION DISTRIBUTIONpS EM (RIDS) aCCEssIDN NSR:SI0909002T Doc.oaTE,: sii09i02 NOTaRIZED:
No FACILE:50 389 St ~ Lucie PlantE Unit 2E Florida Power 8 light'o.
AUTHI,NAME'l AUTHOR AF FILI AT'ION UHRIGg R ~ E ~
Florida Power 8 Light Co,,
REC IP ~ NAME(
RECiIPIFNT )F F ILIIATION EISENHUT'iD.G.
Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
I Forwards mar ked up addi infoEin>> response to NRC r equestss Info will be> incorporated into future environ rept. amend DISTRIBUTION CODE;: COOIS'OPIES RECEIVED >LiTR f,'NCL
'IZE'ITLEI:
Ehviron. Report Amendments L Related Correspondence" NOTES':
DOCKE'T' 05000389 RECIPIENT IO CODE/l4AM9 ACT'ION:
LAIC< BR 43>> BC 18 NERSESiV ~
05 INTERNAL>: ENV ENG BR 06'8Kt15i RAD'SST" BR 09 SIT1 ANAL BR'7 COPIES LTTR ENCL'-'
1 1
].
1 1
2 2'
1 1
1 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME.
LiIC'R 43 LA 19 HYD/GEO'R OElJ)"
01'Ti FIN BR'8 COPIES LITTRE ENCL~
1 1
fi 0,,
1 EXTERNAL: ACRS 20.
NRC! PDRi 02!
NT'IS 3
3 1
1 1
1 LPDR NSIC 03i 0$
SF.P ~4 198)
TOTAL" NURBER< OF COPIES REQUIRED': LiTTR'9 ENCL0 18
W L
I W
E (i
W g
I P1 1IK P
I l
g
[Wa I
W yr ~
~
W)(i, P j 1
<jgI Krl K
~
0 K
'tt1 W
~
W tt IK Ki g j Pj
FLORIDAPOWER & LIGHTCOMPANY September 2,
1981 L-81-381 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
blr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
Dear Hr. Eisenhut:
Re:
St. Lucie Unit 2 Docket No. 50-389 Environmental Report - Operating License Re uests For Additional Information Attached are Florida Power 8 Light Company (FPL) responses to NRC staff requests for additional information which have not been formally submitted on the St. Lucie Unit 2 docket.
These responses will be incorporated into the St. Lucie Unit 2 ER-OL in a future amendment.
Very
- yours, Robert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems
& Technology REU/TCG/ah Attachments cc:
J.
P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II (w/o attachments)
Harold F. Reis, Esquire (w/o attachments)
Qo~ <
\\
8iO'7090427 8i0902 PDR ADOCK 05000389 C
PDR PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
0
~.
H
Attachments to L-81-381 September 2,
1981 A.
Revised section 6.1.4 (Land)
B.
Revised section 2.1.1.3 (Population Distribution)
C.
Revised D.
~ Revised table 2.1-1
/
table 2.1-2 E.
F.
Revised table 2.1-4 Revised table 2.1-5
i 1
~
~
h
SL2-ER-OI,
- 6. 1.4 LAND 6.1.4.1 Geolog and Soils The geological and soil studies performed to determine the environmental impact of the.construction of StLucie Lait 2 have been described in the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report
.Construction Permit.
No new geological or.soil studies are currently underway at the St Lucie site.
6.).4.2 Land Use and Demo raphic Surve s
6.1.4.2,1 Land* Use Surveys Land uses and land cover within a five mile radius of St Lucie Unit,2 were determined through photo interpretation and field checks.
During the first week of 'October 1978, color infrared aerial photographs were taken at an altitu(~ ~f 4,000 feet of tha area within five miles of St Lucid Unit 2
During the weeks of January 14 and March 7,
- 1979, land 7
uses were field checked.
Once identified, land uses and land cover were classifie)1(cog)ding to USGS Professional, Paper 964 and the Coastal Ma in Handbook.
This system considers land use and land cover, According to the USGS, "land use refers to man's activ'ities on and which axe directly related to the land.
Land cover, on the other hand, describes the g~etational and artificial constructions covering the land surface" This system uses three levels'of classification.
Level I is the least detailed clas-sification; Level III is the most detailed.
Levels I, II and III were used to classify land uses for this report.
Demographic Surveys - Resident Population (adtduL~c ~ ~
Estimates and projections of the resident population have been carried out by two,different methodologies, one for the area within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 (Methodology A) and the other for the area within~ miles of St Lucie Unit 2 (Methodology B).
<co-l'l8(
The resident population'f ~ was estimated, projections were then prepared for the years 4966; 1983 (the date of plant start-up),
- 1990, 2000,
- 2010, 2020, and 2030.
Data used in reparing the resident and transient population estimates is current to ~
~~~>, issue.
Methodolo y A:
0-50 miles g~th fho co. g.lf p f n g)
Population by annular sector in the region within 50 miles of St Lucia Unit 2
has been estimated and allocated by the technique outlined below.
On a
USGS map at a scale of 1:250,000, concentric circles are drawn, with the reactor at center point, at distances of 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 miles.
Between five and 50 miles, these circles are divided into 22-1/2 degree segments with each segment centered on one of the 16 cardinal compass points (north, north northeast, northeast, etc).
Grid cells created in this manner are referred to as "annular sectors".
Between zero and ~ miles, the area is 6.1-16'mendment No. 2, (6/81)
t t
q
I SL2-ER-PL b)
> c) considered as a whole and is not divided into annular sectors.
t Ahf g.
P ulat fo ac nn a'r ct 1
as ee d
ive fro NSI
~~a r 1-t e, 'nt ac'e m
te sy e
th re-tr'es emo aph
. dat
. a ord' s
e nd u
a a
ecif'-
ion ON TE',
gi er pr u
o r
n eci on yst s
m av ab th ug at'a CC ON fE yst ca ate pop atio fo ea a
1 s
to y sea hi co din e
'(M er um at i D'r')
is s
c re ed y U an ec on rp for en oid o
lo oup or en
~at n ~s-ts cts 11 g wi hin the ann ar'ec o'r e 'fie
'mar<
>qqe
<en<
Adjustments, made in four annular sectors based on com-parison of data with information provided by county planners.
In each
- case, 1970~ensus data shows no permanent residents in places where settlement has since occurred.
The sectors and adjustments are as follows:
a 1) 30-40 SW Ma~(j~ County:
Port Mayaca given a base population of 40 in 1970 2) 40-50 WSW - Gl~d~~ County:
Buckhead Ridge given 556 registered voters in 1977 2
3) 40-50 W Highlands Coute'(
Settlement since 1970 of 30 persons at Rucks Road and SR 70 4) 40-.50 HhM.'" Oaoeola County:
Yeehaw (tention in" 1970 had a
population of 77; and in 1975; of 97 d)
Calculat'ions of projections by annular sector are based, on the official State of Florida projections developed by the Division of Population Studies, Bureau of Economic and Business
- Research, University of Florida at Gainesville, which are the most recent and widel used ulation ro'ections in the state.
do n
la t o
'd L f52.I l955 State projections cover the years &%~Me~~, 1990,
- 2000, 2010 and 2020..
The overall growth rate which the Bureau of Economic 6.1-17 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
/
'd
SL2-ER-OL and Business Research applies to counties in 2010 to derive projec-tions for 2020 is used to derive growth from 2020 to 2030.
This seems reasonable based on the uncertainty of events so far in the future..
t N SE'RT'u io of p pulat n by annul sectors be ween five to 50 mil is rimar'ly b ed u
n the assu ption at each nnular s
tor ill m xntai its 970 s are.
the unty po lation t rough, 030.
This assum ion as co ide d val for th 50 mile tudy are beca se gr th i expe ed t conf m for,t most p
t to p
sent atte s.
e pre onde ance popula on alon the tlan c
Co t an to a
esse exten on Lak Okeechob e is ex-pect d to ontin e due o t desi ability f these ocations (p oximi to e At antic and t Lake Ok echobee),
natural on-tion (pri rily oils suitab e for. d elopme
),
and e
sting land se a
zon g in hese egions.
Where n cessary, djustm ts wer made to th ass ption hat ea annula sector ll mai rain i
197 shar of t e
Cou y popu tion.
ese adj tments are iscu.
ed i "f",
g" a
"h" b ow, and eflect own d
elopme tren s.
a en a
annu ar, se or in udes par s of mo
- than ne co ty, its opul tion or 1
0 is portion to ea'c count based n
a break" dow of ock oups o
enumer ion dis icts ovided y ONSITE.
Ea n po tion the calcula d as a
rcent e of t.e respecti unt es'
- tais, his per entage as appl ed to e county o-jec
~ons o deter. ine the portion of the ounty'rojected popula-ti n al cated o the a nular s ctor.
1 the ortions e then mmed to es mate th total rojecte popul ion for at annular sect T
result' over 1 rate of gro h for th 0 mile r ius are is 1 1.7 per nt or
.54 per
-nt pe year.
or r to re lect a
uratel the d
elopment ctivity Palm Bea County in the annular ector surroundi g the ci of West Pa Beach the t al pop ation or all fo r annula sectors is portio
-d bas on th growt rate of W st Palm each and t locatio of h sing st rts i areas ad cent to e city.
ie annul sec rs aff ted a
40, S 40-5
, and S
3 40.
he reap ortio ent is m
e becau" it is fe that t se fo r se ors wo d mai, ain thei 1970 sh e of tota county opu-atio (48 per ent),
ut that e slow,rowth rat exhibit by West aim Be ch ci from 19 to 197 (2.1 per nt) wo contin fo the bu t-up rea.
Si ce the 70 Censu
, housin starts e
oceede at a
igorous ate in e three rroundi annula sector A
p of dw ing un s under onstruc on in 19 show the r sidenti develo ent tak g place n vacan land both no h and est of he West aim Be area.
2 310.
14 A sim ar re portion nt is u ed in th annular ectors su ounding the ities f Fort erce a
Port S
ucie.
etween 197 and
- 1978, Po f
ucie'a p
ulatio frau by early l 00 perceo, from 33 o
,465 Con urrentl
, its sh e of co ty popula on rose fro less th one pe ent to re than ight'ere t.
The ocat on o
the res'ntial evelopme within ort St L
ie city I mits was
- 6. 1-18 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) a
I t
C
SL2-ER-OL identified fr aerial photographs t~$~p in 1966 and 1969 b
the Fgor a Dep.tment f Tra por ation In the annular ectors wit xn St ucie
- unty, pu tion pr sections ere adj ted to re-f ct th incre sing s
re f popul ion held y Port t Lucie.
In ad ition, in ann ar ector S
five to en, a
mparison i made of e nu er exi ing dwellin units a
built-p land to tal d
elopa le lan in e annu) r sec to Land s consider develop" le i street are in plac A to 1 capac'ty of dwel ing units was termin on
'he bas s of ex ting la d develop nt patterns.
Fro the nu er f resi ntial u its air ady ouilt, a resident ulatio cap.ity of 20,000 ersons s estimat d.
The 19 re ident pulati was d'ributed ong the a
ular sect s to ref le 'he c istructi n of two evelopment rojects:
Spa ish akes I I and
- dport,
'pecific y,
666 re dents were a
ed annu ar sec r
SW fo to five to account or Spanish akes Ill.
or Mid ort, 48 s reside s were add to those nular sec rs wh'ch wil house t is proje upon corn etion in 1
3:
18 resi nts w
e added to annul r.sector S
three to
- our, 458 re ad ed to nnular ector SS four to f e,
706, we added annul sect r SSW f e to te 75 were ded to an lar sec.or SW thre to f 1813 to annu ar sector four to ve, and 604 to an lar ctor SW ive to en.
e d'ributi of th projected opulatio for the, ear 20 was bas on the istrib ion of th age grou under 1
12 t oug 18 and ove 18 in e U.S.
po ulation 'ccordan e wit lOC
- 100, pendix Methodoio y B: zero to Five Miles/~ewe ps ro.A. p 2 I, o, g) f f45'KPT o al ca pop ation t the an lar se ors in 'de five miles, t
e fo owin p
cedur have
.en und aken:
- 1) ide ification a oc.
ion ular ector existi dwel 'ng uni in 1978; 2
develop-m t
o a
ors expre the re tive x,tabil' for devel ament of nnu r
ector insid ive mi s;
an S) the location o
expected p
ul ion g wth f the f e mile rea fo the requir years to 203 s,"Sr u
a ba map c
struct from GS maps at scale of 1:,000, a
circ ar grid as be super'osed at r ii of one mil intervals (o, two,
- ree, our, an five miles and 16 secto of 22-1/2 grees entere on nor The num r of dwellin nits was unted from rial otograp taken by erial Carto
- hics, Inc Orl
- ado, F
rida i ctober an November 197 and rec ded on t
map.
Field ecks were ade in early
- anuary, 19 to re lve quest'able i
erpretati s
and to ve y multi-f ily dw lings and e
numb r of units xn them.
Th number of ermane residents i
major sidential evelopments ch as Spa ash Lak and Ne es eland ave )gn ified with 'uiries t their r spectiv mana a-ment ffices In add'on, the n
ber of esiden an cipated t reside in, S nish Lakes II and idport as d-ermined w'nquiries o the devel pers and the T
asure oast
- 6. 1>>19 menu ent No'. 2, (6/81)
I 3C re Regiona Plan ng Co ci1 Th esti ated p
ulation or the fiv mile rad s
was allocated to nul secto accord'g to the d'ributi of dwell'
- units, the umber f perso per ]pl g unit, nd est imat s of seas al v
sus p
manent esidents 3
s' On base ma of the zer to fiv ile regio, areas s 'ble for "r
identia developme have b
n identifi Areas onsidered n-uitable for. reside 'ial dev opment inc uded wate
- bodies, 6L proper y and por
'ons of e mangrove areas on tchinson
- sland, the ransmissi i line r'ght of way nd parts the Sa nnahs p
chased by he Sta of Florid for cons vation the mainlan The mos recent oning maps 'a been o
rlaid on t
(
,30) annul secto grid and se map.
o dete
'ne residen
'al develop-me potent al,,
the ar a zoned' each sidential ategory is'culat
. for each nnular
~ s tor and a dwellin nit densit fac" tor ap ied.
(Dw ling un'ensit factors e the aver of the nge of d ling un' per re in eac class of r idential use as 'icated 'he
. Lucie C
nty Growth
. anagement Plan
).
Th numbers or eac resident'ategory n an annu ar sector.
e summe to det mine the otal resid tial dev opment poten al for ch an ar sect These t als are ed together for he'entive ile regach a
lar sec r's develop.
t c
abilit facto is the D
centage of ach ann ar sector's esi-.
dent ia develo nent pot tial to th tot al r ident ial d elopment pote ial w'in fiv iles.
or thf'equire years fro 980 to 30, the e
ected increase in pop ation
(
rived fro t/ethodo y A) is a
ocated among annu r
s tors us g the rel 'ive dev opment ca oility factors as efined in (b).
.d Th methodol y descri d above w
not used in ann ar sector SSE ur'-five.
The 198 population stimates for an ar SSE sector four-fi were up ated to ref ect information ilized by FPh xn respo se to th uclear Re atory Commissio request for e luation ti estimat 6.1.4.2.3 Demographic surveys Transient populationgmsAtbstpb6, re,p.fs.M I,z, s)
Figuqgg,2.1-10 and 2.1-11 show~ transient population by annular sector for A44 through 2030.
These estimates and projections have been reached by estimating the number of tourists and seasonal
- visitors, the number of par-ticipants at attractions or events, employment at major industries and enrollment at colleges in each annular sector; Methodolog for Estimating Peak Dail and Seasonal-Transient Po ulation b Annular Sector
~98I Peak daily and seasonal transient population was estimated for 4&83 and projected to the year 2030 for the area within 30 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
The ~ peak daily and seasonal transient population was based on j'f5 J 6.1-20 Amendment No..2, (6/81)
gg cCS)
SL2-ER-OL calcula ons of the number of people staying in tourist lodgings, camp-grounds~ and with friends and relatives.
Those people visiting attractions,,
working for major employers within the study area and attending colleges in the area are listed separately, The lattei transient groups were not added to the transient population totals shown in Table 2.1-5 and Figures 2,1-10 and 2.1-11 to preclude double-counting.
