ML18303A294

Golder Associates, Inc. - Citrus Combined Cycle Project - CFR 122.21(r) Report

ML18303A294
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	06/21/2018
From:	Duke Energy Florida, Golder Associates
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18303A339	List: 3F1018-01, Fluor Corporation - Chemical Addition System Sizing Calculations ML18303A293 ML18303A294
References
3F1018-01, FL0000159
Download: ML18303A294 (85)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:GOLDER REPORT CFR 122.21 (r) Report DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA Citrus Combined Cycle Project Submitted to: Duke Energy Florida 299 First Avenue North St. Pete r sburg , FL 33701 Submitted by: Golder Associates Inc. 5100 West Lemon Street , Su i te 208 Tampa , Flor i d a , USA 33609 +1 813287-1717 18100086 June 21 , 20 1 8 June 21, 2018 18100086 Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION

............................................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(2)] ..................................................................... 3 2.1 Source Water Physical Data ................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(3)] ................................................. 6 3.1 Description of Cooling Water Intake Structure Configuration ...........................

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

6 3.2 Latitude and Longitude of Cooling Water Intake Structure .................................................................. 7 3.3 Description of Cooling Water Intake Structure Operation .................................................................... 7 3.4 Description of Intake Flows ... , ........................ .' ..................................................................................... 7 3.5 Engineering Drawings of CWIS ............................................................................................................ 7 4.0 SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(4)] ....... 8 4.1 List of Species and Relative Abundance in the Vicinity of Cooling Water Intake Structure ............

• • • • 8 4.2 Identification of Species and Life Stages Susceptible to I & E ............................................................

8 4.3. Data Representative of Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of Cooling Water Intake Structure ......................................................................................................................... 8 4.4 Identification of Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species Potentially Susceptible to I & E at CWIS ................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4.1 Gulf Sturgeon .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.4.2 Sea Turtles ...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.4.3 West Indian Manatee .................................................................................................................... 10 4.5 Documentation of Consultation with Services .................................................................................... 11 4.6 Methods and QA Procedures for Field Efforts ................................................................................... 11 4.7 List of Fragile Species ..............................................................................

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

11 5.0 COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(5)] ..................................................................... 12 5.1 Cooling Water System Operation ....................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Proportion of Design Flow Used in the Cooling Water System ......................................................... 12 5.3 Design and Engineering Calculations ................................................................................................ 13 5.4 Description of Existing I & E Reduction Measures ............................................................................. 13 GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 6.0 METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD [40 CFR §122.21 (R)(6)] .........................

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

14 7.0 ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES [40 CFR §122.21(R)(7)] ....................................................... 14 8.0 OPERATIONAL STATUS [40 CFR §122.21(R)(8)] ......................... '. ........................................................... 14 8.1 Description of Operating Status ......................................................................................................... 14

9.0 REFERENCES

.............................................................................................................................................. 16 TABLES TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3 TABLE 4 TABLE 5 FIGURES FIGURE 1 FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 FIGURE 4 FIGURE 5 Relative Abundance of Taxa Collected by the FIM Program in Cedar Key Zone C For 2016 Most Abundant Taxa in Limited Impingement Sampling (Dec 2006 -Jan 2007) Taxa Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment at the Duke Anclote Plant Seasonal and Daily Activity of Taxa in Anclote Impingement and Entrainment Probable Additional Fragile Species Layout of Citrus Combined Cycle Facilities Conceptual Intake and Discharge Locations Existing CREC Intake and Discharge Canals Average Monthly Temperatures Near Citrus Station Average Monthly Salinities Near Citrus Station APPENDICES APPENDIX A Engineering Drawings APPENDIX B CWIS Pump Curves APPENDIXC NMFS Biological Opinion (2002) GOLDER iii June 21, 2018 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS BTA CFR cfs CR3 CREC CWA CWIS DEF DPS EPA FAC FDEP FIM fps ft (') FWC FWRI gpm HZI km MGD NMFS NOAA NRC ppt USFWS USGS :.Ji. GOLDER best technology available Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second Crystal River Unit 3 Crystal River Energy Complex Clean Water Act cooling water intake structure Duke Energy Florida Distinct Population Segment Environmental Protection Agency Florida Administrative Code Florida Department of Environmental Protection Fisheries-Independent Monitoring feet per second feet Fish and Wildlife Conservation Fish and Wildlife Research Institute gallons per minute Hydraulic Zone of Influence kilometers million gallons per day National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Nuclear Regulatory Commission parts per thousand United States Fish and Wildlife Services United States Geologic Service 18100086 June 21, 2018 18100086

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the 316(b) rule for existing facilities, including electric generation plants on August 15, 2014 in Federal Register Volume 79, No. 158. The national requirements will be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits which apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) and sets requirements that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. In accordance with 40 CFR 125.95{b), the owner or operator of any new unit(s) at an existing facility must submit the information required in 40 CFR 122.21 (r) for the new unit to the Director no later than 180 days prior to the planned commencement of cooling water withdrawals for the operation of the new unit. The Duke Energy Florida (DEF) Citrus Combined Cycle Project will involve the construction and operation of a new 1,640-MW electrical power generating facility on an approximately 400-acre site in Citrus County. The project site is located adjacent to (and within) DEF's existing Crystal River Energy Complex (CREC) and to the north. of the DEF-owned approximately transmission line and road corridor running east from CREC (see Figure 1 ). The Citrus Station will consist of two 820-MW two-on-one natural gas-fired combined cycle units. Construction activities began in January 2016 and commercial operation is scheduled for December 2018. The documentation provided in the Citrus Combined Cycle Project Site Certification Application, 2014 and the Citrus Combined Cycle Project Intake Characterization and Monitoring Plan, 2015, has been used to develop this 40 CFR 122.21(r) Report. GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 2.0 SOURCE WATER PHYSICAL DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(2)] The Citrus Station will withdraw surface water for cooling tower makeup and flow augmentation from the CREC intake canal on the south side of the CREC which extends into the Gulf of Mexico. The makeup water will be withdrawn through the former Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3) cooling water intake structure (see Figure 2). 2.1 Source Water Physical Data The Citrus Plant is located in Citrus County on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Coastal waters and tidal creeks of Citrus County, with a few exceptions [see 62-302.400(17)(b)(9) FAC], are designated a Class II marine waters. Make-up water for the Citrus Station will be withdrawn from Crystal Bay, which will be used herein to refer to the nearshore area from Long Point in the South (28°51 '11" N 82°43'59" W) to the dredged Cross Florida Greenway Channel approximately 14 kilometers (km) to the North (see Figure 3). This dredged channel is bordered by spoil piles from its construction on its south side. Crystal Bay is generally shallow with depths less than 1 O' [Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW)] within three miles of shore and increasing gradually beyond that. In the immediate vicinity of the facility intake, but outside the dredged intake canal, Crystal Bay is 4 to 5' deep. Crystal Bay is characterized by extensive seagrass beds and oyster bar systems near shore. Major freshwater influences are received from the spring-fed Crystal River south of the plant and the Withlacoochee River north of the plant. CREC Intake Canal The Citrus Plant utilizes closed cycle cooling and withdraws make-up water from the existing CREC intake canal which extends into Crystal Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. The intake canal is a dredged canal approximately 14 km long with an average depth of approximately 20 feet (the area of the intake canal has a natural rock bottom under the initial layer of sand and sediment that extends the length of the canal). The dredged canal is confined between two dikes for about 5.5 km, at which point the southern dike terminates. The northern dike parallels the channel for another 8.5 km with the first opening at Fisherman's Pass occurring 2.3 km past the end of the southern dike. Additional openings occur at irregular intervals. Spoil from offshore construction (1979-1980) was used to create the dikes adjacent td the intake and discharge canals. Water flows eastward in the canal and intake velocities at the mouth and throughout the canal are tidally influenced. Crystal Bay Tides Crystal Bay is a tidally influenced waterbody, with semi-diurnal tidal cycles. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains a tide prediction station at CREC (NOAA 8727386). The mean tidal range at this station is 3.0 feet(') and the mean diurnal range is 4.0'. Crystal Bay Water Quality There are two USGS water quality monitoring stations near the Citrus Station. The Withlacoochee River station (USGS 02313272) is approximately 7km to the north near the mouth of the Withlacoochee River. The Crystal River station (USGS 285531082412600) is at the mouth of the Crystal River, approximately 5km to the south. Both stations measure water quality at multiple levels in the water column. Monthly average temperatures for each station are shown in Figure 4 below (data range June 2016 to October 2017). The range of monthly average temperatures for the Withlacoochee gage was 17.8 to 31.3°C with an annual average temperature of 24.4°C. For the Crystal River station, the range was 18.9 to 30.9°C with an annual average temperature of 24.8°C. Neither station shows any indication of long-term thermal stratification. GOLDER June 2 1 , 2 018 34 32 30 U 28 (!I _a 26 Q t 2.4 Q. E 22 (LJ I-20 18 16 Jan Figure 4: Average month l y temperatures recorded at USGS gag i ng stations near the Citrus Station -w,thlacoochee Feb ,1ar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ov Dec Month 1 8 100086 The USGS stations also measure conductivity (converted to salinity for this discussion) and both indicate a brackish waterbody. The range of monthly average salinity for the Withlacoochee gage was 17.5 to 22.2 ppt with an average value of 19.4 ppt. This station showed an average difference of 2 ppt from the surface to the bottom indicating some stratification. For the Crystal River station , the range was 12.0 to 16.5 ppt with an average value of 14.5 ppt. The diff e rence in salinity between the three depths at this station was 0.3 ppt with the h i ghest average salinity at the surface(14 .7ppt). 24 22 20 :.:;-8: 18 ?;-c 16 ,;; (/\ 14 12 10 GOLDER Figure 5: Average monthly salinities recorded at USGS gaging stations near the Citrus Station -w11hlacoochee -Crystal River Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jtin Jul Aug Seo Oct CV Dec Month June 21, 2018 18100086 Hydraulic Zone of Influence The Hydraulic Zone of Influence (HZI) is defined as the area extending out from the CWIS in which intake-induced water velocities are significant relative to ambient wind-and tidally-driven velocities. Within the CREC intake canal, the intake-induced velocity in the canal is very low. The design intake flow for the Citrus Station is 113.8 MGD or 167 cfs which results in an intake velocity within the intake canal below 0.05 ft/s. As discussed above, the source water body and intake canal are tidally influenced, and the currents driven by tidal exchange are greater than that created by the withdrawal of make-up water. The tidal prism (volume exchanged on an average tidal cycle) of the intake canal is approximately 15,000,000 ft3. This results in an average tidal exchange rate (flowing in on a rising tide, and out on a falling tide} of approximately 700 cfs as compared to the maximum 186 cfs being drawn in for make~up water. As a result, passively drifting organisms, on average, are not past the "point-of-no- -return" based on the intake-induced flow until they are approximately 2,000 feet into the intake canal. I Parameter Description Water Body Type Estuary Public/Private Uses Commercial and Recreational Fishin~. Recreation; Tourism Intake's area of influence Within the Intake Canal 1 The minimum water depth used in the CWIS design calculations and drawings will be used in the through screen velocity calculation. IS GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 3.0 COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(3)] The following cooling water intake structure data is provided to characterize the cooling water intake structure (CWIS) proposed for construction and operation at the Citrus Station. 3.1 Description of Cooling Water Intake Structure Configuration The Citrus Station will employ a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system which will consist of mechanical draft, evaporative cooling towers supplied by seawater for makeup. The use of closed-cycle cooling is deemed the best technology available (STA) for compliance with both impingement and entrainment reduction requirements for new units at existing facilities as defined in EPA's 2014 final rule (40 CFR §125.94(e)). The Citrus Station will withdraw up to 113.8 MGD of cooling water from the existing CREC intake canal beginning in December 2018. Cooling water will be withdrawn from the existing CREC intake canal and re-purposed cooling water intake structure at Crystal River Unit 3. The intake structure will be configured to achieve an intake velocity of less than or equal to 0.5 foot per second (fps), considered BTA for impingement for existing intakes in the final rule for existing facilities (See Appendix A). The existing CR3 intake structure is located on the eastern end of the intake canal on its north side and is approximately 114 ft wide (see Figure 2). The front of the intake had 4-inch on-center spaced bar trash racks across its mouth and had eight intake bays, seven for once-through cooling and one to supply noncontact cooling water to the Unit 3 spent fuel pool heat decay system. Each bay is equipped with traveling screens that serve four circulating water pump bays and one nuclear service water pump. The existing traveling screens are 9 ft wide, have 0.375-inch mesh screen panels, and, at normal water elevations, have a wetted depth of 21 ft. Protocol for screen rotation and screening will be confirmed prior to operation of the Citrus Station. The Citrus Station intake configuration will utilize the existing trash racks which will not require substantive structural modifications or in-water construction. Five of the seven bays are necessary to achieve a design maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps under low source water stage and maximum head differential across the Section 316(b)-compliant screens (0.49 fps at 17,000 gallons per minute at low water level). (See Appendix A). The remaining two bays will have fixed mesh screens. Makeup water from the intake bays is expected to be pumped by three 50-percent capacity pumps (15,500 gpm) and conveyed to the Citrus Station cooling towers through a single pipe. The three 50-percent capacity flow augmentation pumps are approximately 24,000 gpm each (See Appendix 8). Cooling tower blowdown will be combined with flow augmentation water and conveyed through a pipe to the new discharge structure in the existing CREC discharge canal (See Figure 2). The Citrus Station's proposed withdrawal of cooling tower makeup and augmentation water meets the Section 316(b) requirements applicable to new units at existing facilities, because it employs a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system. This closed-cycle recirculating cooling system will be "designed and properly operated minimized makeup and blowdown flows" in accordance with the EPA rule (40 CFR § 125.92(c)(1)). Additionally, the maximum design intake velocity of 0.5 fps at the CWIS is one of the alternatives for best technology available (STA) to reduce impingement at cooling water intakes (40 CFR § 125.94(b){2)). GOLDER J June 21, 2018 18100086 3.2 latitude and Longitude of Cooling Water Intake Structure The Citrus Station intake structure is located at Latitude 28° 57' 22.108" N and Longitude 82° 41' 55.697" W. 3.3 Description of Cooling Water Intake Structure Operation The intake screens are designed for continuous rotation. A description of the operation of the cooling water intake structure will be provided within 180 days of operation of the Citrus Station. 3.4 Description of Intake Flows The Citrus Station will have a maximum design intake flow of 79,000 gpm (113.76 MGD) of seawater for cooling tower makeup and augmentation water for cooling tower blowdown. The cooling tower makeup water is required to replace water lost through evaporation in the cooling process and blowdown to manage water quality in the discharge.