'1'purist Po ulation floss~
Inside the ten mile radius, the number, of tourists staying in tourist lodg-ings (such as ho" els, motels) and in ram~goy)s has been determined by contacting
~ '
tourist accommodations, locating them within the proper annual sector, and inquir'ing as tn their peak capacity or 100 percent occupancy, Qo~y"isf Q <<om~~d&iovA 4rce e i'clan.fjX'~W<rig ~ R'+~
r Su.vvey c
c~M ~ ~y l %+I.
The
.umb r of ouris's st ing w
h fr nds and r lat's wi hin en les of t L cie 0 it 2 as,b n det rmine by ivid' t
tot re den p
ul inn 'ac annu sect r by s09 Thi fac or wa der'd y
divi xng t e pe numb r nf sit to the S'ate f Fl ida ot s.ayin in.otels and mpgr nds i 1977 ntn t.e t al n
ber f'e xde s
)
i Flor '
es
'mate for 77.
s pr viou y
m tion d, t nu er ouris s st ing i mote s, ho els nd ca pgro nds w s nb aine by one surv of sted nuris'cc imod ions.
Th numb r wa "sub act d fr m the otal numb of t rist, to obtai the umber of uris' wh st wi fr ends d rel tives W'in t e te mile adi th numb r n ople stay g in uris acc mmoda ons as ad ed t tho st ing ith frie s
an relat es, o
d
.ive a
otal peak aily and easo al't rist tra ssien popula ion, twe ten a
30,ile each campg ound 1
s en lo ated and pea' capa.sty asc rtai ed.
For ot er. to rist dg's, ch a,nula secto was giv n a sh e o the otal 1 dgj~
units ic nsed the Stat of F1 rida f r
'Z t.e count wit in w j.~) it ell, It is ssume that an f r the ounty ithin erich t fe 1, It i assu d t at an annul r se tor's hare o
lodgi uni s
wa the sa e
as ts sh e
o the otal
.ount resi ent 4l popu atin
~
Fo examp ann lar s ctnr SSE
-30 c ntai s 0,0 9 pere t of Mar in C unty'esid t po latio eref e, 0.
89 rcent of the ota'I 1
.ens d tou ist lod ings 'art n
C nty as a1 cat to t is ann ar ecto a
Pe k occ pancy o, lodg g est li ments is c
cula ed at hree p rsons per it wi an o'panc rate f
1 pere nt f the peak
- eason, This nccupa cy rat is ba ed on nqu'ries eac lod ng es ablish nt wi in the n mile radius Q
As ithin the-te mile adi s, th numb of nuris s stay g wit frie ds a
d rel ives b,tween ten nd 30 iles from t Luc'e Unit was eter.
ined by div ing t res ent opula ion i thi area y 5.09 Once gain th numbe of pe sons ayi g in t urist faci sties as ad ed to th num er per ns sta ing w th f iends nd r ativ s to d termi e peak ily nd se sonal v sitor for the t tn mil radi
- 6. 1-21 Amendment No.
1, (4/81)
To p
ject eak aily a seas al tran ent v sitors f r the equired ye s to 30; wo met ods h
e been ed, o
e for th years etwee 1978
>d 198, an one fo the y ars bet~
en 19 and 20 For,>roje tions the ear 198, an a nual ra of in rease f eig p.cent estima d by e Stat of Fl rida Di sion o
Tour'sm has een ed.
The D
isio of Tour' pro'ections o
1985 are b sed, i
- part, on estio aires adminis 'ed touris s arriv'ng b
auto a
air.
Re onse to th se ques onna es are sed to stab sh ann 1 tou st p pula on fi res.
ojec ons ar then d
erm ed on t basi of a ine annu growt rate eflect
>g the ates annual crea in t rist pop atio Thus sine the to rist po ulat n grew eig pere t from
.1 7 )
978, t s
nu er is sed as e
a ual rat of i rease o
985 I
Th Divis' of fouris does n
pr are tou st p jecti s beyond e
ar 19 second roject on m
hod was devil ed fo 1985 to 30.
For 985 'o 20,
.a gr wth ra of
.1 pere t
was used
.w ch is b
ed on lin ar r ressi of th ist rical g
wth te of e touri popul ion d
ing e
ye s
1970 978 Hav'ng th esti ted
'i e tota touri popu tion fo the re ired ye s
b ween 985 a
203, it wa neces ary to allocate he pop ation each nnul sect do thi, it 'ssum that e ch annu ar sect
's sha of ampgro
- wads, ther to ist dgings and per ons st xng wit friend or r
ative wou remai the s" e
as i was in 978.
rthermo e, bas on 978 d
a, was d
ermin that perce of th total 'ris" pula-
~
tion ith'0 mi s of
. Lucie nit 2
ayed a
campgr
- nds, percent st ed 'otel, mote or ot er tour'st lod
- ngs, a
50 pe ent staye th iends id rej ives.
t is sumed at the perce ages wou also remain const.
t duri the y
rs und consi erat io ie met odolo detai d
abov was m
ified r cert n sector The 1980 popu
'ion stimate for an lar s
tor SS our-f' were u
ated to fle t in rmatio utili d by F
L in r ponse the US clear R
ulatory C
is on re est fo evacua on tim estima es.
The changes eccess'te chang in a ular sec ors SS five-l, SSE 10 0,
-30 an Sl 20.
$ propr'e revi 'ons we made 'hese a nular s
tors t ough e yea+2030.
Transient Po ulation at Attractions and Events Attractions and events occurring within 50 miles'of St Lucie Unit 2 are shown in Figure 2.1-12.
These
- events, along with. estimated and projected attendance, are shown in Table 2.1-6.
Attendance at events has been pro-jected at -the average annual rate of growth for the entire 50 mile radius;
'21.7 percent for the 52 year projection period, or an average annual rate of 1;54 percent.
If a facility had a maximum attendance which could not be exceeded, this was left constant.
In the future, additional sta-
- diums, frontons, civic centers,
- etc, may be established in the study areas;
'but since none is presently
- proposed, there is no way to predict their lo-cations or 'capacity.
6.1-22 Amendment No.. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-OL Transient Po ulation at Ma'or Industrial Em lo ers and Colleges Major industrial employers and colleges within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 attract large numbers of people from a large area on a regular basis.
Any employer with more than 500 persons on a shift has been included in the totals for the annular sector in which it was located.
Since expansion and contraction are difficult to predict, and because none had plans to ex-pand employment significantly, the number of employees has been held con-stant throughout the 52 year period.
Table 2.1-7 shows full employment and peak daily, shifts.
Colleges draw students from the four county area and from around the country.
For Indian River Cormnunity College, which has four campuses, the proportion of the student body attending class on each campus is assumed to remain constant for the purpose of projecting enrollments.
The peak daily popula-tion is estimated by projecting total, enrollment to =1983 by using a
10 percent growth rate provided by the school.
Between 1990 'and
- 2030, projections are made by the average annual rate of growth.for the. 50 mile area.
The number of students attending classes on the most heavily scheduled days'f the week. is used as peak daily population.
The proportion of total enrollment to peak class attendance in 1978 is assumed to remain constant throughout the 52 year period.
2 310.
14 Methodolo for Estimatin Transient Population from Transportation /~~%5+.2, Z. i '5.g,z.)
Transient population generated by transportation is comprised of four basic modes:
highways, railroads, waterways, and airports.
Because transporta-tionn is not limited to individual annular sectors, it is described separ-ately from totals for transient population.
In addition, traffic volume numbers are given by average daily total number of passenger's for highway, rail, waterway, and air tra ffic, Highway Traffic Between zero and ten miles from St Lucie Unit 2, travelers on m~jg~
roads were estimated from the average daily traffic count (ADT) from 1977 at the sampling stations closest to the ten mile radius (preferably, at or just inside the ten mile radius line).
Major roads include interstate highways and state roads.
Where ADT counts separated traffic by direction of flow, travel into the ten mile radius area has been used.
Where the directions were combined, the ADT count was divided in half, on the assumption that traffic is evenly distributed in both directions.
Numbers of vehicles were increased annually by 2.4 percent to a
1978 e~)jpate and then multiplied by 2.5 for interstate and turnpike and by 1.5 for state
- roads, to achieve the number of passengers on the roads.
Between ten and 30 miles of St Lucie Unit 2, highway passengers have been estimated for the two major interstates, I-95 and th'e Florida Turnpike.
The number of persons coming within 30 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 is derived from average daily traffic counts done by the State of Florida Department of Transportation.
Numbers of vehicles tra-veling in the direction toward the plant are multiplied by 2.5 pas-sengers per vehicle to generate passenger estimates.
6.1<<23 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
R t
SL2-ER-OI, Projections are calculated by using the expected rate of growth for the entire resident: population for the 50 mile radius to 2030.
Since it is possible that the vehicles counted at one station are counted at another, there has been no attempt to total passengers, or'o assign persons in transit to an annular sector.
Waterway Traffic Transient population on waterways has been derived from passenger counts for the Int:racoastal Waterway and Fort Pif=rce Harbor, number
.,of bridge openings, and operations of locks on the gt Lucia C~ggl.
For the Waterway and Harbor, annual total passengers for 1976 were divided by 365 to get a daily average.
An average annual growth rate of 1.54 percent was used to derive estimates for 1978
'and for the req'u'ired years through 2030.
2 310. 14 Estimates of transient population were als~ fegj~ed from the number of drgIPrj/)e openings on the Indian River 'nd the St Lucie.'iver
he annual number of openings recorded by bridge t'enders was di'vided by 365 to reach a daily average.
An average 'of 1.2 vessels per opening (based on records of openings and vessels at the Roosevelt Bridge) has been applied to the ~aber of openings, and then multiplied by 'four passengers per vessel to arrive at an average daily number of passengers for each bridge.
These estimates do not include passengers on small craft which can pass beneath draw bridges.
On the St Lucie Canal
, transient population has been derived (43) from lock tender's records of annual total of vessels.
The annual total has been divided by'365 days in the year, and multiplied by four persons per vessel to reach an 'average daily number of passen-gers.
On the St Lucie Canal, all vessels are counted as they pass through the locks Projections of'transient population at the bridges and on the St Lucie
'anal are based on the 1.54 percent average annual rate of growth for the 50 mile radius area.
pk Rail Passengers Only on~ g~il line within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit has passenger service The average daily passenger count in 1978 is derived by dividing the total passengers for the year by 365 days Passenger totals were divided in half fg~=l900 because of anticipated reductions in Amtrak service,to Florida, Passenger totals are projected
)
at two percent per year from 1980 to 1983; and at the annual average growth rate of 1.56 percent per year from 1983 to 2030.
Airplane Passengers
- 10. 14 14 Airports with scheduled passenger service in 1978 were considered sources of transient population within 50 mile~ ~f. gt Lucis Unit 2, Only the West Palm Beach International Airport met this cri-4 terion (see Section 2.1.2.3.5.4).
Estimates for 1978,
- 1980, 1983, 6.1-24 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-PL and 1990 are based on projections of passenger service made in 1975, and on actual numbers of passengers in 1977.
Interpolations have been made for 1978 and 1983.
Projections to 2030 are based on the average annual growth rate of 1.54 percent for the 50 mile radius resident population.
Total passengers per year have been divided by 365 to reach the daily average number of passengers.
6.1.4.3 Ecolo ical Parameters Beach surveys for nesting sea turtles.have been conducted May through August in alternate years since 1971.
A count of nests created the previous night is performed in nine, 0..75 mile long sampling areas each Monday through Friday,during the nesting season.
Each weekday night, adult females crawling on the beach to nest are tagged for the
~ future identification.
Tagging is done after egg laying commences to avoid alarming the turtle.
Subsequent occurrence of the tagged turtles on the beach are recorded by
- date, location and nesting success.
The species of t'urtl.e making'he nest is determined by the size and pattern of the nesting crawl and the nest is recorded and marked with a numbered stake.
Nest'uffering predation are recorded by stake number.
False (non-laying) crawls are also noted.
In addition to the nest counts in the sample
- area, the* entire island is surveyed for leatherback and green turtle nests The occurrence and locations of leatherback and green turtle nests are trans-mitted to the Florid" Department of Natural Resources for possible egg re-moval and "head-starting" programs.
Capture and removal of turtles entering the St Lucie plant intake canal is performed on weekdays throughout, the year, Turtles are identified, weighed, measured',
examined for general health'nd condition and released.
6.1.5 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING The objective of the environment'al radiological surveillance program is to compile sufficient information to permit an accurate prediction of the impact which could be caused by a known discharge of radionuclides into the environment.
This capability for prediction of the impacts of a discharge will permit FPGL to accurately estimate the effects which could result from the small quantities of radionuclides released during. the operation of St Lucie Units,l and 2.
In this way, technical specifications can be established which will ensure that the radiation protection guidelines for offsite human exposures to radioactivity, set forth in 10CFR20
'and Appendix I to 10CFR50, will not be exceeded.
7 The St Lucie Unit 2 preoperational program is the ongoing monitoring program for St Lucie Unit 1.
The St: Lucie Site program satisfies the individual requirements for each unit and affords a continuing and comprehensive assess-ment of the radiological characteristics of surrounding areas.
This ongoing program is described in. detail in the St Lucie Unit 1 Environmental Rad iological Technic al Spec ificat ions.
6.1-25 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-OL SECTION 6':
REFERENCES 2.
Applied Biolog'y, Inc.
1977.
Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power
& Light Company St Lucie. Plant.
Annual Report, 1976.
Applied Biology, Inc.
1978.
Ecological Monitoring at the Florida Power
& Light Company St Lucie Plant.
Annual Report,
- 1977, 3.
Applied Biology, Inc.
1979.
Florida Power
& Light Company St Lucie
- Plant, Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report,
]978.
4, 5.
Envirosphere
- Company, 1976.
St Lucie Plant Site Ocean Current Analysis.
For Florida Power
& Light Company.
Envirosphere
- Company, 1977.: Thermal Evaluation Study, St Lucie Unit 1
Ocean Diffuser ~
For Florida Power
& Light Company.
6.
U,S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1972.
Re ulator Guide 1.23 RO, Onsite Meteorolo,ical Pro rams.
Directorate of Regulatory Standards,
,7 ~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1974.
Regulator Guide 1.4 R2, Assum tions used for Evaluatin Radiological Conse uences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Pressurized Water Reactions.
Directorate of Regulatory Standards.
8.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1978.
Draft" Re ulator Guide 1,XXX, Atmos heric Dis ersion Models for Potential Accident Conse uence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants.
Office of Standards Development, 9.
J U.S,'uclear Regulatory Commission, 1977.
Re ulator.
Guide 1.111 Rl, Met'hods for Estimatin Atmos heric Trans ort and Dis ersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Release from Light-Water-Cooled Re-actors.'ffice of'Standards Development.
10.
- Start, G,E.
and Wendell, L.L., 1974.
Regional Effluent Dispersion Calculations Considerin S atial and Temporal Meteorolo ical Variations.
NOAA Tech.
Memo ERL-AL1-44.
Dames
& Moore, 1977.
PUFF A Com uterized Puff Advection Model.
Los Angeles, CA.
12.
Gifford, F,A,,
1961.
Use of Routine Meteorolo ical Observations 13.
- Slade, D.H,, Ed.,
1968.- Meteorolo and Atomic Ener 1968.
- ESSA, Air Resources Laboratories.
Silver Spring, Md, 14.
Turner, D,B., 1969.
U.S.
Department of Nealth, Education, and Welfare,'ublic Nealth Service, Nat ional Air Pollution Control Administration, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6.1-26
SECTION 6. 1:
REFERENCES (Cont 'd) 15.
United States Geological Survey.
1976.
,A Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use With Remote Sensor Data.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 964.
United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
16.
United States Department of the Interior, Geological
- Survey, U
S Department of Commerce, National Ocean Survey, Coastal Ma in Hand" book, United States Government Print ing Office," Washington, 1978.
17.
ONSITE, Comput'r Print-Outs, Urban Decision Systems, September 7,
11, and 28, 1978.
'8.
Mr, J.
- London, Urban Decision Corporation,
- Westport, Connecticut, Personal Communication, November 1,
1978.
19.
- Planner, Martin County Planning and Zoning Department, Personal Communication, November 4, 1978.
20.
Supervisor of Elections, Glades
- County, More Haven, Florida, Letter Dated December 8,
1978.
21.
- Planner, Responsible for Existing Land Use Map of Highlands County;
- Candeub, Fleissig and Associates,
- Newark, New Jersey, Letter Dated November 3, 1978.
22.
- Planner, Osceola County Board of County Commissioners, Kissimmee, Florida, Letter Dated November 3, 1978.
23.
Smith, Stanley K.
1978 Projections of Florida Population by County, 1980-2020.
Bureau of Economic and Business
- Research, Division of Population Studies, Bulletin 44.
24.
Major Developments Activity (Residential 'Only); Map prepared by Area Planning Board of Palm Beach
- County, March 1976, Revised April, 1977.
25.
City of Port St Lucie City Planning Department, Comprehensive Planning Program; Population Estimates and Projections,
- February, 1978.
26.
Aerial Photograph Indices, Florida Department of Transportation,
- 1966, 1969.
27.
Sales Office, Spanish
- Lakes, Port St Lucie, Florida.
Letter Dated January 5,
1979.
28.
Representative, Homer Colson Real Estate, Inc.
Jensen Beach Florida, Letter Dated December 5,
1978.
29.
St Lucie Count Growth Mana ement Plan Prepared for the St Lucie County Board of County Commissioners by the Planning/Design
- Group, Florida, July 1978.
6.I-27
SECTION 6.1:
REFERENCES (Cont'd) 30.
The Savannas Plan
, Prepared for the St Lucie County Board of County Commissioners by the Planning/Design Group, Florida, Undated.
31.
The Plan for Hutchinson Island - Prepared for the St Lucie Board of County Commissioners by RMBR Planning/Design Group, Florida.
- August, 1973.
32.
Tipton Associates, Inc., Hutchinson Island Traffic Stud, Prepared for Board of County Commissioners, St Lucie County, Florida.
June 1978.
33.
St Lucie Accommodations Prepared by the Ft, Pierce - St Lucie County Chamber of Commerce, Ft. Pierce, Florida.
1978.
34, 1977 Florida Tourist Stud An Executive Summar Florida Division of Tourism, Tallahassee.
- 1976, 1977, 1978.
35, Lodging Establishments Licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Commerce, Division of Tourism, Tallahasee, Florida.,
October 1978.
36.
State nf Florida, Department of Transportation, Map of Alternate Corridor Locations.
(Undated)
~
37, 38.
39,.
Office of Programming and Budget, State of Florida, Department of
.Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida.
Personal Communication, November 13, 1978.
US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne
- Commerce, pp 135,
- 137, 145, 197.
Jacksonvil le Dist rict.
Bridgetender, Jensen Beach Bridge, Personal. Communication.
September 14 and November 10, 1978.
40.
Bridgetender, Stuart
- Causeway, Personal Communication.
September 14, 1978.
41.
Engineering Department, Martin County Department of Transportation, Personal Communication.
September 14, 1978 (Roosevelt Bridge and Hobe Sound Bridge).
42; Bridgetender, St Lucie Bridge, Personal Communication.
September 14, 1978.
43.
Lockmaster, St Lucie Canal Okeechobee
- Waterway, Personal Communi-cation.
September 14, and October 10, 1978.
44, Route Analyst - Eastern Routes Marketing Research, Amtrak, Washington, D.C. Letter Dated November 30, 1978.
45.
Manager - Eastern Routes Marketing Research, Amt rak, Washington, D.C.
Personal Communication, May 22, 1979.
6.1-28
t
~
c
~
~
~
SL2-ER-OL SECTION 6.1:
REFERENCES (Cont'd) 46.
Director of Planning, West.
Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm Beach, Florida.
Letter Dated November 30, 1978.
47.
Aerial Photographs by Aerial Cartographics Inc, Orlando, Florida, October 21 and November 2, 1978.
48, 49, St. Lucie Count.y Development Coordinat.or Hap of Planning Unit.s, Prepared for Population Count.,
- 1978, U
S Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
1970 Census,
$0, Ll~i ve. r sit/1 <<F(ari d~
Bured.o.. ofc'ccr,r-or
< c o M gc @i~ q ss Re s'~rM, P~.,J ~z ~ p~~<~~~
p/0~,-~
Po p~(rl ~:
g S~~~
~
~p I ~ go
@CPS u.(yS
~, (~8<
~i vcr l~&J eg F/Or J~ /
proJC+i u~~ og F/~
~~~~~~ af +~~iCs ~ <~
<<>S'pm(~Pi oe
$Mies, J $ 8@>> z.oz. 0 8 Ii,+;. e'.
M.r.
a'P
~~crc8'<ArpacE P~&ak ~
Rep~r&,
2 (Iut4 PvgQ/< ~
e +- ca. ~M $<W:
f 175 I1 lV.
I
~3 P+ D. lo~ P/~
Pda 8~ W~~, I 9 go, 6.1-29 Amend~~nt No
Insert on Page 6.1-17 (Top) b)
Population was allocated to each annular sector based upon information obtained from the 1970 and 1980 U.S.
Census of Population and Housing.
1970 U.S.
Census data for enumeration districts was utilized to establish a baseline for purposes of allocating population These allocations were revised as necessary'after a review of population shifts which were indicated in the 1980 Census (Add to d), p. 6.1-17 The July, 1981, estimates of this agency were utilized.
These estimates are based upon 1980 U.S.
Census results The Division of Population Studies provides three projections for each of Florida's counties:
a "high", "medium", and "low" number.
In the original population projection prepared in 1978 for the St Lucie 2
HR-OL, the Division's July,
- 1978, medium projections were utilized' The Division's July, 1981, projections have,,
(23
- however, been adjusted substantially upward to incorporate 1980 Census results, and what were in 1978 "high" projections are more like "low" projections in the current study.
In view of this fact, it was deemed prudent to use the Division's "high" projection of July, 1981, as a basis for projection of population by annular sectors.
Insert on Page 6.1-18:
e)
Unless a substantial reason existed for doing otherwise, the population for each projection year was allocated to each annular sector using the factors developed in step (b) above.
For purposes of this analysis, the area within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 was considered to be one annular sector.
Adjustments which were made in allocating projected populations are noted in the following paragraphs.
0 1)
West Palm Beach City is expected to grow at a slower rate than the remainder of Palm Beach County.
Therefore, the excess population growth in the West Palm Beach annular sector (SSE 40-50) was reapportioned to all other Palm Beach County annular sectors in the basis of their current shares.
Local planning (24) agencies were contacted in drawing this conclusion 2)
The two annular sectors containing portions of Brevard County (NW 40-50 and NNW 40-50) were given a progressively greater share of that County's population through 2030.
These annular sectors currently are estimated to include 1.3% of Brevard County's population; by 2030, the share is expected to be 9.5%.
This conclusion is'based upon an analysis of growth which took place in the Palm Bay area of the County between 1970 and 1980
, and the fact that these now thinly populated coastal areas can be expected to become attractive to developers as other parts of the coast become urbanized.
3)
Based upon an analysis of growth between 1970 and 1980 (50) the Vero Beach area of Indian River County is expected to grow les's rapidly than the remainder of the County.
The annular sector in which Vero Beach is located (NNW 20-30) is currentl'y allocated 82.8% of Indian River County's population; by 2030 this share is projected to decrease to 62.6%.
4)
Substantial population growth is expected to take place in St Lucie County within 10 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
Because of the rapid growth rate of Port St Lucie, and other developments in the area, St L'ucie County's population growth is expected to be greater than is currently indicated in the, Bureau of Economic and Business Research projections.
However, in the remainder of St Lucie County, outside of the 10-mile radius and Port St Lucie, population growth is expected to be slow.
This is assumed for two reasons.
First, most of this area of the County is rural, away from the waterfront, and associated with Fort
I I
~
~
Pierce,'n which population growth has been slow.
- Secondly, because of the extensive development elsewhere in the County, it is unlikely that people will be attracted to the inland, rural areas of the County.
These annular sectors (HH, 5-10, WNW 10-20,
-and W 10-20) currently comprise 16.4/ of St Lucie County's population.
By 2030, this share is expected to be lessthan 10%%u.
f)
Age distribution of the projected population for the year 2000 was based upon the age distributions estimated for Florida by the U.S.
Department of Commerce
~
The statewide age distribution in that estimate was applied to the resident population within each annular sector.
The age group apportionment was as follows:
ages 0-11, 14.4X of the total population; ages 12-18, 9.4/, and, ages 19 and over, 76.2/.
Insert on Page 6.1-19 Methodolo B:
Zero to Ten Miles The population analysis'for the area within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 differed from methodology A for the zero-to-fifty mile area in two major re'spects.
First, in Methodology B, attention was paid to
,individual developments, existing and planned, and, within five miles, the locations of individual dwelling units.
- Second, the Jprojection technique in Methodology B relied upon an allocation of population to available vacant land, and considered the possibility of certain vacant land areas being filled (i.e., "built out" ) prior to 2030.
- The following paragraphs discuss the sequence of operations undertaken during the study of population within ten miles of the plant.
a)
Within five miles of the plant, dwelling units were counted and allocated to annular sectors.
This was done by, first,
'nalyzing denial photographs at 1:9600 scale, taken in April,
- 1981, by Southern Resource Mapping Corp. of Ormond Beach, Florida.
- Second, the photographs were field-checked to verify
I p
~
I
~
N'
the count.
Population per dwelling unit factors were estimated by utilizing the 1980 U.S.
Census counts of housing for'inor civil divisions'.(MCDs) in St Lucie County.
These factors varied between
.44 on Hutchinson Island and 2.31 for areas of Port St Lucie.
With this information, the 1981 resident population was estimated for each annular sectors.
b)
For the five-to-ten mile area, population was estimated by utilizing preliminary 1980 U.S.
Census counts by enumeration districts'(ED's),
block groups, and census tracts.
This data r
was provided from Census tapes purchased by the National Planning Data Corporation (NPDC) of Ithaca, New York.
NPDC provided a map of the'census
- areas, upon which they overlaid the annular sectors of the five-to-ten mile annulus.
The population of each ED or other enumeration area was then allocated to each annular sector in accordance with the area of the ED which fell 4
within each annular sector.
The resulting population apportionment was verified and refined by field checks and by referring to 1:24000 aerial photographs taken in 1979 by the South Florida Water Management District.
c)
The first step in preparing a population estimate was to interview local planners, officials, and real estate developers to identify new developments under construction or planned.
For each development, information was obtained about the number of dwelling units and the completion date.
On Hutchinson Island, all developments, (except individual single family houses) were inventoried.
On the mainland, all developments with more than fifty dwelling units were identified within five miles; in the five-to-ten mile annulus, Developments of Regional Impact (DRI's) were identified ~
The only DRI's in this area were portions of the City of Port St Lucie.
The Comprehensive Plan for the City of Port St Lucie was also consulted to determine growth rates and sequences of development in that area.
0 h
d)
All areas of vacant developable land were identified within 10 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
These included all land not currently used, with the exception of the area identified as the Savannahs,'
wetland "parallel to and about a mile west of the Indian River.
Probabilities of development were then assigned to these
- lands, based upon trends identified in the U.S. Census
- data, and knowledge of, the area gained during field checks.
Density factors were then.applied to all vacant land.
These factors were based upon analysis of zoning regulations and development trends in the area.
The densities used were eleven dwelling units per acre on Hitchinson Island and eight dwelling units per acre,in the mainland.
e) 'otal projected populations for the 0-5 mile and 5-10 mile annuli through the year 2030 were then estimated.
The projected growth rates were a function of:
1) known planned developments in the area; 2) growth rates between 1970 and 1980 observed in the U.S.
Census;
- and, 3) the percentage of build-out over time within five miles of the plant.
The last factor proved to be of importance because of the very high growth rates indicated by known developments within five miles of the plant.
A continuation of these indicated growth rates after 1990 led to a total build-out of the five~ile annulus shortly after 2000.
Therefore, a study was undertaken to determine the effects of build-out on population growth.
An analysis of historic U.S.
Census statistics for Miami, Miami Beach, and West Palm Beach demonstrated that the maximum growth rates occurred prior to the time when 25% of an area was built-out.
When 50% of build-out occurred, the growth rates slowed to less than 5% per year.
Using this background
1 ~
I
0
~
information, the following annual growth rates were projected for the five mile annulus:
- Period Annual Growth Rate 1981-19 90 1990-2000 2000-2020 2020-2030 10X
- 5. 8X 3.4/
1.2X The 1981-90 growth rate was related almost wholly to known development plans.
The subsequent growth rates were related to historic growth rates in this region of Florida.
The total population growth of the five-to-ten mile annulus took into account the growth rate of Port St Lucie, the remainder of St Lucie County, and Martin County.
The City of Port St Lucie is expected to grow at a rate of 6X.per year until it is completed before 2030, with a population of 250,000 persons.
The City is expected to reach a population of 34,000 by 1990 and,
'61,000 by 2000
~
The majority of this growth will occur in (53) the five-to-ten mile annulus.
I f)
Using a computer model developed for this purpose, the projected total populations were then allocated to each annular sector in accordance with the amount of vacant land available, the probability of development associated with each area of vacant land; and the maximum dwelling unit densities. 's land was used up, population growth was shifted to other areas.
The results of this model yielded estimated.populations for each annular sector within five miles of St Lucie Unit 2 through 2030.
I
'I C
Insert on Pa e 6.1-21 The number of tourists staying with friends and relatives was derived from 1980 and 1981 statewide tourism statistics provided by the Florida Department of Codmerce, Division of Tourism.
The procedure used to estimate'his number for each annular sector was as follows:
1)
The length of stay of the average tourist was estimated.
The result was 14.8 days per visit.
2)
The peak monthly number of visitors statewide was determined.
This was in February 1981, with 3,150,000 visitors in 28 days.
4)
~ The number of visitor days was calculated.
Visitor days is the product of visitors times average length of stay per visitor.
The average number of visitors per day statewide was then calculated (1,664,640).
5)
The number of visitors statewide staying with friends and
'ela'tives was separated out from the total by utilizing the statistics provided by the, Division of Tourism.
The average number of daily visitors in this category was calculated (5555986)
~
6)
=The average daily number of visitors to'riends and relatives in the peak month was taken as a ratio to,the State of Florida population.
This ratio was.06:1.00.
The factor.06 was then applied to the resident population in each annular sector within 10 miles of the plant to arrive at the number of visitors to friends and relatives.
Another component of transient population consists of occupants of seasonal residences, who are counted as residents in their home states by the U.S. Census.
The primary location of these visitors is along the
- coast, on Hutchinson Island.
An assumption was made that at full occupancy, the housing units on Hutchinson Island would hold two persons
k
~
~
each.
According to 1980 U.S.
Census data, the number of residents per dwelling unit on Hutchinson island varied between
.44 and 1.03, depending
~
on the location.
The difference between these numbers and 2.0 represents transient population, and was multiplied by the number of dwelling units to obtain transient populati'on comprised of winter residents.
The three above components of transient population, those who stay in tourist lodgings, visitors to friends and relatives, and winter residents, were summed for each annular sector within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
The ratio of tourists and seasonal visitors to resident population within 10 miles of the plant was.23:1.00.
This factor was'pplied to the resident population between ten and fiftymiles to obtain the transient population statistics shown on Table 2.1-5.
0 I
SL2-ER-OL Ol2g~ w4(
There are no industrial, coramercial, institutional, recreational or resi-dential structures within the plant area.
SR AlA traverses FP&L's property approximately 1,000 feet east of the St Lucie Unit 2 containment building.
The exclusion area and the low population zone are shown in Figure 2.1-3.
The radius of the exclusion area is ON97 miles from the centerline of the St Lucie Unit 2 reactor building.
The low population zone includes that area within approximately one mile of the centerline of the St Lucie Unit 2
reactor building.
Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits 2.1.2.1 2.1.1.3 The minimum boundary distance for establishing gaseous effluent release limits is that noted on Figure 2.1-4, Property Plan, directly north of the St Lucie Unit 2 reactor containment building.
Also indicated in Figure 2.1-4 are other boundary line distances from plant liquid and gasesous re-lease points.
The restricted
- area, as defined in 10CFR20 includes the fenced area shown in Figure 2.1-5.
2.1.2
~
P0PULATI0N DIsTRIBUTI0N (Jane e CLS 5gg js+j~
g, [;P)
Population Within Ten Miles($+'
~<2 age f"J V Table 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-6 show the distr'tion of present and ojected population within ten miles of St Lucie U
t 2.
The estimated popula-tion within ten miles of the plant is
- persons, concentrated in the cities of Fort Pierce and Stuart which are the seats of government and centers of activity for St Lucie and Martin Counties, respectively.
Host of the area within ten miles of St Lucie,Unit -2 is in St Lucie County; only annular sectors S and SSW between the fige and ten mile radii, fall vithin Marti oils y.