3.5 Engineering

Drawings of CWIS Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure are provided in Appendix A. GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 4.0 SOURCE WATER BASELINE BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(4)] The Gulf Coast near the CREC is biologically active and diverse. The coastline is characterized by salt marshes, oyster beds, tidal creeks and receives major freshwater influences from the Crystal River and Withlacoochee River. The nearshore environment is generally shallow with extensive seagrass beds and oyster bars. These habitat types are known to be highly productive nursery grounds for coastal fish species as well as important habitat for adult fish and marine mammals. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Independent Monitoring program (FIM) has an on-going fish and shellfish monitoring program based' in Cedar Key, FL. In 2016, this program documented 141 taxa offish and 9 taxa of selected invertebrates within their study area (Suwannee Estuary from 15 to 40 miles north of the CREC). Additional studies focus on specific aquatic resources such as the West Indian Manatee ( Trichechus manatus), Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) -an important recreational fishery, and seagrasses. 4.1 list of Species and Relative Abundance in the Vicinity of Cooling Water Intake Structure The most comprehensive baseline characterization of fish and shellfish near the facility is conducted by FIM. Zone C of the Cedar Key study area is nearest the Citrus facility and is sampled annually with trawls and seines. Complete sampling methodology and figures showing the geographic extent of the study area can be found in the 2016 FIM Annual Report (FWRI, 2017). Table 1 summarizes the relative abundance offish and shellfish collected by multiple gear types by the FIM program in Cedar Key Zone C (nearest and most similar to Crystal Bay). 4.2 identification of Species and Life Stages Susceptible to I & E The best indication of species and life stages that are susceptible to impingement and entrainment are those that have been previously collected at the facility or at nearby facilities. There is limited impingement data from sampling that was conducted at CREC from December 2006 to November 2007. The most abundant taxa collected are presented in Table 2. Previous impingement sampling was conducted in 1983-84 and documented in Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3, 316b Demonstration Final Report, Florida Power Corporation (1985), however, due to its age that information is not presented in full here. Like the more recent data, Pink Shrimp, Blue Crab, Bay Anchovy, Polka-Dot Batfish, Pinfish and Silver Perch were the most abundant species in IM collections from 1983-1984. The Duke Anclote Station (Anclote) is located approximately 50 miles south of the Citrus facility and is similarly located with a shoreline intake at the mouth of the Anclote River. The surrounding waterbody is characterized by shallow seagrass beds but fewer oyster bars than near the Citrus facility. Impingement and entrainment sampling were conducted at Anclote every two-weeks for two years (2005-2007) and is the most representative available data for the purpose of identifying taxa that are susceptible to impingement and entrainment at Citrus. Table 3 below lists the fish and shellfish taxa collected in impingement and entrainment samples at Anclote. 4.3 Data Representative of Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of Cooling Water Intake Structure As when identifying the taxa susceptible to impingement and entrainment, impingement and entrainment data from the nearby Anclote facility is considered representative for identifying seasonal presence of those species in nearshore gulf waters. To determine seasonality, for each taxa, the three months with the highest density in impingement and entrainment samples were identified. If two of the three months were in the same season, that GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 season is presented. If not, the two months with the highest density are presented (highest density first). For daily activities, the daytime and nighttime catch numbers were compared and the dominant diel period is presented along with the relative abundance of that taxa within that diel period (Table 4). 4.4 Identification of Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species Potentially Susceptible to I & E at CWIS 4.4.1 Gulf Sturgeon Gulf Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) was listed by the USFWS and NMFS as a threatened species in 1991 (50 CFR 17). Gulf Sturgeon is an anadromous species that ranges from Florida to Louisiana. Gulf Sturgeon spend winters feeding in near-shore coastal waters, bays, and estuaries (Clugston et al., 1995). In the spring, spawning and non-spawning adults and sub-adults migrate up rivers and generally remain in freshwater throughout the summer. As spawning occurs in freshwater rivers, the nearest being the Suwannee River, Gulf Sturgeon are not susceptible to entrainment. Juveniles and adults may range as far south as Crystal Bay while feeding in nearshore waters. There are no reports to date of Gulf Sturgeon impingement at CREC 4.4.2 Sea Turtles Sea turtles are sometimes seen in the CREC's intake canal and are occasionally found on the CREC intake bar racks. From 1994 to 1997, eight sea turtles were stranded on the CR3 intake bar racks. However, monitoring for sea turtles prior to 1997 was non-systematic, and data on species, size, and age was not always obtained. In the spring of 1998, an unusually high number, approximately 50, of Kemp's ridley sea turtles (Lepiochelys kempil) were stranded on the bar racks. As a result, a Biological Opinion was issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 1999 which determined that the cooling water intake system was not likely to jeopardize the existence of the five sea turtle species that might be found in the area. A second Biological Opinion, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2002, stated that continued operation of CREC would not jeopardize any of the listed sea turtle species populations (Appendix C). This Opinion included an Incidental Take Statement allowing the live take of 75 sea turtles annually and three annual lethal takes that are causally related to plant operations (NMFS 2002). There is no limit on non-causally related dead turtles, although there is a reporting requirement if the non-causal take reaches eight individuals (NMFS 2002). In 1998, a continuous monitoring and rescue program was initiated by Duke Energy (then dba Florida Power Corporation) to reduce potential sea turtle stranding's and mortalities at CREC. Duke implemented Sea Turtle Rescue and Handling Guidance, which provides instructions for sea turtle observation, rescue, handling, notifications, and reporting requirements (Progress Energy undated). Five species of sea turtles have been recorded in nearshore waters of Citrus County and are discussed below. Four of these sea turtle species have been observed at or near CREC: Kemp's ridley, green (Chelonia mydas), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is federally and state listed as endangered. It is the most seriously endangered of the sea turtles, with nesting primarily limited to two provinces in Mexico and occurrences in Florida. This species is associated with a wide range of coastal benthic habitats, typically with sand or mud bottoms supporting crustaceans and/or other invertebrates. They primarily feed on portunid crabs (Callinectes spp.), but other crabs, mollusks and invertebrates are consumed as well. Nearshore waters of the northern Gulf of Mexico provide important developmental habitat for juvenile and sub-adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles (USFWS 2006). The most l:$, GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 frequently occurring captured,-killed, and rescued sea turtles in the CR3 cooling water intake areas are sub-adult Kemp's ridleys, which reflects their abundance within the nearshore waters of the northern Gulf coast. The green sea turtle is federally and state listed as threatened. Most green turtle nesting in Florida occurs during June through September. They require open gradually sloping beaches and minimum disturbance for nesting. Critical habitats have been defined for this species, but do not include areas in Florida. Green sea turtles are herbivores, preferring to feed on marine grasses and algae in shallow bays and lagoons (USFWS 2006). The loggerhead sea turtle is federally and state listed as threatened for the Northwest Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS). In the U.S .. loggerheads nest from Texas to Virginia with approximately 80 percent of the nesting occurring in southern Florida coastal counties. They nest on ocean beaches and occasionally on estuarine shorelines with suitable sand. Critical Habitat has been defined for this species but does not include any nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters or beaches in Florida. The nearshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico are thought to provide important developmental areas for juvenile loggerheads (USFWS 2006). The hawksbill l:jea turtle is federally and st~te listed as endangered. In contrast to other sea turtles, hawksbills tend to nest in low densities on scattered small beaches. Nesting may occur on almost any undisturbed deep~ sand beach, typically from April through November. Critical Habitats have been defined for this species, but do not include areas in Florida. Hawksbills prefer coral reefs and thus are uncommon in western Gulf waters (USFWS 2006). The leatherback sea turtle is federally and state listed* as endangered. The largest and most pelagic of the sea turtles, its decline was a result of a crash of the breeding population Jn western Mexico due to harvest for meat and eggs.* Small numbers nest along the east coast of Florida, but none on the western Florida coast. Critical Habitats have been defined for this species, but do not include areas in Florida. They feed primarily on jellyfish and thus may come into shallow waters if there is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore (USFWS 2006). Although leatherbacks have been observed in Citrus County waters, none have been observed at the CREC .. 4.4.3 West Indian Manatee . The Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian Manatee is currently listed as Threatened by the State of Florida and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2001). They are protected not only by the Federal Endangered Species Act, but also by the Fed.era! Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act. An adult Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) averages about 10 ft in length and 2,200 pounds in weight. The manatee is an aquatic mammal that feeds primarily on seagrass and other aquatic vegetation. In the

• winter, the Florida mariatee spends most of its tlme in and around areas of warm water, such as natural springs or . the cooling water .discharge of power plants. It has been reported that the warm-water refuge of power plants is becoming more important for the Florida manatee; for example, the percentage of animals using these areas on the Atlantic coast has increased by 4-6 percent per year since 1994 (Craig and Reynolds 2004). The Crystal River springs complex is the northernmost natural, warm-water refuge used by manatees on the west coast of Florida (USFWS 2001 ). CREC has an established Manatee Protection Plan that has been approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2002). The plan establishes various precautions to minimize hazards to manatees at intake and outfall areas, such as having observer's on-board vessels associated with in-water work, operating vessels at "no wake/idle" speeds while in the warm water refuge area and avoiding major in-water work June 21, 2018 18100086 in the discharge canal from November 15 through March 31 unless approved by FWC's Bureau of Protected Species Management.

Duke cooperates with USFWS, FWC, Florida Fish & Wildlife Research Institute, and the U.S. Geological Service in providing access to CREC for manatee research and monitoring by these agencies.

4.5 Documentation

of Consultation with Services Potential risks from impingement and entrainment to the Gulf Sturgeon were reviewed in the NMFS 2002 Biological Opinion (NMFS, 2002) on CREC. NMFS considered it unlikely that the Gulf Sturgeon would enter the rock-bottom intake canal and, in conjunction with the absence of documented occurrences of impingement or entrainment of the species, concluded that the potential for impacts to the species from operation of CREC was "discountable". A biological opinion was issued by NMFS in June 1999 that determined the cooling water intake system was not likely to jeopardize the existence of populations of the five species of sea turtles that might be found in the area. A second biological opinion, initiated at the request of NRG, was issued by NMFS in August 2002. It is anticipated that the reduced intake flows and velocities associated with the Citrus project will be even more protective of these species. The existing CREC once-through cooling water discharge provides a secondary thermal refuge for the local population of manatees but is not considered a primary refuge because of the presence of natural springs in the area (FDEP, 1995) .. CREC's Manatee Protection Plan includes a requirement for timely communication with manatee recovery program personnel regarding any long-term changes in the availability of warm water. Retirement of Units 1 and 2 would be subject to this notification requirement and discussions with the agencies have been initiated.

4.6 Methods

and QA Procedures for Field Efforts No field efforts were conducted to directly support preparation of this chapter. Data is cited from unpublished studies, primarily impingement and entrainment sampling at the Duke Anclote facility from 2005-2007. 4.7 list of Fragile Species Fragile species are defined as those with less than 30 percent impingement survival. Survival studies have not been conducted at the existing CREC CWIS to conclusively determine fragile species additional to those listed in the CWA 316(b) rule§ 125.92(m). Table 5 presents likely additional fragile species due to similarity to those listed in the rule. GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 5.0 COOLING WATER SYSTEM DATA [40 CFR §122.21(R)(5)] This section provides a description of the cooling water system and its relationship to cooling water intake structures, design intake flow, description of impingement and entrainment reduction technologies or operational measures to meet the BTA standard(s).

5.1 Cooling

Water System Operation The condenser cooling system for the combined cycle units will consist of two 14-or 16-cell closed-cycle, mechanical draft cooling towers for heat dissipation. The cooling towers will be designed to remove approximately

1.9 billion

British thermal units per hour at an internal circulation rate of 270 MGD and a wet bulb temperature of 86°F (100-percent load). This will result in between 96 and 99 percent heat loss in the cooling towers to the atmosphere. The cooling towers will be supplied with seawater withdrawn from the existing CREC intake canal that historically supplied once-through cooling water for Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3 (Units 4 and 5 withdraw cooling water makeup water from the discharge canal and, therefore, currently reuse thermal effluent from Units 1 and 2). The intake canal is approximately 14 miles long and is diked on both sides for the first 2.9 miles, beyond which the northern dike continues for an-other 4.5 miles. The canal has a dredged depth of approximately 20 ft, which allows barge delivery of coal for the four coal-fired generating units at CREC. The quality of the water used to supply (or make up) the cooling towers is limited by two factors: (1) the need to avoid the formation of precipitates within the cooling tower that would adversely affect heat transfer, and (2) the constraints imposed by water quality-based effluent limits imposed under the NPDES permit. When water containing low levels of dissolved solids is readily available, it is possible that cooling towers can be run at ten (or more) cycles of concentration (i.e., 90 percent of the source water is evaporated and dissolved solutes are

• concentrated ten-fold).

Such a supply is not available at the Citrus Station and seawater will be used for cooling tower makeup. Use of seawater will require operation of the cooling towers at much lower cycles of concentration, as well as augmentation of the cooling tower blowdown to meet applicable water quality standards for chlorides. As with the cooling tower makeup water, the flow augmentation water will be pumped from existing intake bays previously used by Crystal River Unit 3. Flow augmentation water from the intake bays is expected to be pumped by three 50-percent capacity pumps and conveyed to the location for mixing with the cooling tower blowdown through a pipe. Following the confluence of the two streams, the combined blowdown/augmentation water stream will be conveyed to the new outfall structure by a pipe of approximately 1,100 ft in length, allowing for substantial mixing. The pipe will discharge to an outfall structure on the eastern end of the existing CREC discharge canal (see Figure 3). While the flow augmentation water will not be used directly for cooling, its withdrawal is subject to the 316(b) rule. As such, the intake bays to supply flow augmentation water will also be retrofitted to comply with Section 316(b) requirements, designed to ensure that the intake velocity will be below 0.5 fps during low-water conditions and maximum head differential. As previously discussed, the cooling water system, flow augmentation water, will be compliant with EPA's final rule for cooling water intake structures at new units of existing facilities under Section 316(b) of the CWA. 5.2 Proportion of Design Flow Used in the Cooling Water System For the Citrus Station, the cooling towers will use seawater withdrawn from the head of the existing CREC intake canal at the former Crystal River Unit 3 cooling water intake structure. Approximately 39% of the design flow is GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 used exclusively for cooling. The proposed cooling water withdrawal quantities, as well as discharge quantities, are significantly lower than historical cooling water flows when Crystal River Units 1,2 and 3 were operational.

5.3 Design

and Engineering Calculations The engineering drawings for the existing CWIS are provided in Appendix A. No design changes have been proposed. Three of the eight bays will be blocked off. A third bay will continue to be used for Crystal River Unit 3. 5.4 Description of Existing I & E Reduction Measures As described in prior sections, the Citrus Project will employ a closed-cycle recirculating cooling system which consist of mechanical draft, evaporative cooling towers supplied by seawater for makeup. The use of closed-cycle cooling is deemed BTA to comply with both impingement and entrainment reduction requirements for new units at existing facilities as defined at 40 CFR 125.94(e)). Additionally, the CWIS will be configured and operated to achieve an intake velocity of less than or equal to 0.5 fps to further reduce impingement and meet the BTA standard for impingement reduction. GOLDER June 21, 2018 18100086 6.0 METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY STANDARD [40 CFR §122.21(R)(6)] The Citrus Station intake configuration will achieve a design maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps under low source water stage and maximum head differential across the Section 316{b)-compliant screens (0.49 fps at '17,000 gallons per minute at low water level). This configuration is considered BTA for impingement for existing intakes at existing facilities (See Attachment 1 ). 7.0 ENTRAINMENT PERFORMANCE STUDIES [40 CFR §122.21(R)(7)] This section is not applicable. Biological survival studies have not previously been conducted at the CREC. 8.0 OPERATIONAL STATUS [40 CFR §122.21 (R)(8)] 8.1 Description of Operating Status DEF's Citrus Station is a new 1,640 -MW two-on-one natural gas-fired combined cycle plant located at an existing facility, the CREC. The Citrus Station is located on a 400-acre site adjacent to the CREC which has been used for power generation since 1966. The CREC contains four operating coal-fired units (Units 1, 2, 4 and 5). The older, coal-fired units (Units 1 and 2) will be retired in 2018 in coordination with the commercial operation of the Citrus Station. The nuclear unit (Unit 3) was permanently retired in 2013. Construction activities for the Citrus Project began in January 2016 and commercial operation is scheduled for December 2018. The Citrus Station is a new unit and is anticipated to have a 30 to 40-year life cycle. There are no plans for any other new units at the CREC within the next 5 years. lJ$ GOLDER June 21, 2018 Signature Page Golder Associates Inc. Stephen Larsen Senior Aquatic Scientist . Manitia Moultrie Principal SUMM/sh Gregory Powell, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Golder and the G logo are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation GOLDER 18100086 15 June 21, 2018 18100086