The total popu
- t'o in NR for St Lucie County's estimated i~ W IN'SBCA to be persons The
~r'esxdents of St Lucie County, vithin the ten mile agj s, represeQ>~percent of the county total.
In the same
- manner, the residents of Martin 'County, within the ten mile radius, comprI.se ~ percent of the total estimated county population of M~% in 0 7, 50'/
2.1.2.1.1
- Cities, Teens snd Settlements (estIOtsL*e 5 g, p. g, I g
~
~ )
- Cities, tovns and settlements vithin ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 are shown in Figure 2.1-7.
All or part of several incorporated areas fall within the ten mile ragjus.
The largest f geese is the city of Fort Pierce, with an estimated AA population of 3.
The mainland portion of Fort Pierce falls in sectors NW and NNW, ~Pile the section of Fort Pierce on the northern end of Hutchinson island is in sector NNV.
This area, called South
- Beach, is linl'ed to the mainland by South Bridge, a continuation of State Route (SR) AlA.
Nearly all of Fort Pierce's population is located within the five to ten mile annulus.
A part of the Fort Pierce incorporated
- area, a long narrov extension to the southeast, comes vithin 4.1 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
How-
- ever, most of this area consists of the Savannahs Recreation Area and has fev residents.
- 2. 1-2 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
I 1
h
d Cy 0
SL2<<ER-OL tsrh
%I
.b3 e
cn 4
~ m,
~I(
g ~Ca F
e ~
mm L.
The second incorporated area in St Lucie County wi thin the ten mi le radius be city of Port St Lucie.
The tntal populatinn for Port St Lucie in
)go is estimated to be eg4 Approximately 75 percent nf the in-corporated area falls wi thin ten miles nf St Lucie Unit 2, extending from the S to W sectors.
Althnugh lots have been platted and sold in many sec-tions, residenti'al develnpment i~3)978 ~ concentrated in annular sector SW W,AS five to ten and WSW five to ten, In 1978, that part of Porg St Lucie hA east of US Highway4),
(US 1) within five miles of the site, 4es nn residen-tial development
. tt~ffvdfr~ by I'9&I, Sid(ysf~inl dcveldqimCW~>~
plass ie Thsd ssraso(sass sdodion K I..2,(.5').
A portion of the incorporated area nf the,gigv of Stuart falls wi thin an-auiar five Sartor to tan.
The estimated dA'htf population for the city of Stuart ea ','
ParsonsP~.As in the Fort Pierce
- area, the city of Stuart WfiS s '9, fdy7 offers residents services and empioymcnt, proximity to the Atlantic Ocean and
- beaches, and access to Hutchinson Island.
Two nf the three means of access tn Hutchinson Island, the Jensen Beach Bridge and Stuart
- Causeway, are located in annular sectnr SSE five to ten.
Zhe town of Ocean Breeze Park i s located in Martin County, north nf the city of Stuart, on the western shore of the Indian River in annular sector SSE five to ten.
Ocean Breeze Park adjoins the crmmunity of Jensen
- Beach, located at the intersection of SR 707 and the Jensen Beach Causeway (SR A1A) to Hutchinson Island.
Also, in the SSE sector is a portion of the Town of Sewall's Point, which occupies the peninsula separating the St Lucie River from the Indian River.
Along the west'em shoreline of the Indi an River (paralleling S(2)II7 east of the Florida East Coast Railroad) is a ridge nf dry sandy soils
- area, which is predominately low density residential thrnughout the five mile radius, includes the-unincorporated settlements nf Eden, Walton,.and Ankona.
A development called Indian River Estates is located in sectors W
and WNW, between three and five miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
AppFQximately 40
~
~
% >y percent of its land was developed for residential use in 1978 Collins Park Estates, al.o in annular sectnr WNW four to five, is west of Indian River Estates and is smaller in area but more densely settled.
- Together, these developments contain about 500 dwelling units.
Spanish Lakes is another major development in the unincorporated cnunty insi(g)the five mi'e radius.
This mobile home communi ty, which has 1387 lots, is located in annular sector WSW four to five, east of US l.
To the west of US 1, in sector WSW, the developers of Spanish Lakes have cnnpl~)~d a second project called Riverfront, which has a total of 620 G
There are extensive areas of vacant land south of Indian River Estates between US 1
and the coastal ridge.
Portions of this area are bejIi~
acquired by the State of Florida for the Savannahs State Preserve s
I98 l On Hutchinson I. land, in ~, ~ r sident pula ion within thp five mile OCds.
ccrc ic+
SS ff radius hfas
~ annular secto~ SSE The PK persons in SSE four five included residents o
Nettles Island, a trailer park of 1588 lots, most of which are located in a man-made island reached by
- 2. 1-3
I J'
0 SL2-ER-OL a short causeway.
Many of the lots are owned or rented by persons who are seasonal visitors.
(hl SQUAT.
s 2.1.2.1.2 population by pmnular Sectors /~~Am 'm.st P. 2
~
1 ~ 5.(.i The most heavily populated annular'ectors are those which cover'he towns and de'velooggqts mentioned above.
Tha mast heavily populated annular sector in avvqtb was SW five to ten, which includes much of the city of gott Pierce r;ith an estimated
-:}6, Hr3 residents.
sr,eM 2.1,2.1,3 Population by Annuli gcp+rha.+4 S,g.g,.
dy, l.'hei.k)
<88(
In ~,
the annulus between five and ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 was more densely'opulated than.the area within five miles.
Population density for
~s the five to ten mile annulus (excluding the seven ~~~ over the Atlantic Ocean) has ~ parsons par square mile.
Inside five miles, tha four to five mila a'arnu us has a density of Jr29'ersons per square mile.
t
(
1q S1 In ~, the area within frig miles of the plant was sparesely populated, withan overall density of~ persons per square mile (excluding the five sectors over the Atlantic Ocean).
<>Within two miles of St Lucie Unit 2, there was an e~~~mated total of 4 residents, a population density of approximately ~persons per square mile.
The entire are within one mile of the plant is owned by FP&L and is included in the exclusion area and low population zone.
Much of the area in the one to two mile annulus is over water.
- 2. 1. 2. 1. 4 Population Sectors (mPtpa ftg < Fl'+ ~ >'I +.I ~ f)
Pfgf-4 fj Port'g. Lff.c'fy 2
310.14 2
310. 14 The most populous sector within ten miles of St Lucia Unit 2 is the NW sector which, because of the large nf entration of resident population in the city of Fort Piept,.p, contains persons.
Tne second most heavily populated sector is ~, whicn h2s/j, persons and includes
~ IQ la v
y
)
Tha adjacent sector,@~
's third highest with vxfyq residen'.
in 197S.
1l t tV 2.1.2.1.5 Proj ectec Population gc~
> yj + < I ~ j.5')
y quedrupb'he PoPulation within ten miles of St Iuci
da is g.b expected to grow by an average annual
~~t~ of 44m percent, or by At per-cent over the period from k+r8 to 2020 ',
as discussed in Section 5.
laSO nr sERY
~
~
~
~
~
I ex ec e
th i
th ye 20, in 97, s
o NW ll ve he es.
p at' a
se tor
, 5~,756 er ons u
wil hav th ow ~t e
en
.ge nc as
, 49 cen ov 52 ye.s.
ik ~ise an ular s
t y f' o t i" ex ct to row rom 6.
83 o
5
,497 a
- ain, f
p9
> p ce n
30 th sec d h.'ches po ula on y s to is wp.te to e
cto WS wh'ch w' g
w 26.7 erc
'm 691 r.ide s in "1
78 o
'2,66 in 030.
2.1-4 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
0 II
SL2-ER-OL W'
m r
ius the ecto ex ted ex rie th h's wt r
e a
se ors W a SSl Th are sti ed gr b
mor h
~
1 0
ce
, f m
8 to
,97 resi
- nts, nd om 3l to
, 12 s
cti ly.
Hot sec'rs
'll s ow an incr se om tQ ex ect d
t'ued grow u o or St L
ie.
T~
t Pi e
re i
f in i s'if'n ha of e
ot po la-de.
i th'i n
of t
uc'e U
H eve Po S
u ga s
n e
t al ou t.y esi nt as se ee t
e bu h
s d
v to o
S Lu e,
as omo c.o of ne es ont ues~
an io..g P
t P L.cie ff s
re ode te pr'ced us' t~
r it na y
aiikble at ea fr nt cat 'ons
~
e Por S
u e 'e j'the tr e
gro n ar
. 't c'o 1
r.e et,ee 970 ~nd, Fo Pier w
om
,7 p
son o
3,08
. i. re> ~e o.,11,er ent.
Duri t
sa pe od Po St uc' f -om 30~o 6
rs is, in ase f
ro
'ma y
00 er nt.
I b '1 r 'v'.f of 7
n n
i p
sib.
at or st.uci wo f.d a
a 0
t r
2 0
Within the ci"y limits of port cI Lucis, a proposed development of 2,200 duel.ling units, called Midport, has been aooroved under gtgte Develo ment of Regional Impact (DRI) regulation".
dtts bstrlis",ed p pu a-tion of approximately 5000 people will reside in annular sectorsSSW and SW between 3.5 and 5.5 miles of,St L'uce Uni)
'~
It is expected that gj)port will be completed and fully occupied by AN Therefore, the 1KS pofiula-tion estimates include the Hidport project.
hf5'Ci>
APs t..pe s
f an h
.a s
n Ri rfr nt avesta ed e
p-i ob' om co.~ it 11 Go f V'a E.
e ve opm t
a.n I il a
7 e i i
t an la sec r
fo. t fi i
m ny of tl r.si n 'a d
e pm ts
'n
. is gi m
y t
or s
i e
cc ie b
as n
'v'sit
-s the th re de s.
Thg~ p crt> o$ ~Hut hiygp~l"lan~dwhich falls within 'the five mile radius
( '
rSSI. M. "..
) is another area
~ted to undergo con-siderable growt~h.
In NA, there was a total of, r
idents in 44eCThos~
ave~
sector; this population is expected to reach, by 2030, ~~
the island's future population since many new dwelling units fo" seasonal visitors and tourist accommodations will be constructed on this highly valued beachfront property. ~nstcR.
I. pan la s
to.
SE one two a
roj c
le San
'Do
'er xll i
Ee c
pat uc.ion and c
dy
)
or omp t'i 98.
r w'
e 2
i~a t nt a.
3P to. ho se il i is kel th
~
d elo
~ent w'xl co i
e t oc ur xn e
o of ro'ect suc as
~an Dol r
'11~
p
't c.s g.p ssi e
ed' he ize an loc ion of uch pro' un@f1 iey ar in'~ia d.
County planning officials have indicated that congestion of the b~j$ g~p from the mainland to Hutchinson Island could restrict development 2.1-5 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-OL A bridge has been proposed which would cross the Indian River at SR 712 and lief IIS 1, the Florida Turnpike, and Interstate 95 to Hutchinson Island An additional river crossing would induce.development on the Island.
However, it is uncertain if, when, or where another river crossing will be constructed because the y~)~rs of the Indian River in thi.s area are part of an aquatic pr'eserve iesear 2.1.2.1.6 Age Distribution Table 2.1-3 lists towns, cities, and communities within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 with a population of more than 5,000 persons (see Figure 2.1-9).
There are eight towns with a population op@ore than 10, 0~ 'ge largest of which is West Palm Beach, with a k9VS population of The second largest is the oz.
city of Fort Pierce, with P-,~
p r o ~', the third largest is Riviera Beach in Palm Beach County, with
> persons; and the fourth largest is Vero Beach, seat of government for Indian River County, with ~0 l4I 1 7idp persons.
Of the eight largest towns five a~a jn, the West Palm Beach Urbanized Area (as defined by the US Census
).
In addition to West Palm Beach and Riviera Beth ghe five include North Palm Beach (~~ l(,3pg persons),
Palm Springs (~A persons),
and Palm Beach Gardens (k6-,~ (q,gjf+7 persons).
- Stuart, the largest city in Martin County, has an estimated
~ population of +8-,~.
i)SO
/
The age distribution of the projected population for the year 2000, within
'ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2, is presented in Table 2.1-2.
In each annular
- sector, the number of people under 11 years of age; between 12 and 18; and over lg have been esrimated,
)pied on the distribution of these age groups in
. Fjord 2.1.2.2 Population Between Ten and 50 Miles ( esh0wa ffe y g fg, g,f. 3, P')
Table 2.1-1 and Figure 2.1-8 show the'istribution of the estimated 1978 population between g pd 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
The estimated
($ 8(+9+8 populat egg js
', 'ersons (see Section 6.1.4.2, Methodology) and represents ~'ercent of the total population within 50 miles of the plant.
Tnis population is confined to sectors SSE through NNW since sectors N through SE, beyond the ten mile radius, include only the AtlanLic Ocean.
The major concentration of population occurs in annular sector SSE 40-50, which includes the city of West Palm Beach.
West Palm Beach is the northern limit of the Florida Gold Coast development extending nort from Miam'hrough Dade and Broward Counties into Palm Beach County.
p
<<oi Thy
~
~ 'esidents in annular sector SSE 40-50 live on approximately 48 square miles of land (the eastern three quarters of annular sector SSE 40-50 extends over'he Atlantic Ocean).
Annular sectors S 40-50 and SSE 30-40 have the second and third highest populations, respectively, per annular
- ector, and reflect that Palm Beach, foggy is more highly developed than any other part of the region.
In the 49+8-Census, Palm Beach County was one of the~ Standard Mf tr plitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) in Florida.
One of the total
, 'esidents of Palm Beach County in
($$o~, ~R3-.'ived within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
5o7, I fy 2.1.2,2.1 Cities and Towns Within 50 Miles(5p~As S A.Q Z./+.2,I. i 2
.2.1-6 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
h
SL2-ER-OL Of the eight towns m th populations, between 5,000 and 10,000, four are within the Wqsf palm Beach Urbanized Area.
these includ~et e
towns of Palm Beach, w', 0 persons; Lake Park, wi th S-,cd@ persons;>Greenacres
- City, 0
wz th person~
- Pahnkee, ws th an estimated "Ppulation of,', is also in Palm Beach County but ss located in the northwestern quarter of the county, on the shore of Lake Okeechobee.
There are three other towns with populat'iona between 5,000 and 10,000 persons.
$)y~~ include Gi fford, located in Indian River County, with an est imated population of 9,485; Jupiter in Palm Beach County wi th fig6~~+&6( y~op le; and Port St Lucie, in St Luc i e County with~~ res i dents
~g ggO
- 2. 1-7
t 4
~
II
t SL2-ER-OL 2.1.2.2.2 populatt nn by Annular Sertnrs QsrAnwL Ib s'SA ir. Z.. ) SZ..2)
The mos't heavi ly populated annular sectors between ten and 50 miles from St Lucie Unit 2 are thnse which encnmpass the cities and tnwns with the greatest pnpulat )on.
as di scussed in Sect inn 2.1.2.2.1.
The rrnst pnpulnus annular sector, SSE 40-50, includes West Palm'each, Palm Beach
- Shores, Riviera Beach, and Palm Beach (see Figure 2.1-8).
Imrnedi ately to the west nf annular sector SSE 40-50 lies the second most pnpulous annular sector, ] ~4P+0, including Greenacrq~gj ty (~ 8~6rJ'3 (warl..
bo, tit numerous large residential developments nf up tn 7,400 acres The third mnst populous annular sector between ten and 50 miles from St 1.ucxe Unit 2 lies north of West Palm Beach on the Atlantic Coast (SSE 30-40).
Although i tas land area i s lass than half of the 137 square miles which comprise the annular sector, it includes Lake Park, North Palm Beach, Juno
- Beach, port inns nf Riviera Beach, Palm Beach
- Gardens, and t!re town of Jupi ter, all of which are heavi.ly populated.
4'tren the above three annular sectors are corrrbined, they comprise ~ 5 7.8 percent of the total pnpulatxnn between ten and 50 miles of the St Lucie Unit 2.
2.1.2.2.3 Population by Annuli(soprrwoatrs.'6
~A.Z. 2 I
~ + 2
~5)
Populations by annuli between ten and 50 miles 'of St Luc'e Un' range in
@04 number of residents from the largest, with a>tgt s of.,
persnns (the 40-50 miles annrilus),
to the smallest, wi th ',.
persons (the ten tn 20 mile annulus).
~)e ~annulus between 30 and 40 miles has the second largest pnpulat inno',
while the annulus between 20 and 30 tsi les nontains
&Fr,K9 persons (see Figure 2.1-8).
Si,~el y.zq os The 40-'50 mi le annulus has nnt only the largest poprilation (~~) and the greatest nverall area (approximately 1,590 square miles, excluding the seven sectors over, the Atlantic Ocean),
but also the highest population densi~
in the region.
The pnpulation densi ty of the 40-50 mile annulus is ~ person.".
per square mile.
Ninety-nne percent of the pnpulat ion is located on 22 percent of the tntal annulus
- area, in sectors SSE and S,
which i'nclude West Palm Beach and envi rons.
2.1.2.2.4 pooulatina by PeatnrsC+slnwnyta's.si Pc. z
~ /%2,.sr.
The most populous sectors between ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 are those which cover the West Ps(m Beach area an t
lan)'t.
Sectors SSE and S have estimated populations of gng
, respective-ly and densities of~ 4 rsnns per square mile and +Y p rsons per square y
mig>>, respect ively.
Sec.tor NNW has a population of,,
and a densi ty of M persons per<ssqi ~re mi le; sector NW, the next nne inland, has a total population of,'nd a densi ty of 40 per..ons per square mi le.
The five remaxnxng sectnrs have dens> t ies which range from twn to ~ persons per square mile.
S7 The sparseness of population in the five interior sectors can be attributed to extensxve acreage covered by wetlands and surface water (Lake Okeechnbee),
- 2. 1-'8
1I I
r
SL2-ER-OL inaccessibility to population centers, and the extent of range and cropland.
2.1.2.2.5 Projected PoPulation f'Spout ~ Q.Q.g. g,. l,m,Z'Cl)
Figure 2.1-8 shows the projected residential population between ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Uni 2.
Total population /green ten and 50 mile i
<e
~>cj:ed to grow by percent between ~ Bnd 2030, or from, "o
lf 2.
The average annual growth rate for this area would be +AD per-cent for the 52 year period.
This rate of growth can be compared to the rate for thyate of Florida, which is expected to be ~l percent per year from 14+@ to 2020 and 0.76 percent per year for the United States from 1978 to 2025 Florida is presently qq~gf the most rapid 1> growing states in the US.
Between 197+
ann ~
the state grew by &Percent, a net addition of almost 44million people.,
Ninety percent of this growth wa's attributed to net migration<
2.1.2.2.6 Areas of Dveel pnme nt( evlnatfle co.+.Q Q.I.5.2..6,)
2
- 10. 14
- 10. 14 The principal area of development between ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 occurs in Palm Beach County in the sectors including and adjacent to the Atlantic Coast.
i'faj or development activity outside of Palm Beach is con-centrated in what can be called the "At1antic Corridor",
the five to ten mile area between the Atlantic Ocean and either Interstate 95 or the Florida Turnpike in Hartin, St Lucie, Indian River, and southern Brevard Counties.
Land to the wes't of this region is mostly used for pasture, agricultural production (citrus-,
sugar
- cane, and truck farming), or remains undeveloped.
Access is limited and population sparse.
In a few widely scattered
- sites, tracts of land have been platted and sold as home sites or proposed for such development.'o significant development of any of these projects which lie west of the Atlantic corridor has yet taken place.
vl
~
e
~
Development is ocused in the Atlantic corridor for reasons such as the following:
a)
Proximity to existing population centers and services; b)
Access to the Atlantic Ocean and Indian River, and the amenities they provide.'cenic
- beauty, sports and recreation, tourist industry potential; c)
Presence of soils suitable for development on the coastal ridge; d)
Zoning and planning policies developed by county and regional agencies which permit development in these areas; and e)
Availability, of land suitable for development.
Only three significant clusters of development occur outside the Atlantic corridor between ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
Two are on or near 2.1-9 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
I It ff
SL2-ER-OL the shores of Lake Okeechobee (which covers 400 square miles in sectors SW and WSW between 30 and 50 miles of the plant).
On the southeastern shore of the lake in Palm. Beach
- County, the community of Pahokee serves the agricultural community of the western section as well as the sport fishing coamunity using the lake.
A few miles north of the lake in Okeechobee
- County, a regional center has developed at Okeechobee City.
Tne third location where significant development is occurring is Indiantown, in south central Martin County, at the intersection of the St Lucie Canal and the Seaboard Coast Rail Line.
The following is a summary of development trends by county within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
a)
Palm Beach County The principal area of growth within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 is in the northeast rn quadrant of, Palm Beach
- County, which lies south of the plant, at a distance of more than 27 miles.
About 40 pere'ent of Palm Beach County falls within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2; the total ~pulat@
'>op this a'rea is expected to increase from ~~A 3 l f,s~
in to, zn 2030.
This increase represents a growth of l,
s lpga kH percent over the entire period, or ~ percent averaged 310 annually.
The corridor in Palm Beach County between the Atlantic 14 Ocean and the Florida Turnpike is intensively developed with con-tiguous towns and cities such as Palm Beach, West Palm Beach, Riviera Beach and Lake Park.
Residential development activity in
. 1977 included a sizable number of dwelling units under construction west of the Turnpike-in sectors S and SSW<
Development is expected to continue in this area because of strong growth to date and its reputation as a desirable place t'o live.
Many developments include self-contained recreation amenities..
'Ihe Professional Golfers'ssociatj~3I (PGA) has recently located headquarters in Palm Beach County b)
Another area'f growth exists in the northwestern quadrant of Palm Beach County, where Pahokee is located on the shore of Lake Okeechobee.
Pahokee is one of the 15 largest cities and towns wit'nin 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 (see Table 2.1-3).
It has an estimated population for~ of ~~.
i/go Martin County While Palm Beach County has the greatest popul>.tion, Martin County has the hi~
t rate of growth.
Nearly all (W percent) of Martin County's LAWpopulation resided between ten and 50 miles of the plant.
The reqg'Ining reside ts wgre within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2.
'Ihe total 8
'ers yg bq ween ten and 50 miles I
is expected to grow by percent to y the year 2030.
This represents an average annual growtl W'rcent.
Th* city of Stuart is ltee major population g represents gfha ercent of 14 the totalocounty PoPulation of PoPulation is exPected to grow in and around the city of Stuart and on the barrier beaches in the Atlantic Corridor in Martin County<16). pJQf'9io~ul iWp<hg< ~ pfjpcdafffje pro~% i~ ~'S-~re~
~'s <~~~M ~ <~ +nanna 44cHA 04~~,
a planned perld'e~iD C~m~i ty rN <<nwlur S+<~f'Su to ZO ~~
>'< e~p <7~ m rndg<
dpt. <~<~dgyg~
of'3,700 kg 2 ooo, 2.1-10 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
'I U
s SL2-ER-OL
,f918 Indiantown, with an estimated population of 3,411, is an incorporated area located approximately 26 miles southwest of St Lucie Unit 2, it the intersection of SR 710 and SR 76.
FP&L is presently constructing at the Martin County site two generating units and a 6,600'cre cooling lake west of Indiantown.
Two additional units will be constructed there(19).
c)
The western part of Martin County is largely range and cropland, with few permanent residents outside of Indiantown.
A project formerly known as "Rotunda",
and now called Palm Beach Heights, was proposed for land west of the Turnpike and was platted and sold for home sites.
To date, there has been no actual development of these properties, and the wetness of soils is exI<ected to limit the development of many lots which have been sold(
St Lucie County St Lucie County extends from the plant site west to the 3g milq radius.
Of the county'sgo
. 1 estimqtq population of W~ in
) QSl ~, approximately one-
., or
'ersons are estimated to reside outside the te le radius.
Pjg number is expected to grow at the rate of percent (or ~ percent average annual rate) to a population of 4r&-,226 in 2030. ~
p<- ~~<y Ied<-re ~
[2. (<'3(
~ Pays A W St Lucie County's major popgggion center is e c'gy of Fort
- Pierce, with an estimated AA population of,, located inside and out of the ten mile g8dius. ~g'bile the county as a whole grew
'7t,5'~ peqcyt between '4@8 and ~, the city'f Fort Pierce grew only 4..4-percent As Fort Pierce is built up, development is expected to occur within the Atlantic corridor, outside the city'imits. 2 310.'4 In St Lucie County, the only coastal area outside the ten mile radius lies.north of the St Lucie Unit 2. Sectors NNW'and NM con-tain more than 85 percent of the 1978 St Lucie County population outside of ten miles. The western portion of St Lucie County is dominated by pasture and croplands. Qcgueyady ~h C'<~A<~ $~d ~ ~ ~ ~ d i~I~ by g430, a.f TLe. C< fy <<5 p <-7 S~ C.cocci <'., ~p~fLg n 1974, Ashland Oil proposed a refiner and new town %or tate northwest corner of the county where the Turnpike runs NS-SE No firm plans or schedules exist for the development of this area. d) Indian River County All of Indian River County falls vithi g e teq,tg 50 mile radius. 'ihe count cpu/ation, ~~)imated at in 44%, iqqppected to grow to,,'by 2030 'Ibis overall growth of 44k percent represents an annual average growth of.~ percent. The principal community in the A~tl pic corridor is he ounty seat, Vere ne ch, Pn ~N with an estimated population of ', persons (one-of the total county population). Other cities d+go~s include<~st, Gifford, 9,485 persons for< 9 Q Sebastian persons in~; and Indian River Shores,, persons in 4QP. Only one settle-
- ment, the Town of Fellsmere, with a ~ population of ~~, is C'ffO 14 2.1-11 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-OL located outside the Atlantic corridor. Aside from the community at'ellsmere (NW 30-40), the area west of Interstate 95 is for the most part protecte'd wetlands which are part of the St Johns River Flood lg Control District. e) 'revard County The portion of" Brevard County (about 18 percent of total county land l area) whic 1'ies within thy Pgqiile radius of the St Lucie Unit 2 has a population of L4h~js number, ehich represents ~ t,3 percent of the county's toting . 'opulation is expected to in-expected growth rate of the nine counties included in the 50 mile radius. Hajor development is Brevard County has taken place at Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, Merrit Island, and Melbourne, all north of the 50 mile radius. Le i s ey~~~ W~ lo~ ~ gr~ ~~(< S4+C S~urW Cf.C Un~ ~t.A ~hfdf-C'~ ~ ~a Qi ~ g, In southern Brevard County, development has occurred along 'the Indian River.and Atlantic Coast. Small -communities include Hicco, H lbourne Shores, and Floridana. The only incorporated town entire-ly within the 50 mile, pltius of St "Lucie 2 is Malabar, which in 48+8-F960 had a population, of 444.. 'Ihe town of Palm Bay lies to the north of Halabar, just outside the 50 mile radius, on the Indian River. However, part of Palm Bay's incorporated area falls within the 50 mile radius. In this portion, a large-scale development called Port Malabar has been proposed. Because of lot sales and promotion, development will be directed to this area, but there is no defini-tive schedule which could be incorporated into projections made at the resent time. In sourthern
- Brevard, as in Indian River County, development wall e confined to the eastern coastal area because of restrictions imposed in the western region by the St Johns River Flood Control'District.
14 / Okeechobee County Located inland of, Martin, St Lucie, and Indian River Counties, Okeechobee County accounts for approximately 4.5 percent of the .-residents between'en and 50 mig~~ of St Lucie Unit 2. About sti.p8'ercent of its e timated de%} population, or~ persons, reside within the ten to 50 mile ary. By the year 2030, this ,4 CSEE number is expected to increase by ~ percent to 4@rtia Okeech'obde's population is concentrated in and around the county seat of Okeechobee City. 'Ihe county seat is at the con-vergence of US 98 and US 441 and SR 70, SR 78 and SR 710, less than five miles north of Lake Okeechobee. This accessibility is ex-pected to~assure its conti' owth as a regional renter. The city's +%ran population of, represented about M percent of the county total. The adjacent town of Cypress Quarters has a popula-tion of approximately 2,176. In 1978, these towns together 510. 14 2.1-12 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) p f ~" l SL2-ER-OL comprised 35 percent of the total county population. A large scale develo~pe~t has been proposed for sectors W and WNW at the 50 mile radius g)
- Glades, Osceola, and Highlands Counties
\\ Three counties qgtlte periphery of the %0 mile study area contribute a total of only persons to the @ANPopulation, be tween ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2. In Glades
- County, on the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee, a community known as Buckhead Ridge has developed since 1970.
Although only 12 percent of Glades County's land area falls within the 50 mile radius, its most significant growth occurs 'in this location~24y 25i 6). 'Ihe only other settle-ment of greater sir~e the, county seat of More Haven, which had a 1960 population of, an increase of PM percent from kM~"' Buckhead Ridge ' 566 permanent residents representP< a~Ij~oxima tely ten percent of the total county population for 197'8( Osceola County is included. in the 50 WN/. Approximately three percent". if are included in the 50 mile radius. Yeehaw Junction is estimated to have mile radius in sectors NW and the county's 1,313 square miles
- There, the small sertllment of 119 persons in 1978 2
310.14 Like Osceola, Highlands County has roughly three percent of its land area within the 50 milg radius. In this area, a small'settlement has developed on SR 70~ e High lands County's predominant growth is expected to continue outside of the 50 mile radius in the vicinity of Sebring Avg Q~k and Lake Placid, in the central part of the county All three interior counties reflect the low levels of development taking place in Florida's central regions, which are not adjacent to the Atlantic or Gulf coasts. 3'0. 14
- 2. 1.2.2. 7 t
projected'rowth Rates Between Ten and 50 Miles ~tie.gtmg Q iR Z..t'b.Z() The total population betwee tp gnd 50 miles js expec 4 grow by 121 ~ 3 percent from an estimated, persons in 444-to, in 2030. The 4 t,a< f ~ area of greatest growth between ten and 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 is in , Palm Beach County, in the three annular sectors surrounding West Palm Beach. Annular sector S 40-50 is expected to ex er'ence the highest rate eti to xn 2030. ~gular sectors SSE 30-40 and S 30-40 are each 74'f36~ expected to grow by ~ percent over the entire 52 year period. In con-
- trast, a relatively low rate of growth is expected for annular sector SSE 40-50 which contains the city of West Palra Beach.
This can be attributed to the shift in <levelopment from heavily urbanized areas to vacant land in the north and west as well as t>> the recognized tendency of heavily pop-ulated areas to exhibit low growth retie Pile surrounding areas with low densities undergo high rates of growth 2 310. 14 2.1-13 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) 0 I I" SL2-ER-OL Another area showing relatively intensive growth is located south and southwest of the plant between ten and 30 miles. This includes Hartin County's Atlantic corridor and the city of Stuart. Because the method for estimating growth by annular sector is based on projected growth for each
- county, the annular sectors reflect.the growth rates for the county occupying the major portion of the 'sector.
QO Q4 The fastest growing annulus is expected to be between 86-to 4& miles of St Lucie Unit 2 Pi~+bapd is influenced by the high rates of growth expec ted for 'Ihe greatest growth by sector is expected to occur in sector S which includes CL p~i~ c)f PuA J~'ct 0'. 2.1.2,2.8 Age Distribution The age ten and annu1 a r 18 were distribution'f the projected population for the year
- 2000, between 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2, is presented in Table 2,1-4.
In each
- sector, the numbers of persons under 12 between 12 and 18, and over estimated based on the distribution of these age groups in 4'.