9.0 REFERENCES

Duke Energy, Citrus Combined Cycle Project -Site Certification Application, 2014. Duke Energy, Citrus Combined Cycle Project -Intake Characterization and Monitoring Plan, 2015. Clugston, J. P., A. M. Foster, and S. H. Carr. 1995. Gulf sturgeon; Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi, in the Suwannee River, Florida, USA. pp. 215-224. IN: (A. D. Gershanovich, and T. I. J. Smith, eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on the Sturgeon. Held 6-11 September 1993 in Moscow, Russia. VNIRO Publishers, Moscow, Russia. Craig, B. A., J. E. Reynolds Ill, 2004. Determination of manatee population trends ... data. Marine Mammal Science 20:386-400. Duke Energy, Anclote Power Plant, Entrainment and Entrainment Survival Study, 2005-2007. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1995 and 2002. Approval of Florida Power Corporation Crystal River Plant Manatee Protection Plan, FDEP Permit No. FL0000159. Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Units 1, 2, and 3, 316b Demonstration Final Report, Florida Power Corporation ( 1985). FWRI, 2017. Fisheries-Independent Monitoring Program 2016 Annual Data Summary Report. FWRI lnhouse Report IHR2017-003 National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002. Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion (F/SER/2001/01080). US Fish and Wildlife Service. North Florida Field Office, Species Accounts. Accessed online (October and November 2006) GOLDER 16 June 21, 2018 18100086 TABLES GOLDER June 2018 18100086 Table 1: Relative Abundance of Taxa collected by the FIM Program in Cedar Key Zone C for 2016 * . . Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 5,025 16.8 Membras martinica Rouqh Silverside 3,946 13.2 Anchoa mitchilli Bay Anchovy 3,846 12.8 Anchoa hepsetus Striped Anchovy 2,292 7.6 Bairdiella chrysoura Silver Perch 1,936 6.5 Ariopsis felis Hardhead Catfish 1,087 3.6 Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 1,082 3.6 Menidia spp. Menidia Silversides 954 3.2 Dasyatis sabina Atlantic Stingray 881 2.9 Ogcocepha/us cubifrons Polka-dot Batfish 794 2.6 Mugil cepha/us Striped Mullet 765 2.6 Eucinostomus gula Silver Jenny 691 2.3 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 649 2.2 Etropus crossotus Fringed Flounder 364 1.2 Harengu/a jaguana Scaled Sardine 329 1.1 Eucinostomus harengu/us Tidewater Moiarra 287 1.0 Baqre marinus Gafftopsail Catfish 286 1.0 Brevoortia spp. Menhadens 285 1.0 Prionotus scitulus Leopard Searobin 278 0.9 Pogonias cromis Black Drum 268 0.9 Dasyatis say Bluntnose Stingray 226 0.8 Portunus spp. Portunus Crabs 226 0.8 Eucinostomus spp. Eucinostomus 195 0.7 Farfantepenaeus soo. Commercial Shrimps 195 0.7 Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic Spadefish 184 0.6 Paralichthys albigutta Gulf Flounder 161 0.5 Ca/linectes sapidus Blue Crab 157 0.5 Sphoeroides nephelus Southern Puffer 153 0.5 Sciaenops ocellatus Red Drum 144 0.5 Menticirrhus americanus Southern Kingfish 140 0.5 Symphurus p!agiusa Blackcheek Tonguefish 134 0.4 Cynoscion arenarius Sand Seatrout 132 0.4 Menippe spp. Stone Crab 127 0.4 Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted Seatrout 117 0.4 Mugil curema White Mullet 117 0.4 Citharichthys macrops Spotted Whiff 99 0.3 E/ops saurus Ladvfish 92 0.3 Farfantepenaeus duorarum Pink Shrimp 89 0.3 Chilomycterus schoepfii Striped Burrfish 70 0.2 Mugif trichodon Fantail Mullet 65 0.2 Archosarqus probatocephalu Sheepshead 64 0.2 Syngnathus scovelli Gulf Pipefish 63 0.2 0/igop!ites saurus Leatherjacket 58 0.2 Centropomus undecima/is Common Snook 52 0.2 Prionotus tribu/us Bighead Searobin 49 0.2 Centropristis striata Black Sea Bass 45 0.2 1 !~ GOLDER June 2018 18100086 .. . . . Stephano/epis hispidus Planehead Filefish 42 0.1 Synodus foetens Inshore Lizardfish 41 0.1 Hyporhamphus meeki False Silver Halfbeak 36 0.1 Micropoqonias undulatus Atlantic Croaker 36 0.1 Syngnathus louisianae Chain Pipefish 35 0.1 Ancy/opsetta quadrocellata Ocellated Flounder 33 0.1 Dip/ectrum formosum Sand Perch 32 0.1 Lutjanus synaqris Lane Snapper 28 0.1 Rhinoptera bonasus Cownose Ray 28 0.1 Acanthostracion quadricorni~ Scrawled Cowfish 27 0.1 Strongylura marina Atlantic Needlefish 25 0.1 Syngnathus floridae Dusky Pipefish 23 0.1 Trinectes maculatus Hog choker 22 0.1 Selene vomer Lookdown 20 0.1 Fundulus similis Longnose Killifish 19 0.1 Calamus arctifrons Grass Porgy 16 0.1 Menticirrhus saxatilis Northern Kinqfish 16 0.1 Opsanus beta Gulf Toadfish 15 0.1 Prionotus martis Barred Searobin 15 0.1 Sphvrna tiburo Bonnethead 15 0.1 Peprilus paru Harvestfish 14 0.05 Hippocampus erectus Lined Seahorse 12 0.04 Sardine/la aurita Spanish Sardine 12 0.04 Strongylura notata Redfin Needlefish 12 0.04 Gymnura micrura Smooth Butterfly Ray 11 0.04 Lepisosteus osseus Longnose Gar 11 0.04 Fundulus grandis Gulf Killifish 10 0.03 Opisthonema og/inum Atlantic Thread Herring 10 0.03 Microgobius gulosus Clown Goby 9 0.03 Dorosoma petenense Threadfin Shad 8 0.03 Gobiosoma robustum Code Goby 8 0.03 Trachinotus falcatus Permit 8 0.03 Urophycis floridana Southern Hake 8 0.03 Caranx hippos Crevalle Jack 7 0.02 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic Bumper 7 0.02 Microgobius thalassinus Green Goby 7 0.02 Scorpaena brasiliensis Barbfish 7 0.02 Hypsoblennius hentz Feather Blenny 6 0.02 Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish Mackerel 6 0.02 Achirus lineatus Lined Sole 5 0.02 Ctenogobius boleosoma Darter Goby 5 0.02 Monacanthus ciliatus Fringed Filefish 5 0.02 Ogcocephalus pantostictus Spotted Batfish 5 0.02 Chasmodes saburrae Florida Blenny 4 0.01 Gobiosoma base Naked Goby 4 0.01 Gobiosoma spp. Gobiosoma Gobies 4 0.01 Haemulon plumierii White Grunt 4 0.01 2 1~ GOLDER June 2018 Dwarf Seahorse Lobotes surinamensis Tripletail Nicholsina usta Emerald Parrotfish A/uterus schoepfii Oran e Filefish Oiplodus ho/brookii Spottail Pinfish Echeneis neucratoides Whitefin Sharksucker Fundulus seminolis Seminole Killifish Lutjanus riseus Gray Snapper Serraniculus pumilio P gm Sea Bass Sennet Houndfish Carcharhinus limbatus Blacktip Shark Gobiosoma Ion i ala Twoscale Gob Halichoeres bivittatus Slippery Dick Hypleurochi/us caudovittatus Zebratail Blenny Limulus po/yphemus Horseshoe Crab Anarchopterus criniger Bathygobius soporator Frillfin Gaby Callinectes similis Lesser Blue Crab Carcharhinus Jeucas Bull Shark Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish Bluntnose Jack Hyporhamphus sp . Halfbeaks Mycteroperca microlepis Gag Para/ichthys lethostigma Southern Flounder Paralichthyidae spp. Flounder Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish Raja texana Roundel Skate Rimapenaeus constrictus Roughneck Shrim Sciaenidae spp. Drums Sic onia laevigata Hardback Sicyonia typica Kinglet Rock Shrimp Sphoeroides spengleri Bandtail Puffer Strongylura spp. Needlefishes Stron lura timucu Timucu Syngnathus spp. Pipefishes 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 18100086 Rel;iti:ve Al:>unclance 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 b GOLDER June 2018 Ogcocepha/us radiatus (Polka-Dot Batfish) Bairdie/la chrysoura (Silver Perch) Eucinostomus argenteus (Spotfin Mojarra) Eugerres plumieri (Striped Mojarra) Anchoa mitchilli (Bay Anchovy) Farfantepenaeus duorarum (Pink Shrimp) Lolliguncu/a brevis (Atlantic Brief Squid) Portunus gibbesi Iridescent Swimming Crab) Lagodon rhomboides (Pinfish) Callinectes sapidus (Blue Crab) Stenorynchus seticornis (Arrow Crab) Harengulajaguana (Scaled Sardine) 18100086 21.9 18.1 14.6 7 6.6 6.6 4.7 3.7 2.8 2.5 2.3 2 1 GOLDER June2018 18100086 Achiridae Achirus lineatus Lined sole X Trinectes maculatus Ho choker X Albulidae Albulidae Bonefish/Ladyfish Ariidae Ariopsis felis Hardhead catfish X Ba re marinus Gafftopsail catfish X Atherinidae Atherinidae Silverside X Membras martinica Rou h silverside X Atherinopsidae Menidia ber 1/ina Inland silverside X Menidia s Silverside X Batrachoididae Opsanus beta Gulf toadfish X Belonidae Needlefish X Belonidae Stron Jura marina Atlantic needlefish X X Stron Jura notata Redfin needlefish X Stron Jura spp. Needlefish X Blenniidae Blenny X I Blenniidae Chasmodes saburrae Florida blenny X en H psob/ennius hentz Feather blenny X u::: Carangidae Jack Family X Caranx hi OS Crevalle *ack X Carangidae Chloroscombrus chr surus Atlantic bumper X X 0/i o lites saurus Leatherjacket X X Selene vomer Lookdown X Trachinotus falcatus Permit X Carcharhinidae Atlantic shar nose shark X Clupeid X Clupeidae Scaled sardine X Atlantic thread herring X Cynoglossidae Blackcheek tonguefish X Cyprinodontidae Shee shead minnow X Killifish X Southern stin ra X Dasyatidae Atlantic stingray X Das atis sa Bluntnose stingray X Diodontidae Chi/om cterus schoe fii Striped burrfish X Anchoa cubana Cuban anchovy X Engraulidae Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy X X Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy X X Anchoa spp. Anchovy X X Ephippidae Chaetodi terus faber Atlantic spadefish X Fundulidae Rainwater killifish X Spotfin mojarra X Gerreidae Silver *enn X Gerreidae Mojarra X Gobiesocidae Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish X 1 :~ GOLDER June 2018 18100086 Frillfin goby Goby Gobiidae Code goby X Goby X Clown goby Gymnuridae G mnura micrura Smooth butterfly ray X Haemulidae Orthopristis chr soptera Pigfish X Hemiramphidae Halfbeak Family X X I Hemiramphus sp . Halfbeak X Cl) u::: Hemiramphidae H porhamphus meeki American Halfbeak X H porhamphus s Halfbeak X H porhamphus unifasciatus Altantic Silverstripe Halfbeak X X Labrisomidae Paraclinus fasciatus Banded blenn X Lutjanidae Gray snapper X Lane snapper X Microdesmidae Microdesmus Ion i innis Pink wormfish X Microdesmus spp. Wormfish X Monacanthidae A/uterus schoe fii Oran e Filefish X Stephanole is hispida Planehead filefish X Mu ilidae Mu ii ce ha/us Striped mullet X Ophichthidae Ahlia egmontis Key worm eel X Myrophis unctatus Speckled worm eel X Ostraciidae Acanthostracion quadricornis Scrawled Cowfish X Paralichthyidae Anc lopsetta quadrocellata Ocellated flounder X Paralichth s a/bi utta Gulf flounder X Percidae Eucinostomus spp. Mojarra X X Phycidae Uroph cis f/oridana Southern hake X Poeciliidae Poecilia lati inna Sailfin molly X Polynemidae Pol dact /us sp . I Threadfin X Scaridae Nicho/sina usta Emerald parrotfish X Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch X X Cynoscion arenarius Sand seatrout ')( C noscion nebu/osus Spotted seatrout X X Sciaenidae Menticirrhus americanus Southern kingfish X Menticirrhus s p. Kingfish X Sciaenidae Drums X Red drum X X Serranidae Gag Grouper X Sheepshead X Sparidae Spottail Pinfish X Pinfish X X Sph raenidae Northern sennet X 2 GOLDER June 2018 Stromateidae I Cl) u::: Syngnathidae Synodontidae Tetraodontidae Triglidae Limulidae Menippidae Pectinidae I Farfantepenaeus duorarum Cl) u::: Farfantepenaeus s ...J ...J Penaeidae Litopenaeus setiferus w I Penaeidae Cl) Rima enaeus constrictus Callinectes sapidus Portunidae Callinectes s p. Portunidae 3 Harvestfish Harvestfish Fringed pipefish Lined seahorse Pipefish/Seahorse Dwarf Seahorse Pipefish/Seahorse Dusky pipefish Chain pipefish Gulf pipefish Pipefish Lizardfish Family Inshore lizardfish Northern puffer Southern puffer Bandtail puffer Leopard searobin Sea Robin Bighead searobin Horseshoe crab Stone Crab Stone Crab ba scallo Blue Crab swimming crabs ':L~ i~ 18100086 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X GOLDER

June 2018 18100086 Table 5: Probable Additional Fragile Species " . . " * * ;r * :: ** " f'c1mil , . .. . Clupeidae Harengula jaguana Scaled sardine Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring Engraulidae Anchoa cubana Cuban anchovy Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy June 21, 2018 18100086 FIGURES GOLDER M \aud\1 4 01 1 J\Sb_l*yout_R,v _0714_1000ft.ffll(d L egend r.::'J CCC S it e Boundary Power Fa ci l ity Fa ci li ties *----Makeup Water Line *---* Slowdown Water Line *----Augmentation Water Line *---* Bklwdown/Augmentation Combi n e d Water Lin e *---* Wei Waler Line ------230kV Transmission Line SOOkV Transmission Line 1111 111 1 Gas Pip e~n e c:::J ~r:,~~~~ssion and Pip e l ine FIGURE 1 LAYOUT O F Ci l TRU S COMB I NED CYCLE FAC I LITIE S &:IUICH: FOOT. 201 1: AMEC , 2013: eurn , & M cOo~II. 201 4; ECT. 2014. F ee t FLORIDA FIGURE 2 CONCEPTUA L INT AKE/DISCHARGE LOCATIONS sou,cH FDOT.201 1: AME C. 2013. Bi.ns & McOonel. 201 4. EC T.2014. j,o~,u 7114'2014 2 32 15 PM *---* Makeup Water Line *---* Slowdown water Line *---* Augmenta ti on Water Line S l owdow n/A ugmentati on *---* Combined Water Line M: lacad\140113\lntake Discnar Canals.mxd Legend ,--] Citrus Plant Site Boundary FIGURE 3 EXISTING CREC INTAKE AND DISCHARGE CANALS Sources: ESRI Street Map , 2013; FDEP , 2013; ECT , 2014. 0 0.5 June 21 , 2018 18100086 APPENDIX A Engineering Drawings GOLDER 1 PLANT NORTH D --1----, r;------,-,--:-::---,,--,--------=,>---,F----='------"'--....:..<-- _ _,_.J.:Jlff ,

• t::J ' b j I IF-~~~-w-~~~"'-f~.all'II,/

' .. / *1, / oi~: L. * .i </? *-----.y ,,-.... ('~?!'.~ 01 ~11111111 CICG<lC :.C:ISSUWfOROESIG'IHfO) QQ l~lflQ16 CICCOC bc;IS.SU£0fOil.OES"llFD)

• or.-ut,u1~

C".JCCOC CONSlRUCUON se:issuoorn .. ..ccePTANCEdf.,. i! i ! jj ! j u r/cc:cc:cc I l' ¢ ._-* -:._ ____ _ **-**-or.A>f!lta NO. CCCOO-GA-M-00.00.PL-02 REV. 01 / ' UC(llalaHI ,, / ru:1-~",," / / '/ ',' .. *-**-r**-*j L ** -*:.":_***-**-* -**-*.-*-**----*: -**-*-**----*._-;:-_- .. -_-. -* -**-.-_-;:-_-*.":..* *. ":.." .. 7-.* *,. " " ::::::.::::.

• . .. ____ *-*--., DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA CITRUS COUNTY COMBINED CYCLE PROJECT MECHANICAL GENERAL ARRANGEMENT INTAKE AREA PLOT PLAN CCCOO-OA-M-00.00.PL-02 01 IIOUIIUJIJ nm, mr.i:uo I mllrt*JUI an.* NOl1'ROa0)

UMOtl YGIIO'U ,.: j !--Q-~*---~ .. --*IUICa _,1--. .. -.. ,-,..1 . .,,_ r *, .0-IU. L _,_ ' ii 11+8: I I ------. **--** *---""'-.. ,,. --i_ ~, I --------I r-------I I ---------, I I I I I I _j _)_ ~-c:t_;. :111 II :TlDJ: -===~ . : : : I i I I I I I I I I I I c:=i ~-: I I I I ~--------~-L----~---~-L I I I I I ~----T r----1 ,-----,-, I I I I I I I I ,* I I ' ' c:::====i c::=:::=:i I r, 1.10 J-j-t==::='.JI I ' , ¢=:==Jffi r---, ,---, C --l_ _: __ ---;l--(~j ,.-~.. i i i I . I /) I I I / / I __________ l_ -l __ ./ /" )! : : ::i I // // ! *1 : 11, I /I u"il ... // ,;. ( / I , I , I I , ( .____.I I~ I D I h~ I .1 j I 1* I 1 I ,I .. I c:==-:J c===i I I I I I : I _j__ L......!.,___L.........L.C_L_.L........L~----"'-'-"'-.........L.-L'---""---"'-----"--'...~"'--'--"'-~~- t~---* -----**--------__ ,o,*-***-111:,* ------**------------: TOP SLAB EL 99-0~ 10 12 CR3 INTAKE STRUCTURE TOP SLAB EL.99~0" AtLOWABLE LIVE LOAD$ ON SLAB 0-200P.5.F. -BOOP.SF. ©-IOOOP.SF. @-aooP.S.F. 13 14 6 TOOTH. 24" PITCH, WELDED STEO. HEAD SPROCKET'S. 48" P.O. WITH STAINLESS STEEL REMOVEABLE TOOTH INSERTS 4 7/16"t BRONZE BUSHED TAKE-UP BEARING WITH CAST STEEL HOUSING ANO 316 STAINLESS STEEL TAKE-UP SCREW &PIP[ J~O!NRE~gg f*** I *1 l*j I 11*-2* I WELL WIDTH 10'-ol"+/-(t I FLANGE TO FLANGE .~ DRIVE ASSEMBLY: IN-LINE HEUCAL GEAR REDUCER. APPROX RATIO 375:1, WITH MOTOR, 1.S HP, 1800 RPM. 460 VAC, J PH, 60 HZ. TEFC FRONT FIBERGLASS SPLASH HOUSING WITH SICE B01.4AR ORIV[ SPROCKET: 1 J TOOTH, CARBON STEEL DRIVEN SPROCKET: ao TOOTH, CARBON STEEL ORWE CHAIN; RC140 CHAIN GUARD: FIBERGLASS DOORS HEAD SHAFT FlBERGLASS DISCHARGE CHUTE J" SPRAY HEADER, "U" TYPE WITH ~i\i~rR;Eo 1 J\6STAINLESS STEEL WITH THREADED FITTINGS -~ *~ 4'-4" ,*-..;* flBERGLASS CHAIN GUARD CHAIN AND BASKET ASSEMBLY (2) 9/16"0 HOLES IN HEAD 'iJ SECTION fOR GROUNDING LUG. 1 J/4" APART PER NE.UA, TYPICAL BOTH HEAD SECTION SIOE PLATES 0 & SECTION 8-8 ,_ ______ ,_,*_-o_*_BAS+-"-TWI_OT_H-------.1~ ~I ADDEO SECTION 8-8, REVISED NOTE. HEADER CONNECTION WAS FLANGED 03.28.16 RBH 11'-2" WELL WIOTH SECTION A-A SEE DRAWING CHl1JS4-102 FOR ANCHOR BOLT LAYOUT REFERENCE DRAWINGS CHl1JS4-102 -GENERAL LAYOUT CH11354-103 -LOADING DIAGRAM CH11354-104 -INTERCONNECTING PIPING LAYOUT GHJ1JS4-105 -SPRAY WASH WATER PU"4P ARRANGEMENT CHl1J54-176 -PIPING & INSTRUMENTATION DIAGRAM SCREEN DATA FIVE (5) THRU FlOW, OUTSIDE DRIVE TRAVELING WATER SCREENS. 10'-0" TRAY WIDTH i JY-0" CENTERS CAPACIIY: 17,000 GPM AT 0.49 FPS THROUGH A 100,: CLEAN SCREEN AT A LOW WATER DEPTH Of 15'-,;i* SPRAY WATER: 195 GPM AT 40 PS1 FOR A SMALL. AMOUNT OF REFUSE 2JB GPM AT 60 PSI FOR L£11VES AND GENERAL REFUSE 274 CPI.I AT 80 PSI FOR REFUSE CLINGING TO THE TRAYS ESTIIJATEO WEIGHTS (EACH): HEAO SECTION INTERMEDIATE STEEL FOOT SECTION CHAIN FIBERGLASS HOUSINGS TOTAL SCREEN DESIGN s.002tbs J,6JSlbs l,9261bs S,466tbs 1,7941bs !ill.JI>,. 18,4011bs THE SCREEN IS OESIGNEO TO START AT A OlfFER[NTIAL HEAO OF 2*-5* ANO RUN CONTINUOUSLY AT A DIFFERENTIAL HEAD OF 1 '-0" AT A HIGH WATER DEPTH OF 25'-ai" ANO STRUCTURAU.Y WITHSTAND A OIFrUlENTIAL HEAO OF 5'-0" AT THE HIGH WATER DEPTH. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE BY THE OWNER TO SHUT DOWN THE PUMPS BEFORE EXCEEDING THE DESIGN OIITTRENTIAL HEADS. SCREEN CONSTRUCTION INTERMEDIATE FRAME -J/8* MINIMUM THICKNESS AJ6 CARBON STEEL FOOT SECTION FRAME -3/8" MINIMUM THICKNESS AJ6 CARBON STEEL HEAO SECTION -1/4" MINIUUM THICKNESS AJ6 CARBON STEEL FASTENERS -J16 STAINLESS STEEL SPLASH HOUSINGS -J/16* MINIMUM THICKNESS FIBERGLASS CHAIN ANO BASKETS CHAIN -24* PITCH, LUBRICATED SIOEBAR -J"