(17) p( ov.i 2.1,2.3 Transient Population g~~~ o p.p P ig Q) Transient popuJa[ion within 30 miles of St Lucie is estimated to be ~~ persons in, This figure is based on estimates n.each annular sector of peak daily tourists and seasonal visitors. These estimates are present-e'd in Table 2.1-5 and in Figures 2.1-10 and 2.1-11, and represent both daily and seasonal'ariations in the'ovement of persons or their temporary redistribution within the 30 mile radius, As in much of Florida, this region experiences significant fluctuations in population as thousands comes to the area for the winter season (generally from Christmas/Hei'ear to Easter) or for summer or winter vacation. Hany attractions and events are held throughout the year which draw thousands of people. Although few in number, major industries and colleges draw many workers and students every day. 'Ihe population from each of these sources has been estimated, and projected for the required years through 2030 ~ Estimates and projections for these three component" are presented in Tables 2.1-6 and -7 and discussed in the sections which follow. Transient population resulting from transportation by road, rail, waterway, and air is estimated by calculating the average daily passengers at loca-tions where vehicles or passenger estimates have not been incorporated into trans ien t to ta ls by annular sec tor. Throughout the region, Atlantic Coast beaches are enjoyed for their scenic beauty and recreation potential. Both St Lucie and Hartin Counties provide public access strips to the beaches, and State sovereignty guarantees public access to all lands seaward of the mean high water line Becasuse of the lack of comprehensive data concerning both the use of the beaches and the number of users; estimates were not included in peak daily transient totals. The only data available on beach usage is as follows:
- 2. 1-14 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)
SL2-ER-OL Best estimates available from S" Lucie County indicate that average (36) daily beach usage was 656 persons at four guarded beaches on Hutchinson Island. Between October 1, 1977 and September 30, 1978 a cumulative total of. approximately 239,000 persons attended all four beaches in sector HNW. If beach usage were to grow at the same rate of growth as resident and seasonal population, average d'aily beach usage would reach 1,452 by the year 2030. 2 310. 3 In Martin County, there were two guarded beaches within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 (in sector SSE). Average daily usage for both was estimated at 2,340 persons in 1978( 7). This number could be expected to reach 5,180 by 2030. Attendance'is the greatest in the summer. It was estimated that as many as 2,000 persons attend Jensen
- Beach, at the junction of 42nd Street (from the Jensen Street Bridge) and SR A1A on holidays such as Memorial Day, Fourth of July and Labor Day 2
310. 3 2.1.2.3.1 Tourists and Seasonal Visitor"jjejpjnuj jb+g dl jQ g 1 ++1 Tne total of peak daily tourists and seasonal visitors within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2, in 1978, is estimated to be 28,179 (see Table~21-5). This figure includes persons stayihg in tourist accommodations z camp-staying with friends and relatives. ~t~feji'est 8e stjt Si 2 310. 4 a) Inside the ten mile radius, the following,~~~ sectors had the highest transient population totals in k+Rk ghtl 'esl 3 89 l 4m', zero to ten, had an estimated 4,'~ tourists B,9>5 b)
- SSE, zero to ten, had an estimated -R,~tourists These numbers reflect the fact that both sectors have the greatest number of these tourist accommodations as compared with the other annular sectors.
Sector.SSE, for instance, contains three campgrounds on Hutchinson Island: Venture Out; Windmill Village and Holiday Out - St Lucie. Sector NW has a high resident population which presumably houses out-of-town visitors, Between ten ag +0 miles of St Lucie Unit 2, the greatest number of tourists in k44$'Sere located in sector i with an estimated +9~
- visitors, and SSE, with an estimated, visitors.
These numbers reflect the fact that between ten and 30 miles of St Lucie Unit 2, these sectors afforded the largest number of tourist accommodations, such as
- motels, campgrounds and permanent residents'omes.
Estimates for the tourist population and projects through 2030 are presented in Table 2.1-3.. (~ ~) 2.1.2.3.2 Attractions and Events ( s ~ Many attractions and events draw large crowds in this part of Florida; they include high school football games, major league exhibition games, county fairs, jai alai frontons and a dog track, tournaments,
- rodeos, and festi-vals.. Attendance at events within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 is 'presented in Table 2.1-6 for the year 1978 to 2030.
2.1"15 I Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL SECTION 2.1 l REFERENCES 2. 3.
- Smith, Stanley K.
"Projections of Florida Popul'ation by County, 1980-2020". Bureau of Economic and Business
- Research, Division of Population St>>dies, Bulletin ~, July ~
< S'il II ll P O 4(H1vcrci+ vf'4rigo gare~ oP F~c ~ 5usincz~ M~rel ~ glori ZA Pu ~lakin~: 0 e u, Rc.. t. s> /Vlmy< I'l6( Aerxa k'>>otography n aces, oxz a Department of Transportation,
- 1969, 1974
~ ~ 'erial Photogxaphs by Aerial Caxtographics Inc, Orlando, Florida, Oc tobex 21 and November 2, 1978 Sales Office, Spanish Lakes, Port St Lucie, Florida, Letter Dated January 5, 1979 6. "Savannahs State Preserve", Base Map Prepared bv Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, October 12, 1978 7: Representative, Homer Colson Real Estate, Inc, J'ensen
- Beach, Florida, Letter Dated December 5,
1978 1960 Pop>>lation Cen">>s and Pop>>lation Estimates 1970-1985, for Florida and Florida Counties, Issued June 9, 1978 - Florida Depart-ment of Administration, Tallahassee, Florida 9. "Master Development P1.an, Midport - City of Port St L>>cie, Florida," (Map H4) Prepared 'by General Development Corp, Environmental Plann-ing Department, April 1978 '1 0. Rules of the Department of Administration, Administration Commis-
- sion, Chapter 22F-2, Land Planning, Part II, Developments Presumed to be of Regional Impact.
Undated. DRI Coordinator, Treasure Coast Reg. Planning Council, Stuart, Florida, Letter Dated January 29,
- 1979, and Personal Communication, May 22, 1979.
12. Sales Offices, Sand Dollar Villas, Personal Communication, January 15, 1979. 13. The Plan for H>>tchinson Island Prepared for the St Lucie Board of County Commissioners bv RMBR Planning/Design
- Group, Tampa, Florida, August 1973 14.
Tipton Associates, Inc., Hutchinson Island Traffic Stud , Prepared for Board of Countv Commissioners, St Lucre County, Florida, J>>ne 1978
- 2. l-39
, 0 SL2-ER-OL SECTION 2.1: REFERENCES,,(Cont'd) 15. VS Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Florida; 1970 Census of Population, Number of Inhabitants. Issued July 1971 16. "Major Developments Activity (Residental Only)", - Hap Prepared by Area Planning Board of Palm Beach
- County, March 1976, Revised April 1977.
17. 18. US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, ie Current Po ulation Reports '//~qf~Qivq n 'K1 '7 I P~'eMi~s o+ 'sf%'t. Pop&ufi~ /tye, 'e ~ Sex: l 97'-A'oooo~ &<rg> I<yq P ~iect Manager PGA Complex, Florida Realty Building Company, Letter Dated December ll, 1978 19. Regional Planner, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Stuart, Florida, Meeting on Octo'ber 13, 1978 20.
- Planner, Hartin County, Planning and Zoning Department, Meeting on.
October 12,-1978 21. St Lucie County Area Coordinator, Fort Pierce, Florida, Personal Commimication, September. 18, 1978 22. Treasure Coast Re ional Profile 1977, Prepared bv Treasur> Coast Regional., Planning Council, Stuart, Florida, September 1977 23. Director of,Building and Zoning Department, Okeechobee
- County, Okeechobee, Florida, Personal Communication, September 1978 24.
Planner Responsible for Existing Land Use Map of Glades
- County,
'L G Smith & Associates, Tampa, Florida, Personal'Communic'ation, September 13, 1978 25. Land Use Polic Plan Summar, Southwest Florida Regional Planning 'ouncil, Fort Myers, Florida, 1978. (Includes Glades County) 26. "Osceola County Development Areas Map", Osceola
- County, Board of County Commissioners'No Date) 27.
28. "Average Daily Beach
- Usage, Martin County, Florida", prepared by the Hartin County P l.arming and Zoning Department, Stuart, Florida,
- November, 1978 Supervisor of Elections, Glades Countym More Haven, Florida-Letter Dated December 8,-l978 29.
- Planner, Osceola County Board of County Commissioners, Kissimmee, Florida, Letter Dated November 3, 1978 30.'lanner Responsible for Existing Land Use Map of Highlands County;
- Candeub, Fleissig
& Associates,
- Newark, New Jersey, Letter Dated Noveber 3, 1978 2.1-40
0 SL2-ER-OL SECTION 2.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd) 31. "Existing Land Use, Highlands County, Florida", Prepared for High-lands County Zoning Department by Candeub, Fleissig & Associates, Planning Consultants, 1978 32. "General Development Plan, Highlands County, Florida 1972", Pre-pared for the Highlands County P1,arming Commission by Candeub,
- Sun, August 31, 1972 33.
Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Existin and Pro'ected Land Use, Central Florida Region, 1976-1955, June 1978 34. "Population Studies", in Waste Water En ineerin , Metcalf & Eddy,
- Inc, New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
- 1972, pp 16-25 35.
Outdoor Recreation in Florida, 1976 State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee,
- Florida, May 1976 36.
Superintendent of Recreation, St Lucie County, Ft Pierce,
- Florida, Letter Dated December 5,
1978 37. Director of Lifeguards for Martin County, Hobe Sound,
- Florida, Personal.
Communication, November 16, 1978 38. Supervisor of Special Facilities, St Lucie County Civic Center, Fort Pie."ce, Florida, Letter Dated November 17, 1978 39.
- Chairman, Art-on-the-Green Festival, Fort Pierce, Florida, Letter Dated November 17, 1978 40.
Executive Director, Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce, Jensen
- Beach, Florida, Letter Dated November 17, 1978 41.
Director, Stuart/Martin County Chamber of Commerce, Stuart, Florida, Letter Dated November 22, 1978 42. Student Activities Office, Florida Institute of Technology Jensen Beach C'mpus, Jensen Beach, Florida, Personal Communication, November 27, 1978 43. 44. 45. Finance Office, Indian River County Schools, Vero Beach,
- Florida, Letter Dated November 27, 1978 Office of the Vice President, Indian River Community College, Fort Pierce
- Campus, Fort Pierce, Florida, Letter Dated November 28, 1978 Personnel Department, Piper Aircraft Corporation, Vero Beach, Florida,'etter Dated December 4, 1978 46.
Fair Secretary, St Lucie County Fair, Fort Pierce, Florida, Letter Dated November 20, 1978 2.1-41 Il 0 I I SL2-ER-OL , SECTION 2.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd) 0 47'air Secretary, Martin Co>>nty Fair Association, St>>art,
- Florida, Letter, Dated November 20,
)97~ 48. Personnel Department, Gruman Aerospace, Stuart, Florida, Letter Dated November 30, 1978 49. Maintenance
- Foreman, St L>>cie County School Board, Fort Pierce, Florida, Letter Dated November 28, 1978 50.
Executive Secretary, Sandy Shoes Festival (1979), Fort Pierce, Florida, Letter Dated November 27, 1978 51. So>>th Florida Fair, Palm Beach Co>>nty Fairgrounds, West Palm Beach, Florida, Personal Communications, November 21 and 27, 1978 52. Employment Office, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft, Government Prod>>cts Division, Palm Beach
- County, F lorida, Personal Communication, November 30, 1978 53.
Average Daily Traffic Counts, B>>rea>> of Planning, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Tallahassee,
- Florida, February 20, 1978 54.
State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Division of Trans-. portation Planning, Florida Interstate System Bi-Monthly Progress
- Report, Tallahassee,
- Florida, September 1978 55.
"State of Florida, Department of Transportation, Hap of "Alternate Corridor Locations". (Undated) 56. U S Army Corps of Engineers, Waterborne Commerce, Jacksonville Dis-trict, pp 135,
- 137, 145, 197 57.
Lockmaster, St L>>cie Canal, Okeechobee
- Waterway, Personal Comm>>ni-
- cation, September 14 and October 10, 1978 58.
Route Analy t Eastern Ro>>tes Marketing Research, Amtrak, Washing-ton, D.C., Letter Dated November 30, 1978 59. Manager Eastern Routes Marketing Research, Amtrak, Washington D.C., Personal Communication, May 22, 1979 60. Airport Manager, St L>>cie Co>>nty Airport, Fort Pierce,
- Florida, Personal Comm>>nication, December 6,
1978 61. 62 'irector of P>>blic Relations, Allegheny Airlines Allegheny Com-m>>ter Service,.Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C., Letter Dated December 6, 1978 Al.le henv Comm<<ter Passenger Traffic Statistics, 1970 1977, Allegheny Arrl.znes, Washington National Airport, Washington, D.C.
- 2. 1-42
I II SL2-ER-OL I SECTION 2.1: REFERENCES (Cont'd) 63 ~ 64. Director of Planning, Palm Beach International Airport, West Palm
- Beach, Florida, Letter Dated November 30, 1978 St Lucie County Development Coordinator Map of Planning Units, Prepared for Population
- Count, 1978 65, U
S Dept, of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census, Characteristics of the Population, U S Summary< Issued
- June, 1973 66, Helicopter survey of 5 mile are'a around St Lucie Unit 2,
- May, 1981 67.
68r Ground survey of 5 m'le area around St, Lucie Unit 2, May 1981 Florida State. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Letter to S Kingsburg of Florida Power and Light Compary from D Thoss, Aug 25, 1980 69'nited States Geological
- Survey, "A Land Use and Land Cover.Classi-fication System for, Use with Remote Sensor Data<"
Geological Survey Professional Paper 964. United States Government Print'ng Office, Washington, 1976. 70 ~ U S Department of the Interior, Geological
- Survey, U
S Department of
- Commerce, National Ocean
- Survey, Coastal Mappin
- Handbook, U
S Government Printing Office, Washington, 1978. 71. 72 'lorida Department of Administration, Bureau of Comprehensive Planning Generalized Soils Map of St Lucie County, Florida, Davis, J, "The Natural Features of Southern Florida", Geological Survey Bulletin No, 25, Florada Department of Conservation,
- 1943, 73, Representative, Allen Real Estate, Port St Lucie, Personal Communi-
- cation, February 27, 1979.
74. Representative, Hoyt C Murphy Realty, Inc, Port St Lucie, Personal Communicat'on, February 27, 1979. 75, Sales Office, Spanish
- Lakes, Port St Lucie, Florida, letter dated January 5,
1979. 76. 77 'erial Photographs by Aerial Cartographics Inc, Orlando, Florida, October 21 and November 2, 1978 'epresentative, Hutchinson Island Inn, Hutchinson Island, Personal Communication, April 10, 1979. 78< Representative, Sheraton Resort Inn, Hutchinson Island, Personal Communication, April 10, 1979. G
- 2. 1-43 Amendment No. 3, (7/81)
g ~ SL2-ER-OL SECTION 79s s Field Inspecti.on, May 1981 ~ 2,1. REFERENCES (Cont d) Representative,
- Oceana, Hutchinson Island, Personal Communication, April 10, 1979.
81 ~ Florida Power and Light Company, St Lucie Plant Unit No, 2 Environmental Report - Construction Permit, Vol. 1, 1973. 82 ~ Fie 1 d Ins pect ion ', March '979 ~ 83. County Agricultural Agent, Personal Communication, April 4, 1979 '4 '5 ~ St Lucie Count Growth Management Plan - Prepared for the St Lucie County Board of.County Comm ssxoners by the Planning/Design Group;
- Florida, 1978.
s The Pl.an for Hutchinson Island - Prepared for the St. Lucie Board of County Commissioners by RMBR Planning/Design Group,,Tampa,
- Florida, August 1973
'6, The Savannas Pl.'an - Prepared for the St Lucie Board of County Comms.sss.oners by the Planning/Design
- Group, Tampa, Florida, undated, 87, Representative, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Stuart, Florida, Personal Communication, April 10, 1979.
88, Superintendent, Water Distribution and Wastewater Collection, Fort Pierce, Florida, Personal Communication, March 12,
- 1979, 89.
Trpton ds'"ociates, Inc, Hutchinson Xstand Traffic~Stud , prepared for the Board of County Commzssx,oners, St Luce.e County, Florida,
- June, 1978.
90s 91s 92e "Savannas State Preserve", Base Hap Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources, Di.vision of Recreation and Parks, October 12, 1978 s J Representative, Department of Natural Resources, Recreation and Parks Division, April 10,
- 1979, County Agricultural Agent, St Lucie County, Personal Communication, March 12, 1979.
93s 94. 1979 Florida and USDA official estimates from, "Florida Agricultural Statistics - Livestock Summary,'979", Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Orlando, Florida, Representative, Land Resource Division, South Florida Water Management 3 District, Personal. Communication, June 18, 1981. 2.1-44 Amendment No. 3, (7/81) SL2-ER-OL SECTION 2il: REFERENCES (Cont'd) 95. J Cummings, St Lucie County Extension Agent, Personal Communication, June 19, 1981. 96. Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, "Florida Agri.cultural Statistics - Dairy Summary, 1979", Orlando Florida, 97'980 data from the County Extension Agent for each county; no commercial egg production for other counties within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2. 98m Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, "1978 Census of Agricul-ture - Preliminary Report" Orlando, Flori.da, May 1981, 99' Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service "Citrus Summary 1980-Florida Agricultural Stat'sties" Orlando, Florida, 1/81, 100'lorida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, "Field Crops Summary 1979 Florida Agricultural Statistics," Orlando, Florida, 8/80< 101. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Marine Resources, Summar of Flori.da Commerical Harine Landings, Tallahassee,
- Florida, 19 76.
102. J E Snell, Supervisory Fishery Reporting Specialist, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida, Personal Communication, January 1979'03. Stuart/Marti.n Co, Chamber of Commerce, Stuart Resort and Business
- Guide, 1978.
104r .105. Applied Biology Inc, St Lucie Plant Annual Non-Radi.ological Monitorin ~Re ort, Vol IX, 1978. B Lusander, J W Corbett Mild Life Management District, Personal 'Communication, January 1979. 106 i Outdoor Recreation in Flor-'da
- 1976, State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, Dave.saon of Recreation and Parks, Tallahassee,
- Florida, May 1976
~ 107 ~ Hartin County Planning and Zoning Department, "1978 Survey of Average Beach Usage," Letter dated November 22,
- 1978, 108 r Florida Power 6 Light Company, St Lucie Plant Unit No, 2 Environmental Report Construction permit, Amendment 8, p 10.7-40, June 4, 1976.
109 r Regional Profile, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Stuart,
- Florida, September, 1977.
2.1-45 Amendment No. 3, (7/81) SL2-ER-OL SECTION 2.1: REFERENCES (Cont-'d) 110. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks, Letter Dated May 2,. 1979. 111. Superintendent of Recreation, St Lucie County, Ft Pierce,
- Florida, letter dated December 5,
1978. I
- 112, Boatin Almanac Vol 6, Boating Almanac Co.,
Xnc, Severna
- Park, Maryland,
- 1978, 113.
Florida Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, "Citrus Summary 1980 Florida Agricultural Statistics," Orlando, Florida'/81, )(Gf ~ Personal communication, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, Fort Pierce,
- Florida, May 12, 1981.
V fW) Personal communication, Xsland Dunes sales office, Hutchinson island,
- Florida, May ll, 1981.
)]Q~ Personal communication, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, May 15, 1981 ~ South Florida Water Management District, Summary Status
- Report, Up er East
- Coast, Water Use and Supply Development
- Plan, Vest Palm Beach, Florida, October, l980 ~
2'-46 Amendment No. 3, (7/81) I Insert on top of page 2.1-4: Other recently completed developments on Hutchinson Island within five miles of the plant include five condominium projects, listed as follows: Name Location by Annular Sector Total Number of Units Completion Date Sand Dollar Villas Ocean Towers Island Village Sheraton Condo (Formerly,, Sheraton Motel) Oceana SE 1-2 SSE 1-2 SSE 4-5 SSE 4-5 SSE 4-5 SSE 4-5 203 158 32 84 286 1981 1981 19 81 1978 1981 Most of the residents in these units are in fact transient population, visiting here only in the winter months. Insert on Bottom of page 2.1-4: The very rapid population. growth expected in the area within 10 miles of St Lucie Unit 2 is a result of four major trends: a) The area of Florida's coast roughly between Vero Beach and West Palm Beach is the last remaining thinly developed area of tropical climate along the Atlantic coasts As such, it is very attractive for in-"migrants. b) The in-migration to this area has increased rapidly not only because of people moving here from elsewhere in the nation, but also because residents of the congested areas near Miami are seeks,ng here a less crowded environment. I h I' 0 c) The City of Port St Luc1e is, expected to be the single most important 1nfluence on growth in this region. According to the 1980 comprehensive plan for Port St Lucie, the City is expected to grow at a rate of 6% per year for the foreseeable future. Port St Lucie's pos1tion as providing affordable housing 1n an attractive environment, with good access to the more expensive areas of Martin County, provides added impetus for its growth. By 1990, Port St Lucie is expected to have 34,000 res1dents; by 2000, it should have more than 60,000, and 1t can reasonably be expected to reach its build-out population of 250,000 before 2030. Most of Port St Lucie is located within ten miles of St Lucie Unit 2 ~ d) The majority of population growth in Indian River, St Lucie, and Martin Counties can be expected in the coastal region of St. Luc1e County because of the influence of Port St Lucie, but also because St Lucie County has historically had less restrictive development policies than its neighboring counties. It is expected that, by 2030 the population locus of the ten mile region will hav shifted from its present position northwest of St Lucie Unit 2 to the southwest, 1n the region of Port St Lucie. By 2030, sector WSW will be the largest, with 118,839 persons, and sector SW will second in size, with a population of 59,677. By
- contrast, the Fort Pierce area is expected to grow slowly because most of the growth in the area will be absorbed by the more attractive areas closer to the coast or in Port St Lucie.
Insert on page 2.1-5, m1ddle: Several other major develops are planned for the next ten years on the mainland between Port St'Lucie and the Indian River. Information about them 1s listed in the following tabulation: I I Name Annular Sector t Total Number Completion of Units Date Saddle Club The Grove Savannah Club WNW 4-5 NW 4-5 WNW 5-10 W 4-5 SW 2-3 SW 3-4 SW 4-5 WSW 2-3 WSW 3-4 WSW 4-5 700 576 2560 1985 19 90 1990 Insert on page 2.1-5, bottom: Developments which are planned during the next decade are listed below: Name Location by Annular Sector Total Number of Units Completion Date Sand Dollar iVillas Island Dunes SE 1-2 SSE 1-2 SSE 3-4 162* 144>> 108 540 19 83 1986 1982 1988 Island Village SSE 4-5 Islandia SSE 4-5 102* 388 184 1982 1983 1986
- These units are in addition to those tabulated in Section 2.1.2.1.1-While the area of Hutchinson Island to the north of St Lucie Unit 2 is less attractive for development at present, it can be expected to experience considerable growth as the southern part of the Island fills up.
,Insert on pa e 2. 1-6, top: t In the past, the ava1lability of potable water on Hutchinson Island has been cited as another possible constraint to development ~ However, present indications are that this may not be the case. There are presently plans to expand the water supply on Hutchinson Island ~ The Fort Pierce'Ut1lities Authority (FPUA) plans to construct a 16 inch water main to a point approximately 3.5 miles south of St Lucie Unit 2 ~ ( ) This water main is being installed to serve Island Dunes, a 648 unit high rise development which is scheduled for completion by 1988. The f1rst building of Island Dunes will be completed 1n December, 1982.(l~) The FPUA water main serving Island Dunes is in addition to the 12-inch FPUA main already serving Hutchinson Island between St Lucie Unit 2 and the southern boundary of St Lucie County. Other plans to expand the water supply on Hutchinson Island involve the construction of deep wells to the Floridan Aquifer. These wells employ a desalinization process called "reverse osmosis" ~ They are be1ng constructed by developers not served by publ1c water supplies. On Hutchinson Island, all planned developments, except for Island Dunes and projects within the C1ty of Fort Pierce, will be providing their own potable water with the reverse osmosis process. This desalinization process is being encouraged by the South Florida Mater Management District (SF')), -and at present there do not appear to be any constraints, other than cost, to providing potable water in this manner.( ) Furthermore, the SFWMD indicates that the reverse osmosis desalin1zat1on process "may soon become competitive with conventional treatment plants in terms of cost and reliability (117) SL2-ER-.UL TABLE 2.1-1 RESIDENT POPULATION MITNIN 50 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 ~ f 'heet f-of jf Annular Sector 0-1 1-2 0 N 0 2-3 3-4 0 -0 4-5 5-10 0 0 Total
- 010 10-20 0
20-30 0 30"40 0 40"50 0 Total
- 10-50 **
"Q* Total . 0-50.-0 Q 0 ENE 0 0 E: 0 ESE,O SE, 0 SSE...,, 0 0 0 <<jg q5 0 0 SSM SM MSM 0 0 0 '0 97 97 fR. MNM NM NNM 0 0 0 0 Total NiiE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 gO fb 0 $0 0 47 lP$ '5 ~n ~ ~ l& 21$ 'f' 0 0 0 0 ~ Q 0 0 0 99K fgc 21m~(3 3'fGS ~i 5'o3 .872. &q 0 0 0 X73iS lCR'7& )as 445'7 35@& ~2.g 0
- Q Q *
'45 3R~, oS~ 4gaK* - 92go l3~* ~ zgf'f '75t~ SS.'fsf QoZQ
- 0 0
0 0 0 fo(,CS 250 I 0 573'37 ~~i W7 S (abgS 0 0 0 0 0 0 F222 Q to('o5 Z3gf 0 0. AlO ++pi S'f66b 0 0 0 0 Q2~> +at% jl@f ~i GV7 f3& <otal ggcpg 0 2483 p'.~ 7' 0 0 0 0, f3Wfo +i 779'S C~P f99 0 2~if 0* 0
- 0
- Q
- 0
- 0
- z35<VS
-'09572.' ~,4L A J f';S.
- ~f'8~~*
fqoZo
- ~*
795
- ~*
- ~*
- ~~'.
0 0 2.387of Qlolh IG7jo~ ~ 24732. F68% lW"fb 852.8 +fob sqlo V8 tabb ~'f3 ll'~l 8~~~ sl I& t V l SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.1-1 RESIDENT POPULATION MITHIN 50 MILES OP ST LUCIE UNIT 2 1983 2. 7 Sheet jof g , Annular Sector 0-1 N 0 NNE NE 0 1-2 2-3 le 0 3-4 0 4-5 5-10 0 Total 0* P k 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 0 Total R 10-50 p
- 0 p R Total 0-50~2q ENE 0
0 E 0 0 ESE 0 SE 0 0 SSU 0 SU 0 L'S'H 0 U 0 0 s7~i 'C7 C2 WW,. 0 NW 0 NNU 0 Total 0 0 0 53 SV SSE 0 S 0 0 0 (CZ 0 7O Q3 Rq 77 ~i 0xs 0 Q7 efQ z74 0 0 ~5o 2>24 35C QS "f vr 8'f pCl 0 z9i't <<5tH '~38 5'73) (00C ~y9C p~e&f. ~07' p
- P k C3o (lNV
- ~
- A6lo
- ~*
t~sn
- ~vltd.
- ~
- xjgl
- ~ *
'7f.70
- ~ *
'340lg PQ/0
- 98l67
- ~k 0
l9 zs~8 0 Q5W GALS LC'EWER 0 24'633 7(c! M K" 10 0 7W~'f . to898 0 Zo5o 0 l53388 9Iol+r Sv1S lfgso VA. $zos L72 0 287C X7/Z'f2 p
- ZC5a C
RM~ * }Zgla'f RWW
- Sreo2-
- ~k C C'C2.C 12.4l2.
- ~v-
- Cgt'o93
- ~k L'7*
- iOlrIZ,
- ~*
- 473>>
- ~*
&S33>
- ~~*
p 0
- 0 0
- 0 p
- 0 130 C'Co')83 Zoll2.
3ogS ~sit% igfP/ SA( Ss~~ 7ogo os gf'+f SL2-F. R-OL TABLE 2.1 1 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 HILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 1990 7 Sheet f of g HNE HE ENE SE SSE SSH HSW 0-h4 Total 0 hnnula Sector 0"1 1-2 2-3 0 0 0 0 0 3-4 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 8 5P. i'd& iSl ZbV& QZ'i ~i &lO leg 0 0 /SO 0 >>0 z5) 0 0 gO 0 M gaol 4k f2. Il 0 0 0 <5S 58 /ps lPf5 $ < fs 4-5 0 0 0 (5b q3l %&It S7/t ~53 z.ozg 2$ l cM 8/ I(p3i3, 5 10 0 Total + 0-10 P 0* Q P p p
- Q 4
P
- lks 0
~* ~w7 ~98 ply lVC50 zzJ9 /ms 5555 4+6+8 41257 + scan
- +8&r4++
gqSZp l<le )0 0 l&lOS &+l SC'z. lo/392, PAS9. Qi '?~g. 0 'zz'=5 47289 0 9'3555 l 05'05 +l35P lSI% 0 95'SZ, -94@I 48K i~f43@ 10-20 20-30 30"40 40-50 Total
- 10-50 0
l72 Z Il3'E60 65o&r" q/0 ~ool ZZ< 0 Q
- 512@8
- ~+
YS7SS
- ~*
2528l
- ~*
- K~.
l5'Sos
- ~*
l9t'l6~* qZS Q97f 475goo
- 52&30 +
Q Q e p p
- p p
- p p
- Q P
- 0 0*
Total 0-eS 0 ASS Sl8~ I ill'l$ V99H pgQf2- >5ni i85l Swb& 599oz. ) 's SL2-Ell-UL TABLE 2.)-1 RESIDENT POPULATIOH WITHIN 50 MiLES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 2000 .lj 7 Sheet/ oE f hnnular Sector 0-1 0 2-3 3-4 0 0 4-5 5-10 Total
- p Jp
~O 10-20 0 20-30 0 30-40 '0-50 0 0 Total + 10-50 Total 0-50 98O NNE ESE SE SSE SSW SW WSW NHW Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 ~l 0 5'. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lo 0 0 %'zz o5 99& 3@5z 5l'lo lZSf gyzq 5~8 z bio atg pig ~v qsz ~ Z2( Po3 5+2 lg[z zg82. ~g As%3M3$ p
- St Q*
Q
- p *
~2-0 + +0~
- 0 83Z>
zt80 t ~Q't ](~(q 5/oo )2.942 275$
- ~*
6780 1 f'30> Uzi H+k * ~~%5 ~MS ~tc6 vp I( IKbl R5o Ib3ll5 M Mf 93sz 0 32(5'Sl~8b 4984Er 0 Q i 0 ll8(7 (378'7 F85 z,rs ll5&$ I~SiO (p&37 R~C 0 (9$So 7~87 zo&St 1~39 2'77 498( p
- 2%%3 5/M) 44&60 *
- LH*
1&5'* lOG3
- ~*
KX'OPZQ
- ~*
33Y7 Q P
- P Q
- 0
+ 0* P 0* 0 0* 0 X"~ &0535 ~zoll P&&3 ggq~& ~o~ ~z 0 I SL2-E R-OL TABLE 2.)-1 RESIDENT POPULATION WITHIN 50 NILES OF ST LUCIK UNIT 2 2010 Sheet ffoi I Annular Sector 0-1 1-2 0 4Kb 2-3 0 3-4 4-5 5-10 Total
- 0-10 10-20 0
20-30 30-40 0 0 Total 40-50
- 10-50 p
p
- Total 0-50 N(eE NE ENC 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
- p
- 1 p
- p
- 0 0
0 p p
- 0 0
0 p p* 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0* ESE SSE SSV SM MSW N)f )S)ig Total z85 0 MSS 0 0 1o 0 5QQ 5'I57 6077 0 0 0 0 0 3> l3>>> 0 V7 259'f 0 1&7 0 0 0 0~+0 tlbY. 9>5 0 0 0 0 0 gn $32& Ã 3'7l Z5>7 t / I 0. S8C0J 1813~ I9~ 0 $ 050 p
- 989(
+M
- f89)*
IsK38 $+gO 64jQ V.20/9 fgoZ3 MC5
- 3~0&i*
iaaf O l&3 &&] ~gf 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0 0
- ZZ93g QZf/ff~37/7~22/
&Z ~7(gfo ~5/ I~ZI /5SIZ /~f7/ / ZS/IS7f Zz9ZS 4~&7 z9Z g7f7 5/9ff /995& <fs//(0 /Z&3 ~/3 g Slip i~80 f85/ Z&H5 ~3/ 7 //SZ zgf(90 4280 89Ig ~f(ggg /<3 B.M~0 /439& /~2~/ /M,8 '~"KR'zM ~ ~"'9'e5 ~sf 8) z579ID 57088 ezg72. zozo5 73949 /3PIOg ~/zan '7", 4 SLZ-ER"OL TABLE 2.1-1 RESIDENT POPULATION MITHIH 50 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 2020 7 Sheet f of g 4 Annular. Sector O-l 1-2 2"3 3-4 4-5 5"10 Total
- 0-10
, 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-00 Total
- 10-50 Total 0-50 N
0 NNE 0 HE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p p
- 0 0
0 0 Oi ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p
- 0
- 0
- 0 0
0* SSM SW MSM NHN Total 0 E 0 ESF SE 0 SSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2S5'o 0 0 q~S 3oq 'll7 Z3zr ~LSD 43 g 2327 p o7 ~4l l0l37 60'lo %79@'f lOal3g fZVZ, +AX < z l83a p3 i llo7I 0 fZq'35 @87 ~rS~ +E4HR zv$7 'Igg~ sgofo<"~' 0* 0 P
- 0 0
0 0* 0 0 0 3 0 0* 0
- ~*
2.l'f<7 PJ 7~> ~poly 436z77
- ~*
(gobg '3{',9'f5
- -~*
lS>o7 az'313 Uq"" A~eH
- f78~~
- ~x
- ~*
Z3'B%'Oo% 0 0 0 p p
- gZ{ q qa~ aMoa,2e5Sgi 69'~~
l779'7 i'i3838 >~78 7o >4880 fl807 lZP(o fd'zH 48257
- ~*
37sPI % - 333 24Tfh 70rY/ ssvs7 ~2%y HH 44Il5 0 4444K ~ Rfittr9
- 24032.