• J/8", C1040 CARBON STEEL PINS -416 STAINLESS STEEL BUSHINGS -416 STAINLESS STEEL ROLLERS -416 STAINLESS STE(l B~KET FRAME -HIGH STRENGTH COMPOSITE RETAINER BARS -NON-MCTALUC WIRE SCREEN CLOTH -316 STAINLESS STEEL. #14 W&M GAUGE (10.0BO")

WITH O.J75" SQUARE OPENINGS TRAY TO CLOTH FASTENERS -J16 STAINLESS STEEl TRAY TO CHAIN FASTENERS -J\6 STAINLESS STEEL SEAL PLATE -NON-METALLIC PAINTING INSTRUCTIONS ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL AND CASTINGS EXCEPT STAINLESS STEEL. MACHINERY, 1.4ACHINEO ITEMS ANO MAIN TRAY CI-WN SHAU. HAVE SURFACE PREPARATION IN ACCOROANCE WITH SSPC-SPIO FOLLOWED BY SHOP COAT(S) OF AU[RQN EPOXY PAINT (BL.ACK) FOR A FINlSH[O SYSTEM 0.F.T. Of 10-12 UQ..S SHAFTING ANO MACHINED SURFACES SKALL RECEIVE STANDARD SHOP PRESERVATION. MAIN CHAIN ANO ORJVE CHAIN "SHALL RECEIVE ONE COAT OF A POTASLE PROTECTIVE COATING. PURCHASED COMPONENTS (REDUCER, MOTOR, ETC.) SHALL HAVE MANUFACTURERS STANDARD FlNISH. ASSEMBLY NOTE THE SCREEN Will BE SHIPPED ASSEMBLED. THIS ASSEMBLY TO INCLUDE THE HEAD SECTION, FOOT SECTION, !NTERMEOIATE FRAME SECTIONS. TRAYS ANO CHAIN. DRIVE ASSEUBLY, DRIVE CHAIN, DRIVEN SPROCKET, FIBERGLASS SPLASH HOUSINGS ANO CHAIN GUARD WITH APPROPRIATE HARDWARE TO BE SHIPPED LOOSE FOR ASSEMBLY IN THE FIELD. & E!£l.Q.l,QIE HOLES FOR BOLTING THE FIBERGLASS HOUSINGS TO THE HEAO SECTION ARE TO BE ORJLLE:0 IN THE FIBERGLASS OURINC FlELD INSTALLATION USING THE HOLES IN THE STEEL HEAD SECTION AS A To-APLATC. THIS lS TO ALLOW FOR BETTER ALIGNMENT OF HOUSINGS TO TH[ HEAD SECTION STEEL HOLES FOR MATING OF FIBERGLASS TO FIBERGLASS COMPONENTS Will BE COI.IPLETEO IN THE SHOP. CONTRACT NOTE THE WATER SCREENS PROVIDED ON llilS CONTRACT REPI.ACEMENTS FOR lliE SCREENS PROVIDED ON REX CONTRACT H644J5 CIRCA 1969 ANO ARE MODERN OAY EOUWALENTS FOR THE WATER SCREEN PROVIDE ON SIEMENS CONTRACT CH1127J CIRCA 2011. DUKE ENERGY -CITRUS COUNTY PROJECT CRYSTAL RIVER, FL 205~127 WATER TECHNOLOGIES CI-W.F'ONT, PA 215-712-0280 t>RAWN'.: SHEU CHl1354*101 1 OF 1 C S!ft's,38-38 -~-* .. **. f"'~S0-$0 , ~""llfPIIIU

,. _ .. _ i

, c I':' I. *l'l'!l'l'l*J.

' ;. s c e 9 to'f+j ":;":,"t':**m*"'0;i '! . ~G~J;~~---"""' Sm10112-2 Sccpop.3*3 Sm 1 0H4*4 ,,,,.~,,.,.~l:,r- ~"u 4"*(-&"frl.... ' * :~~~-~"' 1.' . .,I \,;;;... ' -'tO-*s1~1* .. (SUPtUOFMArrott Cil'ltMJATIO~ N t I.COIOtt!<:SPECn:AIIONSSl'->>u*SP-5118 ~3DOCIPSI-IJtllDU!I =w-XIJ0-4.wu.,i,~1-11r. 2.ltf>>U-.~V--av-,MII IWOW.ASlllM15c;IWl[40. 3.ALL IUSCE.J.N!EDUS m:n 9WJ.CCINlllRII TO 'VWnCAJlONS roRSl!IUCIURAL Sim" ASIIIA-l&.l.tilSSNDTtll. t.AU.S'IJOOnSSlm.SKll.l,B(ffl'tJ0;10RlOf,[X()D'l'AIICIIOR!l'MCIIARtCliRIICl<sm:i.. ~~TOBrG"ll3/rl'VCBUIBl'll'[NO.:!J1eF'lrt*Jt.GAACE*co.ORN'l'li:OiUI G.llllOIHINGTOB:clll "'IM:CWHDICXWC!t[l(ISPOIJIIED,SO:DWG.E-2H-119. J.~~~~=--1-l/2'DaP,TOl'IIOWlttll.-a: DITMtffll.Cl'.TQl'Sl,,O,ICOICll[l'(OV!I.D.:£.!GTDIS SC*us.-eo:J ww:tsm.a.TOPSUORONf'Ollll:OVlfa$[t'IQIS SC-4U-~ DO'Al"tffllVl;J. Pl1S -lllWJlCiWS a SEC'nCt<5 SC-41'-~ Mllll:Sm.o:T.IWI.S-~SlC'IQIISa~ S-SU-501 IIITMI:rnu=T,~Sltll. E*2H-lo.l lf!M!:S!R>Cl',CONDIIII.O,'IWf E*U&-110 r.wct SIRl,ICI". LD!1WO i.a'IQUT t-:zn-111 llffAICl!'.SIRIJCr.CflClUNDNa [-2211-1:IO IHTAl<:l:S!IIVCl'.CAJ!tOOl:PROTWIDI P0-301.-cllJ ll!Wlt:;ll!UCT,WM.Ltll!ltaL'!ftlllsaotDISl&l&mosHIW!rSUWPS SC424-2lo0-rn '-81/'?iJOJ ---*----~*

---

'. I I I I I I 'I '\

-***-*---...... June 21, 2018 18100086 APPENDIX B CWIS Pump Curves I~ GOLDER F L U O R OOA5VIOO DOC. NO. REC'D: 07-NOV-2015 CCC-M-0603-03-00008-1 EQUIP/TAG NUMBER --..... OORM-PMP-0100A OORM-!'MP-01006 FLOWSERVE OORM-PMP-0100C """-"" FLS Proposal No. JMS-BLH-15030 Liquid Customer Fluor Temperature (°F) Project Duke Citrus CC Specific Gravity Service Makeup Water Pumps Date 9/9/2015 Sea Water Speed (RPM) 75 Pump Type 1.00 Pump Model No. No. of Stages DOCUMENT No.: 28615PE0527-533 REVISION No.: 0 PRELIMINARY Proposed Performance 885 Capacity (gpm) 15500 VCT TOH (ft) 176.5 37KXH Efficiency 83.2% 1 NPSHR (ft) 29.0 BHP (hp) 830 Curves are approximate. Pump is guaranteed for one set of conditions. Capacity, head, and efficiency guarantees are based on shop test and when handling clear, cold, fresh water at a Rev.A temperature of not over 85 degrees. 2000 50 INPSHR I c; 1600 40--::S 1200 30 ... G) 800 20 == I POWER I 0 a. a. 400

• 10 Z 0 0 250 I 100%
• 1 EFFICIENCY I 225 90% ----.........

200 r--... 80% _,-, ...... V -........ 175 * / *'J 70% -------150

• 60% g / ---..... >. u C: "C 125 50% G) ra / --~ *c::; G) !i: :c 100 HEAD l-. 40% w / / 75
• 30% V / 50 ~v 20% 25
• 10% / 0 0% 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000 28000 ., Capacity (gpm) A-PROCEED FLUOR. Authorization to proceed does not relieve Contractor/Suppller of Its responslblllty or liability under the Contract and or Purchase Order. By: Bob Day,DAY13403,12/9/2015 II,,.

--...... FLOWSERVE ......__ f L U O R OOASVIOO DOC. NO, REC'D: 07-NOV-2015 CCC-M-0603-03-00009-1 OORt.l 0 Pr.lP.OtDOA OQRM.PMP.Otoae 001Ud,PMP.0100C tOKA.PMP-0100 10RC.PMP.OJ 10A 1GRcPMP.01t0B

lCKA.PMP.0100 2Ufl.C.PMP.0110A

10RC.PMP..f>110S DOCUMENT No.: 28615PE0527-536 REVISION No.: 0 Proposed Performance FLS Proposal No. JMS-BLH-15030 Liquid Sea Water Speed (RPM) 700 Capacity (gpm) 24000 Customer Fluor Temperature

(°F) 95 Pump Type VCT TDH (ft) 35 Project Duke Citrus CC Specific Gravity 1.00 Pump Model No. 38PMR Efficiency 87.0% Service Dilution Water Pumps No. of Stages 1 NPSHR (ft) 28.0 Date 9/9/2015 BHP (hp) 249 Curves are approximate. Pump is guaranteed for one set of conditions. Capacity. head, and efficiency guarantees are based on shop test and when handling clear, cold, fresh water at a Rev.A temperature of not over 85 degrees. 750 50 600 ci: INPSHR I :5. 450 ----30 ... Q) 300 20 3= 0 I POWER I D. D. 150 10 Z 0 0 100 100% 90 I EFFICIENCY I 90% ' 80 -----1,..,.., ... r--....... 80% " ... _JI" 70 V'" 70% ./ 60 / 60% >a g u --./ C: "C 50 50% Q) Ill -'ij Q) .. / :f: :::c 40 40% w / -i--... """'-I ....... i,...__ 30 . HEAD . 30% / .. ............ I 20 r--..;:::::: 20% / 10 10% 0 0% 0 2500 5000 7500 10000 12500 15000 17500 20000 22500 25000 27500 30000 32500 r Capacity (gpm) A-PROCEED FLUOR Authorization to ~roceed does not relieve Contractor/Supplier of its responsibility or liability under he Contract and or Purchase Order. By: Bob Day,DAY13403,12/9/2015 June 21, 2018 18100086 APPENDIXC NMFS Biological Opinion (2002) GOLDER FILE# Mr. Herbert N. Berkow, Director Project Directorate II

• Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear Mr. Berkow:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT DF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Southeast Regional Office 9721Executive Center Drive North -St. Petersburg, FL 33702 (727) 570-5312; FAX 570-5517 http://caldera.sero.nmfs.gov F/SER3:BH:tg This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Servic:e's (NOAA Fislleries) biological opinion (Opinion) based on your request for reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (BSA) section 7 consultation for the operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex' s (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), Kemp's rid.ley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), and greeh turtles (Chelonia mydas). This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (BSA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq.). The NOAA Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SER/2001/01080; If you have any questions about th.is consultation, please refer to this number .. This Optnion is based. on information provided in a letter from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated October 11, 2001, with an-attached biological assessment; phone conversations and meetings between NOAA Fisheries staff, NRC staff, and CREC staff; published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of threatened and endangered turtles within the action area; and other sources of information. A .complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. _ The Opinion states NOAA Fisheries' belief that the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, hawksbill and leatherback sea turtles. However, NOAA Fisheries anticipates inc;idental takes of these species and has issued an *Incidental Take Statement (ITS), pursuant to section 7 of the BSA. This ITS contains reasonable and prudent measures with implementing terms and conditions to help minimize this take. Incidental takes of marine mammals are not authorized. If the NRC believes such takes may occur, an incid~ntal take authorization under Marine Mammal Protection Act, Section 101 (a)(5), is necessary. In this regard, please contact Ken Hollingshead of our headquarters Protected Resources staff at (301) 713-2055. s?~ {{4~d/!v .Joseph E. Powers, PhD. // Acting Regional Administrator Enclosure cc: F/PR3 . o:\section7\formal\cry~2002. wpd File: 1514.22.m.3

• Endangered Species Act
• Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion Agency: Activity:

Consultation Conducted By: Date Issued: Approved By: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cooling water intake system at the Crystal River Energy . Complex (F/SER/2001/01080) Joseph E. Powers, Ph.D. Acting Regional Administrator This document represents the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) biological opinion (Opinion) based on our review of the operation of the Crystal River Energy Complex' s (CREC) cooling water intake system located near the Gulf of Mexico in Citrus County, Florida, and its effects on loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dennochelys coriacea), hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata), and green turtles (Chelonia mydas). This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536 et seq.). The NOAA Fisheries consultation number for this action is F/SER/2001/01080. If you have any questions about this consultation, please. refer to this number. History of the Consultation In a letter dated April 2, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reinitiated ESA section 7 consultation for the operation of the CREC cooling water intake system. The NOAA Fisheries, Southeast Regional Office (SERO), Protected Resources Division received this letter on April 9, 2001. The NRC reinitiated consultation because it felt that CREC would exceed the incidental take levels for live turtles issued with the June 16, 1999, incidental take statement (ITS) that concluded the no jeopardy Opinion issued for the operation of CREC' s cooling water intake system. In a letter dated April 9, 2001, NOAA Fisheries agreed that CREC would likely exceed its ITS levels and agreed that reinitiation of section 7 consultation was warranted. NOAA Fisheries staff met with CREC and NRC staff at the CREC facility on May 9, 2001. During this meeting NOAA Fisheries staff requested an update of NRC's andCREC's October 1998 biological assessment (BA) in order to complete a formal section 7 consultation. NOAA 2 I i Fisheries received the updated BA on October 22, 2001, and considers this information to be a complete initiation package. This Opinion is based on information provided in the letter from the NRC dated October 11, 2001, with the attached BA; phone conversations and meetings between NOAA Fisheries staff, NRC staff, and CREC staff; published and unpublished scientific information on the biology and ecology of threatened and endangered turtles within the action area; and other sources of information. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office in St. Petersb~rg, Florida. I. Description of the Proposed _Action The Proposed Action The CREC contains five separate power plants. Unit 1 is_ an approximately 400 MW electric (MWe) coal-fueled plant. Unit 2 is an approximately500 MWe coal-fueled plant. Unit 3 is an approximately 890 MWe pressurized water, nuclear-fueled plant. Units 4 and 5 are coal-fueled plants rated at approximately 640 MWe each. This consultation will analyze the cooling water intake systems for Units I, 2, and 3.

• The intake structures for Units 1, 2, and 3 are concrete structures with bar racks, traveling screens, and seawater pump components.

Surface water trash barriers are deployed in front of the bar racks to collect large floating debris. Water is drawn from the intake canal through the bar racks, through the traveling screens, into the pumps, and then flows through the plant's condensers and auxiliary systems. The water is then discharged through an outfall into the discharge canal. The discharge canal directs water back to the Gulf of Mexico. The intake bar racks prevent trash and large debris carried by the seawater from entering the intake structure. The seawater must pass through the bar racks which are made of steel bars spaced on 4-inch centers. The bar racks extend from well above the water line to.the concrete pase at the bottom of the intake canal. Debris and marine life smaller than the bar rack openings pass through the bar racks. The traveling screens effectively remove this floating or suspended debris from the intake water. Intake water passing through these screens suspends debris and solid materials onto the screens. The screens are conveyed upwards to an overlapping water spray system *which washes these materials off the screens and into a debris trough. The traveling screen system is operated approximately three times a day. Each of the three plants that use seawater for cooling have four large circulating pumps used to draw seawater into the plant. The water is then pumped through the condensers and out to the discharge canal. On Units 1 and 2, the total design flow is 638,000 gallons per minute (gpm). Unit 3 design flow is 680:000 gpm. In addition, Unit 3 has a low flow nuclear services water pumping system with a normal flow-rate of approximately 10,000 gpm. Under emergency conditions, additional pumps would increase this flow up to approximately 20,000 gpm. From the discharge of the pumps, the water flows to the main condensers; and for Unit 3, an additional flow path exists for the nucle1;1r services and decay heat cooling water heat exchangers. After the 3 seawater passes through the tubes of the condenser and/or heat exchangers, the seawater is trar;isported in underground pipes to the dis(?harge canal. The discharge canal directs the water back to the Gulf of Mexico. The bar racks are inspected 24 hours a day during times of high turtle concentrations in the intake canal (February through May) and once every two hours during other times of the year. If a turtle is stranded on the bar racks, it is immediately recovered with dip nets. Healthy turtles are placed in a holding tank at the CREC Mariculture Center, where Mariculture Center Staff ~embers determine the proper disposition of the turtle; in conjunction with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) personnel. Non-healthy turtles are also taken to the Mariculture Center with disposition to be determined by FWC. Dead turtles are sent to the Mari culture Center and picked up by FWC. Action Area The CREC is located on an approximate 5,000-acre site near the Gulf of Mexico in Citr:us County, Florida. The Complex is approximately 7 .5 miles northwest of the city of Crystal River,* within the coastal salt marsh area of west central Florida. The action area consists of 3 of the 5 power plants (Plants 1, 2 and 3) that make up CREC, the 2.8-mile discharge canal, and the intake canal and intake structures, which includes the bar racks, traveling screens, and sea water pump components. The intake canal is a dredged canal ~pproximately 14 miles long with an average depth of 20 feet (the area of the intake canal has a natural rock bottom starting under the initial layer of sand and sediment. The depth of the s;md and sediment layer varies greatly in the area. The canal was dredged through the sand and sediment leaving a rock bottom that extends the length of the canal). The canal is bordered on _both sides by land beginning from the plant site and extending 3 miles to the west. The canal then ~xtends westward an additional 11 miles out into the Gulf of Mexico. II. Status of the Species The following endangered and threatened marine mammal, sea turtle, and marine plant species under the jurisdiction of NOAA Fisheries are known to .occur in or near the action area:

• Common Name Endangered Green sea turtle Kemp's ridley sea turtle Hawksbill sea turtle
• Leatherback sea turtle Right whale Humpback whale ' Scientific Name* Chelonia mydas* Lepidochelys kempii -Eretmochelys imbrictita Dermochelys coriacea Eubalaena glacialis . Megaptera novaeangliae 4

Sperm whale Threatened Physeter macrocephalus Caretta caretta . Loggerhead sea turtle Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Critical Habitat . . . There is no critical habitat in the action area. *

• Green turtles in U.S. waters are listed as threatened except for the Florida breeding population, which is listed as *endangered.

Due to the inability to distinguish between the

• populations away from. the nesting beaches, green turtles are considered endangered wherever they occur in U.S. waters. Sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus), occur in the Gulf of Mexico but are rare in state waters. Other endangered whales, including North Atlantic right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) and humpback whales (Megaptera novaengliae), have been observed occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico. The individuals observed have likely been inexperienced juveniles straying from the normal range of these stocks. NOAA Fisheries does not believe that there are resident stocks of these species in the Gulf of Mexico; therefore, these species are not likely to be adversely affected by projects in the Gulf.* Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries believes that the chance of the proposed action affecting listed species of large whales is discountable.

Although the Gulf sturgeon's migratory habits are not.well known, NOAA Fisheries believes it is unlikely that Gulf sturgeon wi~l stray from mud and sand bottom marine foraging areas in .the Gulf to enter the rocky bottomed intake canal of the CREC and subsequently be affected by the cooling water intake system. Studies conducted by CREC from 1980 to 1983, to determine the species of fish and invertebrates affected by the cooling water system, showed no evidence of Gulf sturgeon. Based on this information, NOAA Fisheries believes that the chance of the proposed action adversely affecting Gulf sturgeon is discountable. Therefore, the remainder of the analysis in this Opinion will focus on the five species of sea turtles in or near the action area. A. Species/critical habitat description Loggerhead Sea Turtle The loggerhead sea turtle was listed as a threatened species in 1978. This species inhabits the* continental shelves and estuarine environments along the margins of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, and within the continental United States it nests from Louisiana to Virginia. The major nesting areas include coastal islands of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, and the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of Florida, with the bulk of the nesting occurring _on the Atlantic 5 coast of Florida. Developmental habitat for small juveniles are the pelagic waters of the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. There is no critical habitat designated for the loggerhead sea turtle. Green Sea Turtle Federal listing of the green sea turtle occurred on July 28, 1978, with all populations listed as threatened except for the Florida and Pacific coast of Mexico breeding populations which are endangered. The complete nesting range of the green turtle within the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Region includes sandy beaches of mainland shores, barrier islands, coral islands, and volcanic islands between Texas and North Carolina and at the U.S. Virgin Islands (U.S.V.I.) and Puerto Rico (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991a). Principal U.S. nesting areas for green turtles are in eastern Florida, predominantly Brevard through Broward counties (Ehrhart and Witherington 1992). Regular green turtle nesting also occurs on St Croix, U.S.V.I., and on Vieques, Culebra, Mona, and the main island of Puerto Rico (Mackay and Rebholz 1996, Diez pers. comm.). Critical habitat for the green sea turtle has been designated for the waters surrounding Isla Culebra, Puerto Rico, and its associated keys. Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle* The Kemp's ridley was Hsted as endangered on December 2, 1970. Internationally, the Kemp's ridley is considered the most endangered sea turtle (Zwinenberg 1977, Groombridge 1982). Kemp's ridleys nest in daytime aggregations known as arribadas, primarily atRancho Nuevo, a stretch of beach in Mexico, Tamaulipas State. The species occurs mainly in coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the northwestern Atlantic Ocean. Occasional individuals reach European waters (Brongersma 1972). Adults of this species are usually confined to the Gulf of Mexico, although adult-sized individuals sometimes are found on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. There is no designated critical habitat for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle. Leatherback Sea Turtle The leatherback was listed as endangered on June 2, 1970. Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans; the Caribbean Sea; and the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). Adult Ieatherbacks forage in temperate and subpolar regions from 71 °N to 47°S latitude in all oceans and undergo extensive migrations between 90"N and 20°S, to and from the tropical nesting beaches. In the Atlantic Ocean, leatherbacks hav~ been recorded as far north as Newfoundland, Canada, and Norway, and as far south as Uruguay, Argentina, and South Africa (see NOAA 6 Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Female leatherbacks nest from the southeastern United States to southern Brazil in the western Atlantic and from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic. The most significant nesting beaches in the Atlantic, and p~rhaps in the world, are in French Guiana and Suriname (see NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Critical habitat for the leatherback includes the waters adjacent to Sandy Point, St. Croix, U.S.V.I. Hawksbill Sea Turtles The hawksbill turtle is listed as endangered under the ESA, and is considered Critically Endangered by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) based *on global population declines of over 80% during the last three generations (105 years) *(Meylan and . Donnelly 1999). Only five regional nesting populations remain with more than 1,000 females nesting annually (Seychelles, Mexico, Indonesia, and two in Australia) (Meylan and Donnelly 1999). Most populations are declining, depleted, or remnants of larger aggregations. Although hawksbills are subject to the suite of threats that affect other marine turtles, the decline of the species is primarily attributed to centuries of exploitation for tortoiseshell, the beautifully patterned scales that cover the turtle's shell (Parsons 1972). Critical habitat for the hawksbill includes the waters around Mona and Monito Islands, Puerto Rico. B.

• Life histo_ry Loggerhead Sea Turtle-Mating takes place in late March-early June, and eggs are laid throughout the summer, with a mean clutch size of 100-126 eggs. in the southeastern United States. Individual females nest multiple times during a*ne~ting season, with a mean of 4.1 nests/nesting individual (Murphy and Hopkins 1984). Nesting migrations for an individual female loggerhead are usually on an interval of 2-3 years, but can vary from 1-7 years (Dodd 1988). Loggerhead sea turtles originating from the. western Atl;mtic nesting aggregations are believed to lead ,a pelagic existence in the North Atla~tic Gyre for as long as 7-12 years or more, but there is some variation in habitat use by individuals at all life stages. Turtles in this life history stage are called "pelagic immatures." Stranding records indicate that when pelagic immature ioggerheads reach 40-60 cm straight-line carapace length they begin to recruit to coastal inshore and nearshore waters of the continental shelf throughout the.p.s. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. Benthic immature loggerheads, the life stage following the pelagic immature stage, have been found from Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to southern Texas, and occasionally strand on beaches in northeastern Mexico. Large benthic immature loggerheads (70-91 cm) represent a larger proportion of the strandings and in-water captures (Schroeder et al. 1998) along the south and 7 western coasts of Florida as compared with the rest of the coast, which could indicate that the larger animals are either more abundant in these areas or just more abundant within the area relative to the smaller turtles. Benthic immature loggerheads foraging in northeastern U.S. waters are known to migrate southward irt the fall as water temperatures cool (Epperly et al. 1995b, Keinath 1993, Morreale and Standora 1999, Shoop and Kenney 1992), and migrate northward in spring. Past literature gave an estimated age at maturity of 21-35 years (Frazer and Ehrhart 1985, Frazer et al. 1994) and the benthic immature stage as lasting at least 10-25 years. However, NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC (2001) reviewed the literature and constructed growth curves from new data, estimating ages of maturity ranging from 20-38 years and benthic immature stage lengths from 14-32 years. Juveniles are omnivorous and forage on crabs, mollusks, jellyfish, and vegetation at or near the surface (Dodd 1988). Sub-adult and adult loggerheads are primarily-coastal.

and typically prey on benthic invertebrates such as mollusks and decapod crustaceans in hard bottom habitats. Green Sea Turtle Green sea turtle mating occurs in the waters off the nesting beaches. Each female deposits 1-7 clutches (usually 2-3) during the breeding season at 12-14 day intervals. Mean clutch size is highly variable among populations, but averages 110-115. Females usually have 2-4 or more ,years betw.een breeding seasons, while males may mate every year (Balazs 1983). After hatching, &reen sea turtles go through a post-hatchling pelagic stage where they are associated with drift lines of algae and other debris. Green turtle foraging areas fo the southeast United States include any neritic waters having macroalgae or sea grasse~ near mainland coastlines, islands, reefs, or shelves, and any ocean surface Waters, especially where advection from wind and currents concentrates pelagic organisms (Hirth 1997, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991). Principal benthic foraging areas in the region include Aransas Bay, Matagorda Bay, Laguna Madre, and the Gulf inlets of Texas (Doughty 1984, Hildebrand 1982, Shaver 1994), the Gulf of Mexico off Florida from Yankeetown to Tarpon Springs (Caldwell and Carr 1957, Carr 1984), Florida Bay and the Florida Keys (Schroeder and Foley 1995), the Indian River Lagoon System, Florida (Ehrhart 1983), and

• the Atlantic Ocean off Florida from Brevard through Broward counties (Wersheven and Wershoven 1992, Guseman and Ehrhart 1992). Adults of both sexes are presumed to migrate between nesting and foraging habitats along corridors adjacent to coastlines and reefs. Age at
• sexual maturity is estimated to be between 20 to 50 years (Balazs 1982, Frazer and Ehrhart 1985). Green sea turtles are primarily herbivorous, feeding on algae and sea grasses, but also occasionally consume jellyfish and sponges. The post-hatchling, pelagic-stage individuals are assumed to be omnivorous, but little data are available.

8 Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Remigration of females to the nesting beach varies from annually to every 4 years, with a mean of 2 years (TEWG 1998). Nesting occurs from April into July and is essentially limited to the beaches of the western Gulf of Mexico, near Rancho Nuevo in southern Tamaulipas, Mexico. The mean clutch size for Kemp's ridleys is 100 eggs/nest, with an average of 2.5 nests/female/season. Juvenile/subadult Kemp's ridleys have been found along the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and in the Gulf of Mexico. Atlantic juveniles/subadults travel northward with vernal warming to feed in the productive, coastal waters of Georgia through New England, returning southward with the onset of winter to escape the cold (Lutcavage and Musick 1985, Henwood and Ogren 1987, Ogren 1989). In the Gulf, juvenile/subadult ridleys occupy shallow, coastal regions. Ogren (1989) suggested that in the northern Gulf they move offshore to deeper, warmer water during winter. Studies suggest that subadult Kemp's ridleys stay in shallow," warm, nearshore waters in the northern Gulf of Mexico until cooling waters force them offshore or south along the Florida coast (Renaud 1995). Little is .known of the movements of the hatching, planktonic stage within the Gulf. Studies have shown the post-hatchling pelagic stage varies from 1-4 or more years, and the benthic immature stage lasts 7-9 years (Schmid and, Witzell 1997). The Turtle Expert Working Group (1998) (TEWG) estimates age at maturity to range from 7-15 years. Stomach contents of Kemp's ridleys along the lower Texas coast consisted of a.predominance of nearshore crabs and mollusks, as well as fish, shrimp and other foods considered to be shrimp* fishery discards (Shaver 1991). Pelagic stage, neonatal Kemp's ridleys presumably feed on the available Sargassum and associated infauna or other epipelagic species found in the Gulf of

• Mexico. Leatherback Sea Turtle Female leatherbacks nest from the southeastern United States to southern Brazil in the western
• Atlantic and from Mauritania to Angola in the eastern Atlantic, with nesting occurring as early as late February or March. When they leave the nesting beaches, leatherbacks move offshore but eventually utilize both coastal and pelagic waters. Very little is known about the pelagic habits of the hatchlings and juveniles, and they have not been documented to be associated with the Sargassum areas as are other species. Leatherbacks are deep divers, with recorded dives to depths in excess of 1,000 m (Eckert et al. 1989), but they may come into shallow waters if there is an abundance of jellyfish nearshore.
• Although leatherbacks are a long-lived species(>

30 years), they are somewhat faster to mature *than loggerheads. Leatherbacks have an estimated age at sexual maturity reported of about 13-14 years for females, with 9 years reported as a likely minimum (Zug 1996) and 19 years as a likely maximum (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). They nest frequently (up to 7 nests per year) duri}?g 9 a nesting season and nest about every 2-3 years. During each nesting, they produce 100 eggs or more in each clutch and, thus, can produce 700 eggs or more per nesting season (Schultz 1975). -I * . , Leatherback sea turtles feed primarily on jellyfish as well as cnidarians and tunicates: They are also the most pelagic of the turtles, but have been known to *enter coastal waters on a seasonal basis to. feed in areas where jellyfish are concentrated. Hawksbill Sea Turtles The life history of hawksbills consists of a pelagic stage that lasts from the time they leave the . nesting beach as hatchlings until they are approximately 22-25 cm in straight carapace length (Meylan 1988, Meylan in prep.), followed by re&idency in developmental habitats (foraging areas where immatures reside and grow) in coastal waters. Adult foraging habitat, which may or may not overlap with developmental habitat, is typica:lly coral reefs, although other hard-bottom communities and occasionally mangrove-fringed bays may be occupied. Hawksbills show fidelity to their foraging*areas over periods of time as great as several years (van Dam and Dfez 1998). Hawksbills may undertake developmental migrations (migrations as immatures) and reproductive migrations that involve travel over hundreds or thousands of kilometers (Meylan 1999b). Reproductive females undertake periodic (usually ~on-annual) migrations to their natal beach to nest. Movements of reproductive males are less well known, but are presumed to invoh'.e migrations to the nesting beach or to courtship ~tations along the migratory corridor. Females nest an average of 3-5 times per season with some geographic variation in this parameter (see references on pp. 204-205, Meylan and Donne~ly 1999; Richardson et al. 1999). Clutch size is higher on average (up to 250 eggs) than that of .gree?J turtles (Hirth 1980). Reproductive females may exhibit a high degree of fidelity to their nest sites. This, plus the tendency of hawksbills to nest at regular intervals within a season, make them vulnerable to capture on the nesting beach. C. Population dynamics, status, and distributio)J Loggerhead Sea Turtle Loggerhead sea turtles occur throughout the temper;te and tropical regions of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and are the most abundant species of sea turtle occurring in U.S. waters. Loggerhead sea turtles concentrate their nesting in the north and south temperate zones and subtropics, but generally avo~d nesting in tropical areas of Central America, northern South America, and the Old World (Magnuson et al. 1990). . . In the western Atlantic, most loggerhead sea turtles nest from North Carolina to Florida and along the Gulf coast of Florida. There are five western Atlantic subpopulations, divided geographically as follows: (1) a*northern nesting suppopulation, occurring from North Carolina to northeast Florida at about 29° N (appro~imately 7,500 nests in 1998); (2) a south Florida 10 nesting subpopulation, occurring from 29° Non the east coast to Sarasota on the west coast (approximately 83,400 nests in 1998); (3) a Florida Panhandle nesting subpopulation; occurring at Eglin Air Force Base and the beaches near Panama City, Florida (approximately 1,200 nests in 1998); (4) a Yucatan nesting subpopulation, occuning on the eastern Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico (Marquez 1990) (approximately 1,000 nests in 1998) (TEWG 2000); and (5) a Dry Tortugas nesting subpopulation, occurring in the islands of the Dry Tortugas, near Key West, Florida (approximately 200 nests per year) (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). Natal homing of females to the nesting beach provide*s the barrier between these subpopulations, preventing recolonization with turtles from other nesting beaches. Based on the data available, it is difficult to estimate the size of the loggerhead sea turtle population in the United States or its territorial waters. There is, however, general agreement that the number of nesting females provides a useful index of the species' population size and stability at this life stage. Nesting data collected on index nesting beaches in the United States from 1989-1998 represent the best data set available to index the population size of loggerhead sea turtles. However, an important caveat for population trends analysis based on nesting beach data is that this may reflect trends in adult nesting females but not reflect overall population growth rates. Given this caveat, between 1989 and 1998, the total number of nests laid along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts ranged from 53,014 to 92,182 annually, with a mean of 73,751. On average, 90.7% of these nests were from the south Florida subpopulation, 8.5% were from the northern subpopulation, and 0.8% were from the Florida Panhandle nest sites. There is limited nesting throughout the Gulf of Mexico we.st of Florida, but it is not known to which subpopulation the turtles making these nests belong. The number of nests in the northern subpopulation from 1989 to 1998 was 4,370 to 7,887, with a 10-year mean of 6,247 nests. With each female producing an average of 4.1 nests in a nesting season, the average number of nesting females per year in the northern subpopulation was 1,524. The total nesting and non-nesting adult female population is estimated as 3,810 adult females in the northern subpopulation (TEWG 1998, 2000). The northern population, based on number of nests, has been classified as stable or declining (TEWG 2000). Another consideration adding to the vulnerability of the northern subpopulation is that NOAA Fisheries' scientists estimate that the northern subpopulation produces 65% males, while the south Florida subpopulation is estimated to produce 80% females (NOAA Fisheries, SEFSC 2001). The southeastern U.S. nesting aggregation is of great importance on a global scale and is second in size only to the.nesting aggregation on islands in the Arabian Sea off Oman (Ross 1979, Ehrhart 1989, NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1991 b ). The global importance of the southeast U.S. nesting aggregation is especially significant because the status of the Oman colony has not been evaluated recently, but it is located in an area of the world where it is highly vulnerable to disruptive events such as political upheavals, wars, catastrophic oil spills, and lack of strong protections (Meylan et al. 1995). 11 Ongoing threats to the western Atlantic populations include incidental takes from dredging, commercial trawling, fongline fisheries, and gillnet fisheries; loss or degradation of nesting habitat from coastal development and beach armoring; disorientation of hatchlings by beachfront lighting; nest predation by native and non-native predators; degradation of foraging habitat; marine pollution and debris; watercraft strikes; and disease. Green Sea Turtle