555) 30147 lo<( Gal llo7 ~i 0 0 ~
- ~*
9 ggq7 it%5 WeVX 0
- ~2*
t>5% 897K ~en zilo2. l03F7 -589& ~
- ~*
2~31 G3 T&276& ~2)l0~092. fl5 3387 Zgbl8~ 2-""~ f~OOS~ trsgtw 7(q g,3805. BD3> oe f970990 SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.1-1 RESIDENT POPULATIOH MITHIN 50 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 2030 7 7 Sheet P of / Annular Sector 0-1 0 1-2 390 2-3 0 4-5 5-)0 Total
- P 1P
$80
- ~*
10-20 0. 20-30 30-40 0 40"50 0 Total Total + 10-50 0-50 0* ~~80 NNE NE 0 0 0 P Q
- 0 p
p
- 0 p 4 0
Q
- 0 ESE SSE
'SSW SW MSM 'VHM NW Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 285'e8 0 Io pap 0 0 70 0 P7 W4 97 All l2 23of ?7 0 gq 0 lM ~S. ggf7 fI578 0 P Q
- p
- 0 p
0 p 0 p
- p 2'fv*
0 0 0 0 VZ5'. 23x7 Z6'44'f ~<~>9 I'foal 8e5'A 10~27 lz'fo5 lg7$ l5'o3 ~Q t~$ 6, q~ ml 177ql $97 IF8~ t307'f IIBOB N974g 5'~f +&f190 *,g~ 2P%'7 7~oo 1&3 Z pe( zQBy (gcf rgiaV Osiv~ @'~'4 LI88%* ~ 0 Rurl IIC,q 0 Pz7qg J08 fan-Z. $Ã8O g43'll 3CPs5
- I 78<~
2./1972 T80@f +H~+~~
- ~1~
- qjg&~~44
>7z.@vs 'aezC,~ Q
- 0 p
- 0 0
2-q5 srzga4 ~77 i SW3'l $2353 ]93gog >srisrt 7'93l > ~zssl 9235 > 9&3S+" l't5 7oo I'710! 3'9 0 0 0* I 0 P Q
- ISV34o 27ZtF(
&IGZ3 4+RHB ~3 m8 n~Nk 3(837! ~3 ~
- MR%
- I NE IIV~
WGI7 379 30727 837ZV
- ~5*
g4 ll3 I&XS 72,@g.
- ~
- Q.3gPg 437O SqZSI
- ~3*
Q
- ~*
II (5 Sa ft~z- <l297 0 *~* - go3ol 3~5'g7)58
- WW *
~oz'pz.~z8tlS @3~ I 3S lou'% (.g HiHE El)E SE SE SSE SS!: QUASI ~ 8hV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O-l ailes Sector )Z* 12-18'* )8<<<<* )-2 ni)es 12 $5 12")8 )8 z89' 0 96 6l 0 0 7 0 + + 0 $!o 0 z5 685 0 0 5 3 Ix) 8~~ goo IFl ai)es 2-3 12 12-18 )8 3-4 niles )2 )2-18 )8 0 0 0 0 4-5 ailes )2 )2-18 )8 0 0 0 5-)0 -iles Total 0"10 niles ) 2 12-18 18 12 12-18 Fr~3 0 0 0 )8 ZFf Total 0-10 uiles All ates3' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. lo /fg JK 79 0 /a2. 0 t 0 7 0 0 8 0 23l It 8 ~ M Zl 0 +& sz 96 ~c /22. ~ <7g ~8 'sA ~ei 0 5'ar gg 87+ S~~v ilg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78 CZS So+ Iqg (Mh 6u +bb ~3 4-,r3)- f4 ltd z2. /+ lt+ 2227 +8 24 tlat 2'& t'E8 />~5 JIM gpg z69l l+f M 5g& f~ ~l<~~S 8~ SSZ <uS jryO 7 @5'c4$ 637 fly 9972 753 V&9 fZ gya 0'fQ /ZAN gbPO lgoa 5-pV 9Z Z.] /68 Si<t +H kye+6 ~ /~ l(g, pe lloo /le glop 95j8 nV7 )66/8 l6-71 )~~9 ~ 0 0 0 25 14~ I(78'X70 )I Q> ropy 8<07 Vga( (95Z. zoS~ II.g(7+@,g $0+ 3'( z,j'gy5z84 3 [so 2~ ~ ~2 ate, 58z> )Sing Iaz[ ~3 99vV a4,su. 294'to >~8M, ~7~ lqq 594 7$ f>826 +&f0! 279ed 535;0 0 2hZ 8922. )~ I5 ~G2-Ic~7 poj) 92.38+ P 54~$ 8 No+7 Ti~z. z. tPhs i~ SL2-E R-OL TABLF. 2.) "2 ACE DISTRIBUTIOiH OF THE PROJEOTED POPULATlON FOR THE YEAR 2000 )WITHIN TEN NILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 <<Persons eleven years of a8e or yonnoer. <<<<Persons between and inclndin8 twe)ve to ei8)iteen
- <<*Persons nineteen years of a e or older.
years of age. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE SL2-ER"OL TABLE 2.)-4 PROJECTEU POPULATION FOR THE YEAR 2000 BET4'EEN TEN AND 50 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 Sector 12* 10-20 ai)es )2-)8~* )So** 20-30 r>>iles 12 )2-)8 18 )2 30"40 ~i)es l2"18 18 AO-50 ai)es 12 12-)8 )8 Total 10-50 =iles )2 12-18 18 Total 10"50 cli)es All aRes ~ g ~ 'I EiiE ESE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . ~ SSE SS" S>> )eV 0 g88o 481 Z9 /1 Zo8'i ~ f.o R'7 l~ )lan Z08m 0 0 leap ts ~z-gdq4f 3$30Q tije.(mm +t v t363 (tdye toke e~) 9 l57l i5 ikey )~ Lito 0 0 5'561 ~5'oo W&O Ios I) ~+f5 0 0 0 0 0 3oz. Ilo'f~ 72+3 ~s>> / f/' T2.4fyg 2 837Z. 8~ 48ez. T~.l 0 Z4 o )~ 597f t tc f)spy ~i>> J 0 fV>gi ~<85 f+w 37 2530 2.3(g 'fQ i~ SI8 0 0 0 0 IIlO') foo5?A 286A?6~86 ~2'f6.I>5% Zo5?s3 Pi)z3 i~ 75> 1lW 74 j ?.) K'~ ~l. 16~1.13387 IQ 1o3 I%+ (22'? I 6+3 gl 62+ 5c 5g D 0 0 f53595 toQB]o bceS +~ev NG zl t 0 532O iRl 0 0 0 ~53 3578S?85K')S zgS7o I'f94.(5640< 22z445 g~ pr42. z&87l 37"8 3cpoI 4 4293 zBQz z.>7<8 2 335s Zygo ~1154 @jq> ~~&~a I~2.1 R3 3'f (65 23~~1 ~ 2) t.G&g ~9~58 ~9trw
- Persons eleven years of age or yo>>nSer.
- ~Persons between and inc)>>ding tve)ve to I ighteen
~>>*?ersons nineteen years of age or older. years of PEAK DAlLY TOIIRISTS AND SL2-ER-OI, TABLE 2 ~ 1-5 SECSPqC~. VISITLLCS I,ITSIS 30 MILES PT ST LUCIE USIT I 1983 I 7 Sheet j of g Annular Sccccc p-l 1-2 2-3 3 c 4-5 5-10 Total 0 IP
- 10-20 20-30 To,tal
- 10-30
- Total 0-30 N
0 NHE 0 IEE 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 ENE 0 0 SSE 0 0 0 g2. S 0 SSQ SV MSM 0 1 NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 szst's'll 'Zc6 pe jox-gaze 1 >89( 0
- p
~ 0
- Q
- 0
- l@-
~* AU* l<R
- ZJI 555
.85%* pO
- ~
- ~*
~e ff Sl 0 58o 0 sGS ~l) fI/2 53~ 0 Sb3 1 0 1 0 p p
- Q jl 0
Q
- vs9'f
$n/> +lb 2-l/l2 P I2 %do A 1'I"l
- ~S
'37/ 0
- ~*
pqig
- TOTAL 59o g
gg. gqqQ Z IE3qq ~quIO lglll ~c' md@ SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.1-5 Sheet of '(} PEAK DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASONAL VISITORS ( ITHIH 30 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 1983 Annular Sector 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 Tnrol Q '1Q
- 10-20 20-30 Total k
1(} 30
- Total 0-30 NNE NE 0
(} k 0 k Q
- 0
0 0 0 - 'IGS 0 Bz-0 qptl ~i 5l !7~< 7>l s4 Sl 5 C2~ Z'8 /H gJf ~k Lt ~fcR ~35 8 ~$ (}
- gg ll'548 JI sf 2.1'7 k
'k Wlw~ IS%
- ~
- k~~
k hei 'I
- ~
~ k
- ~*
ll93 z5'lfQ 0 275m s(',go g5 la95 svk /hS~l s ~5~ g k RES
- ~*
x.z Zq
- ~*
- ~g 0
- set
- ~
k k foK
- ~
- gs8
>~al'l r4 &0 LSD'ii ) p(5'I pbez-J 882.~ R4&H sze5t SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2 ~ 1-5 3 7 Sheet ~ of + PEA ( DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASO, AL VISITORS VITHIN 30 V<ILES OF ST L/ CIE UNIT 2 1990 Annular Se to".v 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 5"10 Total 0"10
- 10-20 20-30 Total
- 10 30
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5-'Jo r70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 gg& 0 0 0 29 0 0 0 0l66 lo lg. 7,L 90 Wk 0 0 ~if w4e ~1 ~ '7 J5 2'I 'Sly ZVSZ $7ko (881 l9. f70 )o~~9, )8t ) btf 9o 0
- Q
- Q
- p A
Q
- 565 l5 1t'9*
I(bi Br'-
- 995
- A 38~
A ~A 15o( '3 lN 1vok A )'8>~ t 3mak 0 ~ 372.k g~&'l zs8z. Z~n l9~ l6z 3'Iz& 2lZ- /Q+ egg Ioqq )~z~ f p p
- p *
- ,0 Q
p
- 0 laaCS
- ~
~016 qz6S zq(S
- ~*
~$Z )&z. )S&f
- ~*
)7'> ~~i-* $7Q 5g Z6525 Fx' C+i+ )063 3 2(I 7S% v~ ~SHE SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2 '"5 PEAK DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASONAL VISITORS MITHIN 30 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 2000 Annulat Sreror 0-1 1 "2 2-3 0 3-4 4 5 5-10 TotaL 10-20 20-30 Total 10-30 " 0
- A 0
ESE SSE SSM SV g RSVP P ww Q NM Ning TOTAL .0 0 0 0>7 0 0 0 0X long 0 go tg "II 0z~ 29@ lz RO gI.7 ,7't J9of 76'fg f3 8$ ~IV ji3 l8 8Hz. 0I 7445 Bc8 +AH ~18 li@ bC /0 ML'95 g2Z~ ~ZI o +f
- ~~r:
- ~ *
~l59- $ 53 4! Za'$ 3g,g
- ~
~ 3@10
- ~r
- 0
) fate q~rL z52'f /Sgg IS@ 'CT917j SAM ghee( Zvgg lbOt l>>Sg 0
- 0 *
- 2'-~*
llZ(g
- ~
go5 q35e
- ~r ZS7 f lks
- +~
A<N SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2'-5 5 7-Sheet Q of 4 PEAK DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASONAL VISITORS MITHIH 30 HILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 Annular Sector NNE 0-1 2-3 3-4 0* 5-10 2010 Total
- 0)P*
<gf.g ~
- Q
- 10-20 20"30 Toto)
- 10 3P
- p Q
Total 0-30 HE ENE ES SSE SSM TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0
- fo2f,
~'f57 0 f0~ 0 0 0 $30f 12-0 0 )3 +N ~og fSZ 35Z. H4> +to 6~ f2o Qz.'f WPto g~ p7g 5il'FS'352 4@3 f6 o 44 1(a+3 3cCi fteto 2495 597 2'0VS-f>325' 57@7 0 p
- p
- 0
- f05L.
~* 2SSSQ
- ~~, a a5(4
- ~ *
'Is's' Zopf* 902@ f&o9 26C y ~9'to <z.qq 1~ fZ.('.r~ Ze6z 5cfb +fO ~l j?.00 5<M W <76Xs 0 qr(,~ ~VA z95 M'lb Q Agcf f't2.8 f ~2 53gyf 0
- Q
- 0 ~
0 + Q f5(V f Xgl7 'i~15', 64%3 5 * +lo* lf'f )~
- gdg 4&*
b4af zray.v* Ms'17 0 fog@ M-'uo 2327 z.8oy l61&- 5(3&78 5+r&8 iS~i3f Sl 2-ER-OL T(SLE 2.1-5 I PEAK-DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASONAL YISITORS WITHIN 30 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 2020 Sheet 'll of W AnIIular Sector O-l 1 "2as 2-3 0 3-4 4 5 5-10 Total 0-10 " tKS II
- 10"20 20-30 Total
- 10-30'*
0 Total 0-30 NNE 0 0 A 0. 9(: C,8O CO e NE ENE SE SSE VSM NeiW TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 low lg+ 0 0 3 l 0 Ql'jO 0, 0 Sk 0 )Qo I W4 0 331 ' 53% l5 &9 5S Bc@ f55' 5H i~55 IOIB 532. Z.O 49& shps 0 7-')'f8 @RE R.>2-3 +tet XS'3f sv~8 I~1fI-l~ exing le& RNo6 tIt 0
- 0 0*
lo42 z.63is
- ~
ctt p os t(t fg67 4F,o~g
- ~J(
659b
- ~e Egg
~e'
- ~iI t(: ~r3 (I
32.83(
- ~
I( bcpl f434,7 5'74t'70 ezss-Bzi 292 I)~7 31992 885 ~727 -vse6. I3og l272., kW3 Z07p 2. &AHA". sgsi9 ass'1 0 It 0
- 0*
I7 -6 l4goa
- ~1-*
$25'5 ~A SZl
- ~
- x42.
~o'
- )~*
>34~'t
- ~3
- 0 l I o>
0 0 !O62-e136 l337.t'J>8 fg85 t 37? 0 3/5 O ~~ (9~ 564l'5 2&$660 t lgo2 b SL2-ER-OL TABLE 2.1-5 PEAK DAILY TOURISTS AND SEASONAL VISITORS WITHIN 30 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 7 Sheet W of 5. aA Annular Sector NNE NE 0-1 1-2 JR5 2-3 0 3-4 ~ 4-5 5-10 2030 Totel 0-10
- l348 0
A 10-20 20-30 0 Total
- 10-30 "
0 Total 0-30 l968 ENE 0 0 0
0 0 0 fozg l'757 0 0, + 0 0 g 0 I" 8 0 0 p~ot L5 l00l 8'j5 l5o 5 4Vr QigO . $P %.473 0 Qvq l5 235 l2.b( lt2$ 54] l A)5 0 13'P l5 gg xo bh3 RV+ l~l5 3 l53 l tt (2 &%&fr leOZ.9 yz.<z.y lopez essa&
- /~+ A
- M~
1&>9 QA8 *
- 7'lM
- U'3 3 $05
~l~t ~ gz.s~6* g~z. &+ f 87m k3cr&3 L3@ G2.N lOkb& lo3o3 glB 2+&B Z.70 15'~ $500 0 Iz~eS ~6 3S2. ~5-gin'} Qo)fz 0 >Uk Z2.ZGQ 10)~.((65
- AN'4)bl
- 'M~'-
I2 l 55 4t49
- I o>09 0
- Rl8
- ~g
- g70
- ~k
'i2uo
- ~*
zs.zc9
- 24~0 "
lo43 t't 0 g 06+ WSZ& k&PH9. 2.o585 l l l87-l~ (Giz< l $~~6 4283 4l77 l9oo~- ~7 g /gory l~-l&~ 3~ ( 1