• The vast majority of green turtle nesting within the southeast United States occurs in Florida. In Florida from 1989-1999, green turtle abundance from nest counts ranges from 109-1,389 nesting females per year (Meylan et al. 1995 and Florida Marine Research Institute Statewide Nesting 2001 Database, unpublished data; estimates assume 4 nests per female per year, Johnson aIJ,d Ehrhart 1994). High biennial variation and a predominant 2-year re-migration interval (Witherington and Ehrhart 1989, Johnson and Ehrhart 1.994) warrant combining eyen and odd years into 2-year cohorts. This gives an estimate of total nesting females that ranges from 705-1,509 during the period 1990-1999.

It is important to note that because methodological limitations make the clutch frequency number (4 nests/female/year) an underestimate (by as great as 50%), a more conservative estimate is 470-1,509 nesting females in Florida between 1990 and 1999. In Florida during the period 1989-1999, numbers of green turtle nests by year show no trend. However, odd-even year cohorts of nests do show a significant increase during the period 1990-1999 (Florida Marine Research Institute, 2001 Index Nesting Beach Survey Database). It is unclear how greatly green turtle nesting in the whole of Florida has been reduced from historical levels (Dodd 1981), although one account'indicates that nesting in Florida's Dry Tortugas may now be only a small fraction of what it once was (Audubon 1926). Total nest counts and trends at index beach sites during the past decade suggest that green turtles that nest within the southeast United States are recovering and have only recently reached a level of approximately 1,000 nesting females. There are no reliable estimates of the number of green turtles inhabiting foraging areas within the southeast United States, and it is likely that green . turtles foraging in the region come from multiple genetic stocks. These trends are also uncertain because of a lack of data. However, there is one sampling area in the region with a large time series of constant turtle-capture effort that may represent trends for a limited area within the region. This sampling area is at an intake canal for a power plant on the Atlantic coast of Florida where 2,578 green turtles have been captured during the period 1977-1999 (FPL 2000). At the power plant, the annual number of immature green turtle captures (minimum straight-line carapace length < 85 cm) has increased significantly during the 23-year period. Status of immature green turtles foraging in the southeast United States might also be *assessed from trends at nesting beaches where many of the turtles originated, principally, Florida, Yucatan, and Tortuguero. Trends at Florida beaches are presented above. Trends in nesting at Yucatan beaches cannot be assessed because of irregularity in beach survey methods over time. Trends at Tortuguero (ca. 20,000-50~000 nests/year) show a significant increase in nesting during the period 1971-1996 (Bjorndal et al. 1999). 12 The principal cause of past declines and extirpations of green turtle assemblages has been the over-exploitation of green turtles for food and other products. Although intentional take of green turtles and their eggs is not extensive within the southeast United States, green turtles that nest and forage in the region may spend large portions of their life history outside the region and outside United States' jurisdiction, where exploitation is still a threat. Adult green turtles and immatures are exploited heavily on foraging grounds off Nicaragua and to a lesser extent off Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela, and theTortuguero nesting beach (Carr et al. 1.978, Nietschmann 1982, Bass et al. 1998, Lagueux 1998). There are significant-and ongoing threats to green turtles from human-related causes. Threats to nesting beaches in the region include beach armoring, erosion control, artificial lighting, and . disturbance, which can* be expected to increase with time. Pollution is known to have both direct (ingestion of foreign materials such as tar balls and plastics) and indirect (degradation of foraging grounds) impacts on green sea turtles. Foraging habitat loss also occurs as a result of direct destruction by dredging, siltation, boat damage, and other human activities. Green turtles are often captured and occasionally killed by interactions with fishing gear. Collisions with power boats and encounters with suction dredges have killed green turtles along the U.S. coast and may be common elsewher~* where. boating and dredging activities are frequent (Florida Marine* Research Institute, Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Database). Threats from increasing incidences of dis~ase, which may or may not have ~ome relation to human influences, ate also a concern. The oce:urrence of green turtle fibropapillomatosis disease was originally reported in the 1930s, when it was th,ought to be rare (Smith and Coates 1938). Presently, this disease is cosmopolitan. and has been found to affect large numbers of animals in some areas, including Hawaii and Florida (Herbst 1994, Jacobson 1990, Jacobson et al. 1991). Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle

• L. kempii has a very restricted distribution relative to the 0th.er sea turtle species. Data suggests that adult Kemp's ridley turtles are restricted somewhat .to the Gulf of Mexico in shallow near shore waters, and benthic ilpIIlature turtles of 20-60 cm straight line carapace length are found in nearshore coastal waters including estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic, although adult-sized individuals sometimes are found on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. The post-pelagic stages are commonly found dwelling over crab-rich sandy or mud<iy bottoms. Juveniles frequent bays, co~tal lagoons, and river mouths.
• Of the seven extant species of sea turtles in the world, the Kemp's ridley has declined to the
• lowest population level. Most of the population of adult females nest on the Rancho Nuevo beaches (Pritchard 1969). When nesting aggregations at Rancho Nuevo were discovered in 1947, adult female populations were estimated to be in excess of 40,000 individuals (Hildebrand 1963). By the early 1970s, the world population estimate of mature female Kemp's ridleys had been reduced to 2,500-5,000 individuals.

The population declined further through the mid-1980s. Recent observations of increased nesting suggest that the decline in the ridley population has stopped and the population is now increasing. 13 The TEWG (1998) identified three population trends in benthic immature ridleys. Benthic immatures are not yet reproductively mature but have recruited to feed in the nearshore benthic environment, where they are exposed to nearshore mortality sources that often result in strandings. Increased production of hatchlings from the nesting beach beginning in 1966 resulted in an increase in benthic ridleys that leveled off in the late 1970s. A second period of increase followed by leveling occurred between 1978 and 1989 as hatchling production was further enhanced by the cooperative program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Mexico's Institute Nacional de Pesca to increase the nest protection and relocation program in 1978. A third period of steady increase, which has not leveled off to date, has occurred since 1990 and appears to be due to the greatly increased hatchling production and an apparent increase in survival rates of immature turtles beginning in 1990, due in part to the introduction of turtle excluder devices (TEDs) in the U.S. and Mexican shrimping fleets. Adult ridley numbers have now grown, as shown in nesting increases at the main nesting sites in Mexico. Nesting at Tamaulipas and Veracruz increased from a low of 702 nests in 1985, to 1,930 nests in 1995, to 6,277 nests in 2000 (USFWS 2000). The population model used by the TEWG (1998) projected that Kemp's ridleys could r~ach the intermediate recovery goal identified in the Recovery Plan, of 10,000 nesters by the year 2020 if the assumptions of age to sexual maturity and age specific survivorship rates used in their model are correct.. The largest contributor to the decline of the ridley in the past was commercial and local exploitation, especially poaching of nests at the Rancho Nuevo site, as well as the Gulf of Mexico trawl fisheries. The advent of TED regulations for trawlers and protections for the nesting beaches have allowed the species to begin to rebound. Many threats to the future of the species remain, including interactions with fishery gear, marine pollution, foraging habitat destruction, illegal poaching of nests and potential threats to the nesting beaches from such sources as global climate change, development, and tourism pressures. Leatherback Sea Turtle Leatherbacks are widely distributed throughout the oceans of the world, and are found in waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, Caribbean, and the Gulf of Mexico (Ernst and Barbour 1972). The leatherback is the largest living turtle and it ranges farther than any other sea turtle species; exhibiting broad thermal tolerances (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1995) .. Genetic analyses of leatherbacks to date indicate that within the Atlantic basin significant genetic differences occur among St. Croix (U.S.V.I.) and mainland Caribbean populations (Florida, Costa Rica, Suriname/French Guiana), and between Trinidad and the mainland Caribbean populations (Dutton et al. 1999), leading to the conclusion that there are at least three separate subpopulations of leatherbacks in the Atlantic. Nest counts are the only reliable population information available for leatherback turtles. Recent declines have been seen in the number of leatherbacks nesting worl_dwide (NOAA Fisheries and USFWS 1995). A population estimate of 34,500 females (26,200-42,900) was made by Spotila 14 et al. (1996), who stated that the species as a whole was declining and local populations were in danger of extinction. Historically, decline was due primarily to intense exploitation of the eggs (Ross 1979), but adult mortality has increased significantly from interactions with fishery gear (Spotila et al. 1996). The Pacific population is in a critical state of decline, now estimated to number less than 3,000 total adult and subadult animals (Spotila et al. 2000). The status of the Atlantic population is less clear. In 1996, it was reported to be stable, at best (Spotila et al. 1996), but numbers in the western Atlantic at that time were reported to be on the order of 18,800 nesting females. According to Spotila (pers. comm.), the western Atlantic population currently numbers about i5,000 nesting females, whereas current estimates for the Caribbean (4,000) and the eastern Atlantic, off Africa, (numbering ca. 4,700) have remained consistent with numbers reported by Spotila et al. in 1996. The nesting aggregation in French Guiana has been declining at about 15% per year since 1987. From *1979-1986, the number of nests was increasing at about 15% annually. The number of nes_ts in Florida and the U.S. Caribbean has been increasing at about 10.3% and 7.5%, respectively, per year since the early 1980s but the magnitude of nesting is much smaller than that along the French Guiana coast (see NOAA Fisheries SEFSC 2001). In summary, the

• conflicting information regarding the status of Atlantic leatherbacks makes it difficult to conclude .whether or not the population is currently in decline. Numbers at some nesting sites are up, while at others they are down. Zug (1996) pointed out that the combination of the loss of long-lived adults in fishery-related mortality (especially entanglement in gear and drowning in trawls), and the lack of recruitment*

stemming from elimination of annual influxes of hatchlings because of intense egg harvesting, has caused the sharp decline* in leatherback populations .. Other important ongoing threats to the population include pollution, loss of nesting habitat, and boat stri~es. Hawksbill Sea Turtle The hawksbill is a medium-sized sea turtle with adults in the Caribbean ranging in size from approximately 62.5 to 94.0 cm straight carapace length. The species occurs in all ocean basins although it is relatively rare in the Eastern Atlantic and Eastern Pacific, and absent from the Mediterranean Sea. Hawks bills are the most tropical of the marine turtles, ranging from approximately 30°N to 30° S. They are closely associated with coral reefs and other hard-bottom habitats, but they are also found in other habitats including inlets, bays, and coastal lagoons. The diet is highly specialized and consists primarily of sponges (Meylan 1988), although other food items, notably corallimorphs and zooanthids, have been documented to be important in some areas of the Caribbean (van Dam and Dfez 1997, Mayor et al. 1998, Leon and Diez 2000). In the Western Atlantic, the largest hawksbill nesting population occurs in the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico, where several thousand nests are recorded annually in the states of Campeche, Yucatan, and Quintana Roo (Garduno-Andrade et al. 1999). Important but significantly smaller nesting aggregations are documented elsewhere in the region in Puerto Rico, the U.S.V.1., 15 Antigua, Barbados, Costa Rica, Cuba, and Jamaica (Meylan 1999a). Estimates of the annual number of nests for each of these areas are ~f the order of hundreds to a few thousand. Nesting within the southeastern U.S. and U.S. Caribpeari is restricted to Puerto Rico (>650 nests/yr); the U.S.V.I. (-400 nests/yr), and, rarely, Florida (0-4 nests/yr)(Eckert 1995, Meylan 1999a, Florida Statewide Nesting Beach Survey database).

• At the*two principal nesting beaches in the U.S. Caribbean where long-term monitoring has been carried out, populations appear to be increasing (Mona Island, Puerto Rico) or stable (Buck I~larid Reef National Monument, St. Croix, U.S.V.l.) (Meylan 1999a).
• D. Analysis of the species/critical habitat likely to be affected Of the above listed species occurring in the action.area, NOAA Fisheries believes that Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, green, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed action, but no critical liabitat for any species will be impacted.

These five species are known to occur in the action area and the likelihood of them being impacted by the activities in the action area is not discountable. III. Environmental Baseline This section contains an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing human and natur~l factors leading to the current status of the species, its ha~itat, and ecosystem, within the action area. The environmental baseline is. a snapshot of a species' health at a specified point in time and includes state, tribal, local, and private actions already ~ffecting the species, or that will occur contemporaneously with the consultatioil'in progress. Unrelated Federal actions affecting the same species or'critical habitat that have completed formal or informal consultation are also part of the environmental baseline, as are Federal artd o~her actions within the action area that may benefit listed species or critical habitat. *

• The environmental baseline for this Opinion includes tbe effects of several activities that affect the survival and recovery of threatened and endaBgered species in the action area. The activities that shape the environmental baseline in the action area of this consultation are primarily fisheries and recovery activities associated with r~ducing fisheries impacts. Other environmental impacts include effects of discharges, dredging, military activities, and industri-al cooling water intake. *
• A. Status of the species within the action area The five species of sea turtles that occur in the action ru:ea are all highly migratory.

NOAA Fisheries believes that no individual members of any of the species are likely to be year-round residents of the action area. Individual animals will make migrations into nearshore waters as well as other areas of the North Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico; and the Caribbean Sea. Therefore, the range-wide status of the fi_ve species of sea turtles, given in Section II above, most accurately reflects the species' status within the action area. 16 B. Factors affecting species environment within the action area.

• As explained above, sea turtles found in the action area are not year-round residents of the area, and may travel widely throughout the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea. Therefore, individuals found in the action area can potentially be affected by .activities anywhere else within this wide range. Federal Actions In recent years, NOAA Fisheries has undertaken several ESA section 7 consultations to address the effects of federally-permitted fisheries and other Federal actions on threatened and end~gered species. Each of those consultations sought to develop ways of reducing the probability of adverse effects of the action on sea turtles. Similarly, recovery actions NOAA Fisheries has undertaken under the ESA are addres_sing the problem of take of sea turtles in the fishing and shipping industries.

The following summary of anticipated sources of incidental take of turtles includes only .those Federal actions which have undergone formal section 7 consultation. Potential adverse effects from Federal vessel operations in the action area and throughout the range of sea turtles include operations of the Navy (USN) and Coast Guard (USCG), the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE). NOAA Fisheries has conducted formal consultations with the USCG, and the USN on their vessel operations. Through the section 7 process, where applicable, NOAA Fisheries has and will continue to establish conservation measures for all these agency vessel operations to avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species. At the present time, however, they represent potential for some level of interaction. In addition to vessel operations, other military activities including training exercises and ordnance detqnation also adversely affect sea turtles. Consultations on individual activities have been completed, but no formal consultation on overall USCG or USN activities in any region has been completed at this time.

• The construction and maintenance of Federal navigation channels has also been-identified as a source of turtle mortality.

Hopper dredges move relatively rapidly (compared to sea turtle swimming speeds) and can entrain and kill sea turtles, presumably as the drag arm of the moving dredge overtakes the slower moving turtle. Regional biological opinions (RBOs)with corresponding ITSs have been issued to the COE for the southeast Atlantic waters and the Gulf of Mexico. Consultation is currently underway, on a new RBO for the COE' s Gulf of Mexico hopper dredging operations. The COE and Minerals Management Service (MMS) (the latter is non-military) oil and gas exploration, well development, production, and abandonment/rig removal activities also. 17 adversely affect sea turtles. Both of these agencies have consulted with NOAA Fisheries on these types of activities.

• Adverse effects on threatened and endangered species from several types of fishing gear occur in the action area. Efforts to reduce the adverse effects of commercial fisheries are addressed through the BSA section 7 process. Gillnet, longline, trawl gear, and pot fisheries have all been documented as interacting with sea turtles. For all fisheries for which t~ere is a Federal fishery management plan (FMP) or for which any Federal action is taken to manage that fishery, impacts have been evaluated under section 7. Several forn:ial consultations have been conducted on the following fisheries tha.t NOAA Fisheries has determined are likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species: American lobster, monkfish, dogfish, southeastern shrimp trawl fishery, northeast multispecies, Atlantic pelagic swordfish/tuna/shark, and summer flounder/scup/black sea bass fisheries.
• On June 14, 2001; NOAA FisQeries issued a jeopardy opinion for the Highly Migratory Species (HMS) fisheries off the eastern United States. The HMS Opinion found that the continued prosecution of the pelagic longline fishery in the manner described in the 1ŽS FMP was likely to jeopardize the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. This determination was made by analyzing the effects of the fishery on sea turtles in conjunction with the environmenial baseline and cumulative effects. The environmental baseline section ohhe HMS Opinion is incorporated herein by reference and can be found at the following NOAA Fisheries website: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/prot_res/readingrm/ESAsec71HIVIS06080lfinal.pdf The environmental baseline for the June 14, 2001, HMS Opinion also considered the impacts from the North Carolina offshore spring monkfish gillnet fishery and the inshore fall southern flounder gillnet fishery, both of which were responsible for large numbers of sea turtle mortalities in 1999 and 20_00, especially loggerhead sea turtles. However, during the 2001 season NOAA Fisheries implemented an observer program that observed 100% of the effort in the monkfish fishery, and then in 2002 a rule was enacted creating a seasonal monkfish gillnet * . . closure along the Atlantic coast based upon sea surface temperature data and turtle migration patterns.

In 2001, NOAA Fisheries also issued an BSA section 10 permit with mitigative measures for the southern flounder fishery. Subsequently, the sea turtle mortalities in these . fisheries were drastically reduced. The reduction of turtle mortalities in these fisheries reduces the negative effects these fisheries have on the environmental baseline. NOAA Fisheries has implemented a reasonable and prudent alternative (RP A) in the 1ŽS fishery which would allow the continuation of the pelagic longline fishery without jeopardizing the continued existence ofloggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. The provisions of this RP A include the closure of the Grand Banks region off the northeast United States and gear restrictions that are expected to reduce the by-catch of loggerheads by as much as 76% and leatherbacks by as much as 65%. Further, NOAA Fisheries is implementing a major research project to develop measures aimed at further reducing longline by-catch. The implementation of this RP A reduces the negative effects that the HMS fishery has on the. environmental baseline: 18 The conclusions of the June 14, 2001, HMS Opinion and the subsequent implementation of the RPA are hereby incorporated into the environmental baseline section of this Opinion. Another action with Federal oversight which has impacts on sea turtles is the operation of electrical generating plants. Sea turtles entering coastal or inshore areas have been affected by entrainment in the cooling-water systems of electrical generating plants. Biological opinions . have already been written for a number of electrical generating plants, and others are currently undergoing section 7 consultation.

• State or Private Actions Commercial vessel traffic and recreational pursuits can have an adverse effect on sea turtles through propeller and .boat strike damage. Private vessels participate in high speed marine events concentrated in the southeastern United States and area particular threat t.o sea turtles, and occasionally to marine mammals as well. The magnitude of these marine events is not currently known. NOAA Fisheries and the USCG are in early consultation on these events. but a thorough analysis has not been completed.

Various fishing methods used in state fisheries, including trawling, pot fisheries, fly nets, and gillnets are known to cause .interactions with sea turtles. Georgia and South Carolina prohibit gillnets for all but the shad. fishery. Florida has banned all but very small nets in state waters, as has Texas. Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have also placed restrictions on gillnet fisheries within state waters sucl). that*very little commercial gillnetting takes place in southeast waters, with the exception of North Carolina. Most pot fisheries in the Southeast are prosecuted in areas frequented by sea turtl~s. Strandings in tqe North Carolina area represent, at best, 7%-13% of the actual nearshore mortality (Epperly et al. .1996). -Studies by Bass et al. (1998), Norrgard (1995), and Baransky (1997) indicate that t~e.percentage of northern loggerheads in this area is highly represented in the stranding's when compared to the approximately 9% representation from this subpopulation in the overall U.S. sea turtle nesting populations. Specifically, the genetic composi~ion of sea turtles in this area is 25%-54% from the northern subpopulation, 46%-64% from the South Florida subpopul,ation, and 3%-16% from the Yucatan subpopulation. The cumulative removal of thes~ turtles on an annual basis would severely impact the recovery of this. species. Other Potential Sources of. Impacts in the Environmental Baseline A number of activities that may indirectly affect listed species include discharges from wastewater systems, *c1redgiilg, ocean dumping and disposal, and aquaculture. The impacts from these activities are difficult to measure. Where possible, however, conservation actions are being implemented to monitor or.study impacts from these elusive sources. 19 NOAA Fisheries and the USN have-been working cooperatively to establish a policy for monitoring and managing acoustic impacts from anthropogenic sound sources in the marine environment. Acoustic impacts can include temporary or permanent injury; habitat exclusion, habituation, and disruption of other normal behavior patterns. Conservation and.Recovery Actions Shaping the Environmental Base~ine NOAA Fisheries implemented a series of regulations aimed at reducing potential for incidental mortality of sea turtles in commercial fisheries. In particular, NOAA Fisheries has required the use of TEDs in sout.heast U.S. shrimp trawls since 1989 and in summer flounder trawls in the mid-Atlantic area (south of Cape Charles, Virginia) since 1992. It has been estimated that TEDs exclude 97% of the turtles caught in such trawls. These regulations have been refined over the years to ensure that TED effectiveness is maximized through proper placement and installation, configuration (e.g., width of bar spacing), floatation, and more widespread use. Recent analyses by Epperly and Teas (1999) indicate that the minimum requirements for the escape opening dimensions are too small; and that as many as 47% of the loggerheads stranding annually along the Atlantic seaboard and Gulf of Mexico were too large to fit through existing openings. On October 2, 2001, NOAA Fisheries published a proposed rule to require larger escape openings in TEDs and is planning to publish a final rule in 2002. In 1993 (with a final rule implemented in 1995), NOAA Fisheries established a Leatherback Conservation Zone to restrict shrimp trawl activities from the coast of Cape Canaveral, Florida, to the North Carolina/Virginia border. This provides for short-term closures when high concentrations of normally pelagic-distributed leatherbacks are recorded in more coastal waters where the shrimp fleet operates. This measure is necessary because, due to their size, adult leatherbacks are larger than the escape openings of most NOAA Fisheries-approved TEDs. NOAA Fisheries is also working to develop a TED which can be effectively used in a type of trawl kn:own as a fly net, which is sometimes used in the mid-Atlantic and northeast fisheries to target sciaenids and bluefish. Limited observer data indicate that takes can be quite high in this fishery. A prototype design has been developed, but testing under commercial conditions is still necessary. In addition, NOAA Fisheries has been active in public outreach efforts to educate fishennen regarding sea turtle handling and resuscitation techniques. As well as making this infonnaticin widely* available to all fishennen, NOAA Fisheries recently conducted a number of workshops with longline fishermen to discuss bycatch issues including protected species, and to educate them regarding handling and release guidelines. NOAA Fisheries intends to continue these outreach efforts and hopes to reach all fishermen participating in the pelagic longline fishery over the next one to two years. There is also an extensive network of Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network participants along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico which not only collects data . on dead sea turtles, but also rescues and rehabilitates any live stranded turtles. 20 IV. Effects of the Action Since Units 1, 2, and 3 began commercial operation, marine turtles have occasionally been found in the intake canal. CREC records indicate that from 1994 to 1997, eight sea turtles were stranded on the Unit 3 intake bar racks. CREC records for these yea.rs were opportunistic, and do not indicate species, time of year, size or disposition of the stranded turtles (dea~ or alive) .. Sea turtle monitoring activities at CREC have increased substantially since 1997, with the monitoring program implemented in March 1998 and the implementation of the Sea Turtle Rescue Guidelines dated September 1998. The increased monitoring should provide a more realistic estimate of the number of sea turtles stranded or killed each year at* the plants . . The records indicate that this activity has not taken many sea turtles for years up to 1998.

• For the four years from 1994 to 1997, the activities at CREC have taken an average of two sea turtles per year. Records for 1998 show a dramatic increase in the numbers of sea turtle strandings at CREC, especially for the months of February to May. In 1998, a total of 40 takes were stranded at the power plants, 5 being lethal. Of these, 37 of the turtles released alive were Kemp's ridley and all 5 lethal takes were also Kemp's ridley. All sea turtles stranded at CREC were sub-adults with carapace lengths ranging from 21 cm to 55 cm. There are no proven environmental factors that have. caused this increase and population numbers are not monitored for this area so the increase could be from an increase in population or an increase in sub-adult turtles moving into this area from some other area (pers. comm. Allen Foley, FWC). The number of marine sea turtles taken in 1999 was significantly lower than 19.98. A total of 9 live sea turtles were recovered from the bar racks in 1999. Of these, 7 were Kemp's ridleys, 1 was a loggerhead, and 1 was a green tt,Irtle.

In 2000, a t0tal of 19 turtles were taken from the bar racks: 13 were alive, 5 were considered non-causal mortalities (killed by something other than plant activities, such as a boat strike, and verified by FWC), and 1 was considered killed as a result of plant activities. Of these, 11 were Kemp's ridleys, 6 were green turtles, 1 was a loggerhead, and 1 was a hawksbill. More turtles were taken in 2001 than in 1998. There were 66 sea turtles taken incidentally in 2001, 62 were released alive, 3 were considered non causal mortalities, and 1 was considered killed as a result of plant activities. The vast majority of these turtles were Kemp's ridleys, followed by green and loggerhead turtles. These numbers exceeded the biennial ITS levels set in the June 1999 Opinion, which established an incidental take level of 50 live takes, 5 turtles killed as a result <?f plant activities ancl 8 dead turtles not causally related to plant operations. As of May 21, 2002, there have been 11 turtles incidentally taken at CREC, 8 of which were alive and 3 dead turtles not causally related to plant operations.

• Based on this information and recorded take levels for 1998 and 2001, NOAA Fisheries believes that the level of live take of sea turtles in CREC's intake canal may reach 75 sea turtles rescued alive from the bar racks annually and 3 lethal takes annually that are causally related to plant operations.

The majority of these turtles are expected to be Kemp's ridleys, followed by greens 21 and loggerheads. Hawksbills and leatherbacks, although occasionally found in the area, are expected to make up a very small portion o~ this take (less than 1 % ).

• NOAA Fisheries does not expect leatherbacks or hawksbills to be part 9f the lethal take because of their rarity in the action area. V. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the effects of future state, loc.al, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area considered in this biological opinion. Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA. Within the action area, major futµre changes are not anticipated in ongoing human .a<;:tivities described in the environmental baseline.

The present, major hm:nan uses of the action area such as commercial fishing, recreational boating and fishing, and the transport of petroleum and other chemical products, are expected to continue at the present levels of intensity in the near future as are their associated risks of injury or mortality to sea turtles posed by incidental c*apture by fishermen, accidental oil spills, vessel collisions, marine debris, chemical discharges, and man-made noises. As discussed in Section III, however, listed species of turtles migrate througl).out the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and may be affected during their life cycles by non-Federal activities outside the action area. Beachfront development, lighting, and beach erosion control are all ongoing activities along the southeastern coast of the United Stat~s. These activities potentially reduce or degrade sea turtle nesting Qabitats or interfere with hatchling movement to sea. Nocturnal human activities along nesting beaches may also discourage sea turtles fr(!m nesting sites. The extent to which these activities reduce sea turtle nesting and hatchling.production is unknown. However, more and more coastal counties have or are adopting more stringent protective measures to protect hatchling sea turtles from the disorienting effects of beach lighting. Some of these measures were drafted in response to law suits brought agains~. th<;i counties by concerned citizens who charged the counties with failing to uphold the .ESA by-alJowing unregulated beach lighting which results in takes of hatchlings. State-regulated commercial and recreational boating and fishing activities in the Gulf of Mexico, off Citrus County waters currently result in the inddental take of threatened and endangered species. It is expected that states will continue to license/permit large vessel and thrill-craft operations which do ~ot fall under the purview of a Federal agency and will issue regulations that will affect fishery activities. Any increase in recreational vessel activity in inshore and offshore waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico will likely increase the risk of turtles taken by injury or mortality in vessel collisions. Recreational hook-and-line fisheries have been known to lethally take sea turtles, including Kemp's ridleys. Future cooperation between NOAA Fisheries and the states on these issues sh_ould help decrease take of sea turtles caused by recreational activities. NOAA Fisheries will continue .to work with states to develop ESA section 6 agreements and section 10 permits to enhance programs to quantify and mitigate these takes. * *

• 22 -I VI. Conclusion The annual live take, tagging, and release of 75 turtles (Kemp's ridleys, greens, hawksbills, leatherbacks, and loggerheads) will not have an impact on tprtles populations.

The annual lethal take of 3 Kemp's ridley, loggerhead, or green sea turtles, or some combination of all three; represents a very small percentage of the total sea turtle take in the Southeast United States from such things as commercial fishing. As explained in this Opinion (in the environmental baseline and species description), nesting for these species has been increasing or remaining stable in the Southeast United States ( except for the northern nesting population. of loggerheads which has been stable and may be decreasing) in spite of the current amount of take. Therefore, after reviewing the current status of endangered green, leatherback, hawks bill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, and threatened loggerhead sea turtles; the environmental baseline; the effects of the proposed action; and the cumulative effects, it is NOAA Fisheries biological opinion that the implementation of the proposed action, as described in the Proposed Action sec.tion of this Opinion, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered green, leatherback, hawksbill, and Kemp's ridley sea turtles, or threatened loggerhead sea turtles. No critical habitat has been designated for these species in the action area; therefore, none will be affected. VII. Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the BSA and Federal regulations pursuant to section 4(d) of the ESA prohibit the _take of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful.activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the ESA provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. The measures described below are non-discretionary and must be undertaken by the NRC so that they become binding conditions of any grant or pern:rit issued to the applicant, as appropriate, for the exemption in section 7(o)(2) to apply. The NRC has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the NRC fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the NRC must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to NOAA Fisheries as specified in the incidental take statement. Amount or Extent of Anticipated Take Based on stranding records, incidental captures aboard commercial shrimp vessels, and historical data, five species of sea turtles are known to occur in the action area. Current available info:riilation on the relationship between sea turtles _and CREC' s cooling water intake system indicates that injury and/or death of sea turtles is likely to occur from entrainment on the bar racks of the water iniake system. Therefore, pursuant to section 7(b)(4) of the ESA, NOAA 23 * . Fisheries anticipates an. annual incidental take ~f up to seventy-:five live sea turtles and three sea turtles killed as a result of plant operations, in any combination of loggerheads, greens, Kemp's. ridleys, hawksbills, or leatherbacks. This level of take is anticipated for the operation of CREC's cooling water intake system. If the actual incidental take meets or exceeds this level, the NRC must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation. NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Region will cooperate with the NRC in the review of the incident. NOAA Fisheries also expects that the CREC may capture and collect an additional unquantifiable number of previously dead sea turtles (turtles not killed as a result of plant operations) such as turtles with obvious signs of injury, such as prop scars, or disease. Effect of the Take NOAA Fisheries believes that the aforementioned level of anticipated annual take, over the next five years, is not likely to appreciably reduce t}:le ~urvival and recovery of Kemp's ridley, green,

• loggerhead, hawksbill, or leatherback sea turtles in the wild by reducing their reproduction, numbers, or distribution, even if all incidental takes are from the same species. In particular, NOAA Fisheries detennined that it does not expect activities associated with the proposed action, when added to ongoing activities affecting these species _in the action area and cumulative effects, to affect sea turtles in a way that reduces the number of animals born in a particular year (i.e., a specific age"'class), the reproductive success of adult sea turtles, or the number of young sea turtles that annually recruit into the adult breeding population.

Reasonable and Prudent Measures NOAA Fisheries believes the following reasonable-and prudent measures are necessary and. appropriate to minimize impacts of incidental take of Kemp's ridley, green, loggerhead, leatherback, andhawksbill sea.turtles:

1. NRC will monitor sea turtle activities around the bar racks and rescue sea turtles stranded on the bar racks. 2. NRC will keep records of sea turtle strandings at the plants. Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the NRC must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above and outline required reporting and monitoring requirements.

These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.

1. Continue implementation of the procedures outlined in the Florida Power Corporation's Sea Turtle Rescue apd Handling Guidelines (Al-571) which are incorporated by

• reference.

All updates of the rescue plan will be reviewed by the FWC and NOAA Fisheries. 24

2. If any listed species are apparently injured or killed in the intake canal or the bar racks, a report summarizing the incident must be provided to the NOAA Fisheries' Southeast Regional Office (SERO) Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division, within 30 days of the incident.

3.. All sea turtle takings ~t the plant will be recorded by species, size, date and time collected, location, condition, and disposition. Details on the information to be collected and recorded shall be. specified in the Sea Turtle Resc~e and Handling Guidelines. Data collected will be tabu~ated and submitted to NOAA Fisheries' SERO Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected Resources Division and the FWC by March 1 of each year. 4. If non-lethal take reaches 70 individuals, causally related lethal take reaches* 2 individuals, or if take of non-causally related dead turtles reaches 8 individuals (although there is no specified take limit on non-causally related dead turtles, NOAA Fisheries is requiring this information in case there are other issues it may need to look into) in any one year, NRC will notify the SERO Assistant Regional Administrator, Protected

• Resources Division within 5 days. N~AA Fisheries anticipates that no more than 78 sea turtles will be incidentally taken annually as a result of the proposed a~tion and that three of these takes will be lethal. The reasonable and
• prudent measures and their implementing terms and conditions are designed to minimize the . impact of incidental take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If, during the course of this action, this level of incidental take is met or exceeded, such incidental take represents new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the reasonable and prudent measures provided.

The NRC must immediately provide an explanation of the causes of the taking and review with NOAA Fisheries the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.

• VIII. Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(l) of the BSA *directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorizations to further the purposes of the BSA by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species .. Conservatio11 recommendations are discretionary agency aotivities to minimize or avoid adverse ~ffects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, to help implement recovery plans, or to develop infonnation.

NRC should continue*the evaluation and experimentation on methods to be employed that could be used to keep sea turtles away from the bar racks. In qrder for NOAA Fisheries to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects or benefitting listed species or their habitats, NOAA Fisheries requests notification of the implementation of any conservation recommendations. 25 ' I I ---_I IX. Reinitiation of Consultation This concludes formal consultation on the actions outlined in the NRC' s BA dated October 11, 2001. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if(l) the amount or extent of taking specified in the incidental take statement is met or exceeded, (2) new informatio_n reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat (when designated) in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, (3) the identified action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in the biological opinion, or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the identified action .. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, the NRC must immediately request reinitiation of formal consultation. 26 References Cited Audubon, J.J. 1926. The Turtlers. Pp. 194-202 In: Delineations of Americari Scenery and Character, G.A. Baker and Co., N.Y. Balazs, G.H. 1982. Growth rates of immature green turtles in the Hawaiian Archipelago, p. 117 -125. In K.A. Bjomdal (ed.), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Balazs, G.H. 1983. Recovery records of adult green turtles observed or originally tagged at French Frigate Shoals, northwestern Hawaiian Islands.

• NOAA Tech. Memo. SWFC-36. Bass, A.L., S.P. Epperly, J. Braun, D.W. Owens, and R.M. Patterson.

1998. Natal origin and sex ratios of foraging sea turtles in the Pamlico-Albemarle Estuarine Complex. U.S. Dep . . Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 137-138. Bjorndal, K.A., I.A. Wetherall, A.B. Bolten, and J.A. Mortimer. 1999. Twenty-six years of green turtle nesting at Tortuguero, Costa Rica: an encouraging trend. Conservation Biology 13: 126-134; Brongersma, L. 1972. European Atlantic Turtles. Zool. Verhand. Leiden, 121: 318 pp. Caldwell, D.K. and A. Carr, 1957. Status of the sea turtle fishery in Florida; Transactions of the 22nd North American Wildlife Conference, 457.-463. Carr, A.F., M.H. Carr, and A:B. Meylan. 1978. The ecology and migrations of sea turtles, 7. The west Caribbean green turtle colony. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162: 1-46. Carr, A. 1984. So Excellent a Fishe. C.harles Scribner's Sons, N.Y. Diez, C.E. 2000. Personal communication to Blair Witherington, FMRI. Dodd, C.K. 1.981. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas (L.), in Florida: historic review and present trends. Brimleyana 7: 39-54. Dodd, C.K. 1988. Synopsis of the biological data on the loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus 1758). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88 (14). Doughty, R.W. 1984. Sea turtles in Texas: a forgotten commerce. Southwestern Historical Quarterly 88: 43-70. 27 Dutton, P.H., B.W. Bowen, D.W. Owens, A. Barragan, and S.K. Davis. 1999. Global phylogeography of the leatherback turtles (Dennochelys coriacea). J. Zool. Lond 248:397-409. Eckert, S.A. and K.L. Eckert, P. Ponganis, artd G.L. Kooyman. 1989. Diving and foraging behavior of leatherback sea turtles (Dennochelys coriacea). Can. J. Zool. 67:2834-2840. Ehrhart, L.M. 1983. Marine turtles of the Indian RiverLagoon System. Florida Sci. 46: 337-346. Ehrhart, L.M. 1989. Status report of the loggerhead turtle. In Ogren, L., F. Berry, K. Bjomdal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart,- and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226: 122-139. Ehrhart, L.M. and B.E. Witherington. 1992. Green turtle. In P. E. Moler (ed.). Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III. Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida: 90-94.

• Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A. Veishlow.

1995a. Sea turtles in North Carolina waters. Conserv. Biol. 9: 384-394. Epperly, S,P., J .. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 199-?b. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore waters. Fishery Bulletin 93: 254-2.61.

• • Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester; P.A. Cross, lV ... Merriner, P.A. Tester, and J.H. Churchill.

1996. Beach strandings as an indicator of at-sea mortality of sea turtles. Bull. Mar. Sci. 59: 289-297. Epperly, S.P. and W.G. Teas. 1999. Evaluation of TED opening dimensions relative to the size of turtles stranding in the Western North. Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NMFS SEFSC Contribution PRD-98/99-08, 31 pp. Ernst, L.H. and R.W. Barbour. 1972. Turtles of th~ United States. Univ. Kentucky Press, Lexington, Ky. Florida Marine Research Institute, Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection. 2001. Florida statewide nesting beach survey data. Florida D~partment of Environmental Protection. Unpublished data. *

• FPL (Florida Power & Light Co.) St. Lucie Plant. 2000. Annual environmental operating report . 1999. Juno Beach, Fla: 28 Frazer, N.B. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and loggerhead, C:aretta caretta, turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985: 73:..79. Frazer, N.B., C.J. Limpus, and J.L. Greene. 1994. Growth and age at maturity of Queensland loggerheads.

U.S. Dep. of Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-351:42-45. Groombridge, B. 1982. The IUCN Amphibia -Reptilia Red Data Book. Part 1. Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Int. Union Conserv. Nature and Nat. Res., 426 pp. Guseman, J.L. and L.M. Ehrhart. 1992. Ecological geography of Western Atlantic loggerheads and green turtles: evidence from remote tag recoveries. In M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers). Proceedings of the 11th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NMFS-SEFC-302:

50. Henwood, T.A. and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immat:ure Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempii) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina.

Northeast Gulf Science, 9(2): 153-160. Herbst, L.H. 1994. Fibropapillomatosis in marine turtles. Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4: 389-425. Hildebrand, H. 1963. Hallazgo del.area de anidaci6n de la tortuga "lora" Lepidoc_helys kempii (Garman), en Ia costa occidental del Golfo de Mexico (Rept., Chel.). Ciencia Mex., 22(a): 105-112. Hildebrand, H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the Western Gulf of Mexico. In K.A. Bjomdal (ed.). Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles .. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 447-453. Hirth, H.F. 1997. Synopsis of the biological data on the green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 97(1), Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept of the Interior. 120 .. pp. International Whaling Commission (IWC). 2001. Report of the Workshop on Status and Trends of the Western North Atlantic Right Whales. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Special Issue 2, in press. Jacobson, E.R. 1990. An update on green turtle fibropapilloma. Marine Turtle Newsletter 49: 7-8. Jacobson, E.R., S.B. Simpson, Jr., and J.P. Sundberg. 1991. Fibropapillomas in green turtles. In G.H. Balazs, and S.G. Pooley (eds.). Research Plan for Marine Turtle Fibropapilloma, NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-156: 99-100. 29 Johnson, S.A., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1994. Nest-site fidelity of the Florida green turtle. In B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington (compilers). Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341:

83. Keinath, J.A. 1993. Movements and behavior of wild and head-started sea turtles. Ph.D. Dissertation

.. College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va., 206 pp. Lagueux, C.J. 1998. Demography of marine turtles harvested by Miskito Indians of Atlantic Nicaragua. In R. Byles and Y. Fernandez (compilers). Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-412:

90. Lutcavage, M. and J.A. Musick. 1985. Aspects of the biology of sea turtles in Virginia.

Copeia 1985(2): 449-456. MacKay, A.L. and J.L. Rebholz. 1996. Sea turtle activity survey on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands (1992-1994). In J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, J.A. Musick, and B.A. Bell (Compilers). Proceedings of the 15th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-387: 178-181. Magnuson, J.J., K.A. Bjomdal, W.D. DuPaul, G.L. Graham, D.W. Owens, P.C.H. Pritchard, J.I. Richardson, G.E. Saul, and C.W. West. 1990. Decline of the sea turtles: causes and prevention. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 274 pp. Mann, T.M. 1977. Impact of Developed Coastline on Nesting and Hatchling Sea Turtles in Southeastern Florida. Unpublished M.S. Thesis. Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. Marquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 11. Sea turtles of the world, an annotated and illustrated catalogue of sea turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis, 125. 81 pp. Marquez, R., R. Byles, P. Burchfield, N. Thompson, M. Sanchez, J. Dfaz, M. A. Carrasco, A.S. Leo, and C. Jimenez. 1995. The Reco_very of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle population in the Mexican Beach of Rancho Nuevo, Tamaulipas. Draft submitted to the Marine Turtle Newsletter.- Mayor, P., B. Phillips, and Z. Hillis-Starr. 1998. Results of stomach coritent analysis on the juvenile hawks bill turtles of Buck Island Reef National Monument, U.S. V .I. Pp. 230-232 . in Proceedings of the 17th Annual Sea Turtle Symposium, S. Epperly and J. Braun, Compilers. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415. . .. 30 Mays, J.L., and Shaver, D.J. 1998. Nesting trends of sea turtles in National Seashores along Atlantic and Gulf coast waters of the United States. 61 pp. *

• MCAS. 2001. Biological Assessment for Ongoing Ordn.ance Delivery at Bombing Target 9 and Bombing Target 11. Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point Environmental Affairs" Department.

Cherry Point, N.C. December 2001. Meylan, A., B. Schroeder, and A. Mosier. 1995. Sea turtle nesting activity in the State of Florida 1979-1992. Florida Marine Research Publications 52: 1-51. Morreale, S.J. and E.A. Standora. 1999. Vying for the same resources: potential conflict along migratory corridors.

• u.s. Dep. ~ommer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-415:

69. Murphy, TM. and S.R. Hopkins. 1984. Aerial and ground surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches in the Southeast Region. Unpublished report prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Nietschmann, B. 19~2. The cultural context of sea turtle subsistence hunting in the Caribbean and problems caused by commercial exploitation.

In K.A. Bjorndal (ed.). Biology and Conservation of Se~ Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 439-445. NMFS .Southeast Fisheries Science Center. 2001. Stock assessments of loggerhead and leatherback sea, turtles and an assessment of the impact of the pelagic longline fishery on the loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles of the Western North Atlantic. U.S. Department of_Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Fla., SEFSC

• Contribution PRD-00/01-08; Parts I-ill and Appendices I-VI. NMFS and USFWS. 199la-. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Atlantic Green Turtle. National Mari~e Fishe~es Service; Washington, D.C. NMFS and USFWS. 1991b. Recovery Plan for U.S. Population of Loggerhead Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. NMFS and USFWS. 1992: Recovery Plan for Leatherback Turtles in the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington; D.C. NMFS and USFWS. 1993. Recovery Plan forHawksbill Turtles in_the U.S. Caribbean, Atlantic Ocean, and Gulf of Mex,~co. National Marine Fisheries Service, SL Petersburg, Fla. NMFS and USFWS. 1995: Status reviews for sea turtles listed under the Endangered Species Act of i973. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Md. 31 Norrgard, J. 1995. Determination of stock composition and natal origin of a juvenile loggerhead turtle population (Caretta caretta) in Chesapeake Bay using mitochondrial DNA analysis.

M.S. Thesis, College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Va. 47 pp. Ogren, L.H. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp's ridley sea turtle: Preliminary results from 1984-1987 surveys, pp. 116-123 in: Caillouet, C.W. and A.M. Landry (eds), First Intl. Symp. on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biol, Conserv. and Management. Texas A&M Univ., Galveston, Tex., Oct. 1-4, 1985, TAMU-SG-89-105. Pritchard, P.C.I:I. 1969. Sea turtles of the Guianas. Bull. Fla. State Mus. 13(2): 1-139. Rankin-Baransky, K.C. 1997. Origin ofloggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) in the western north Atlantic as determined by mt DNA analysis. M.S. Thesis. Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pa.: 50 pp. Renaud, M.L. 1995. Movements and submergence patterns of Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi'i). Journal of Herpetology 29: 370-374. Ross, J.P. 1979. Historical decline of loggerhead, ridley, and leatherback sea turtles, pp. 189-195. In: Bjomdal, K.A. (editor), Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Schmid, J.R. and W.N. Witzell. 1997. Age and growth of wild Kemp's ridley"turtles (Lepidochelys kempii): cumulative results of tagging studies in Florida. Chelonian Conserv. Biol. 2: 532-537 . . Schroeder, B.A., and A.M. Foley. 1995. Population studies of marine turtles in Florida Bay. In J. I. Richardson and T.H. Richardson (compilers). Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-361: 117. Schroeder, B.A., A.M. Foley, B.E. Witherington, and A.E. Mosier. 1998. Ecology of marine turtles in Florida Bay: Population structure, distribution, and occurrence of fibropapilloma. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-415: 265-267 . . Schultz, J.P. 1975. Sea turtles nesting in Surinam. Zoologische Verhandelirigen (Leiden), Number 143: 172 pp. Sears, C.J. 1994. Preliminary genetic analysis of the population structure of Georgia loggerhead sea turtles. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-SEFSC-351: 135-139. 32 .Sears, C.i., B.W. Bowen, R.W. Chapman, S.B. Galloway, S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and C.M. Woodley. 1995. Demographic composition of the juvenile loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta *caretta) feeding population off Charleston, South Carolina: evidence from mitochondrial DNA markers. Mar. Biol. 123: 869-874.

• t Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south Texas waters. Journal of Herpetology.

Vol. 23. 1991. Shaver, D.J. 1994. Relative abundance, temporal patterns, and growth of sea turtles at the Mansfield Channel, Texas. Journal of Herpetology 28: 491-497. Shoop, C.R. and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distributions and abundance of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetological

• Monographs.

6: 43-67. Smith, G.M. and C.W. Coates. 1938. Fibro-epithelial growths of the skin in large marine turtles, Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus). Zoologica 24: 93-98. Spotila, J.R., A.E. Dunham, A.J. Leslie, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin, and F.V. Paladino. 1996. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chel. Conserv. Biol. 2(2): 209-222. Spotila, J.R., R.D. Reina, A.C. Steyermark, P.T. Plotkin and F.V. Paladino. 2000. Pacific leath~rback turtles face extinction. Nature 405: 529-530. TEWG. 1998. An assessment of the Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic. U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-409, 96 pp. TEWG. 2000.

• Assessment update for the Kemp's ridley and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the western North Atlantic.

U.S. Dep. Commer. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-SEFSC-444, 115 pp. USFWS and NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Fla. USFWS. 2000. Report on the Mexico/United States of America population restoration project for the Kemp's ridley sea turtle, Lepidochelys kempii, on the coasts of Tamaulipas and Veracruz, Mexico. Wershoven, J.L. and R.W. Wershoven. 1992. Juvenile green turtles in their nearshore habitat of Broward County, Florida: a five year review. In M. Salmon and J. Wyneken (compilers). 33 I -I Proceedings of the 11th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS. NNIFS-SEFC-302: 121-123. Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Status and reproductive characteristics of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) nesting in Florida. In L. Ogren, F. Berry, K. Bjorndal, H. Kumpf, R. Mast, G. Medina, H. Reichart, and R. Witham (eds.). Proceedings of the 2nd Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-226: 351-352. ' Zug, G.R .. and J.F. Parham. 1996. Age and grqwth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): a skeletochronological analysis. Chel. Conserv. Biol. 2(2): 244-249.

• Zwinenberg.

A.J. 1977. Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempii (Garman, 1880), undoubtedly the most endangered marine turtle today {with notes. on the current status of Lepidochelys olivacea). Bulletin oftheMarylandHeipetological Socie~y, 13(3): 170-192.

• 34 ef,DUKE "e" ENERGY~ FLORIDA Crystal River 1,2&3 Duke Energy Florida, LLC Crystal River Units 1,2&3 and Citrus Combined Cycle Station NPDES Permit No.: FL0000159 Attachment 7 Chemical Usage/Discharge With the retirement of Units 1,2 & 3, there is no longer chemical use at these units and no discharge of chemicals through the outfalls*

associated with these units. Citrus Combined Cycle Station The following document titled "Chemical Addition System Sizing Calculations prepared by FLUOR contains the information on chemicals used for the Cooling Towers, Condensate and the Heat Recovery System Generators (HRSGs) at the Citrus Combined Cycle Station. Safety Data Sheets for these chemicals are being provided in Attachment 8.}}