United States Department of the Interior'ISH AND 'WILDLIFE SERVICE

LLOYD 500 BUILDING, SUITE I 692

500 N.E. MULTNOMAHSTREETPORTLAND. OREGON 97232

June 19, 1980

Mr. William H. Regan, Jr.Acting Assistant DirectorEnvirorxnental ProjectsDivision of Site Safety and Envirormental

AnalysisNuclear Regulatory CammissionWashington, D.C. 20555

In reply refer to:AFA»SE, Nl-1-80-F-31

Dear Mr. Regan:

This is in response to your letter dated January 23, 1980, recluestingconsultation pursuant to Section 7'f the Endangered Species Act of1973, as amended, as to the effects of operation of the Diablo CanyonNuclear Power Plant (DCNPP) on five endangered species. The originallist included the gray whale, Eschrichtius robustus. The gray whaleC~ard will not be considered in this consultation. The raIaining species,southern aea otter (SSO), ~Enh era lutrie nereie; California least tern(CLT), Sterna albifrons browru.; CaIWorni~arown pelican (CBP), Pelecanusoccir(entalie c~ali ormcua; ani the anerican peeegrine falcon (apF~tial impacts subsequent to project- operation.

In addition to your recast for consultation, we have received Vol-umes I ard II of PGSZIs Envirorxnental Investigations at Diablo Canyon,1975-1977;- arxl the Final Environmental Statanent for the operation ofthe Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 arxl 2 (1973) arxladderxlum (1976). On January 8, 1980, representatives frcrn the U.S.Fish and WildlifeService, California Department of Game (CDFG), arxlthe Nuclear RecpQatory Ccrmission (NRC) met to review the projectard potential impacts to erxlangered and threatened species.

SPECIES ACCOUMZS

The sea otter is the largest menber of the family Mustelidae arxl isone of the anallest species of marine rnanxnals. It inhabits a narrowecological zone in the marine envirorxnent, the nearshore caw(mnityof rocky shoreline with kelp beds.

June 19, 1980Page Two

The species historically ranged throughout much of the rarthern Pacificcoastal region. However, after 170'ears of cammercial harvest fortheir pelts, the population was virtually extirpated fran.its entirerarge. In fact, in 1910 it was believed, by same that the Californiapopulation of sea otters was extinct. The SSO was "rediscavered" in1938 when appnminately 50 animals were observed rafting off BixbyCreek, Monterey County (Bolin, 1938; Fisher, 1939).

The California population has been under protective State legislationsixie 1913. In 1972, protective responsibility for sea otters wasassigned to the Federal goverrxnent by the U.S. Congress under theMarine Hamnal Protection Act. Further proS~n was given the otterin 1977'hen the Secretary of'he Interior, in accordance with theEndangered Species Act of 1973, determined that the SSO population inCalifornia was threatened.

The current range of the SSO extends about 200 mi1es, fram Piarn Beach,San Luis Obispo County in the south to Sorrel Point, Santa Cruz Countyin the rurth. This range is less'than 10 percent of historic range.The 1979 census by the CDFG estimated the population at 1,443 animals.This count is below that made in 1976 by CDFG which estimated thepopulation at 1,789 animals.

The densities of SSO within their range give the population distribu-tion a durnbell-like configuration. At the peripheries of the rangeare large aggregations of aninals ~sed beastly of adult and sub-adult males. The front groups concentrate along about 4 mi1es ofcoast. at both ends of the range. Numbers in these front groups varyseasonally, increasing in the winter and early spring ta near 150individuals. During the surfer and fall, rnznbers decrease presumablyas mature males disperse into the center of the range (Jameson, pers.caan.) . The popQation of.otters inhabiting the center of the rangeapparently is stable and is caaposed of approximately 70'ercentfanales includiny finales with pups (Ames, pers. amn.) . - Densityvariation throughout the center of. the range correlates to substratetype with greater densities of otters found in areas with a rockybottcan than in areas with a sandy bottcm (CDFG, 1976) .

Sea otters are polygamous and the male does mt participate in therearinp of the ~. Breeding and popping occur throughout the year(Kenyon, 1969); however, Sandegren,et al. (1973) reported the maximum

birth rate occurs from Decanber to February in California. The averagebirth rate is unknown. 'oung are dependent upon the fenale fornourishment, care, arxl training for about 8 rmnths (Varxlever, 1979).

June 19, 1980Page Three

Otters are active both day ard night and forage in both rock arxl soft-sediment ccranunities, on or near the bottam as well as in the kelpforest and campy. Foraging ~s in both the interthhL arxl sub~zones. Preferred food itens are sea urchins 'Stro locentrotus sp.),abalone (Haliot(s sp.), and rock crabs (Cancer sp.; however, sea ottersdo consume a wade variety of feud items rncluding piano clams, sguid,turban snails, kelp crabs, mussels, octopuses, etc. (Ebert,. 1968; Wildand ames, 1974) . In (4onterey Bay, spud '~(loli ogm1escens) spawnseasona11y during the fall arxl spring. The large aggregation of spawn-ing squid pr(.nr'ups an alterative food source which the loca1 seaotters readily use. Gosta (1978) estimated energy consumption for afree raring otter to be 270 kcal/kg/day. To satify this requiranent,otters will eat approximately 20-25 percent of their bcdy weight(which averages 19.5 kg for far)ales and 29 kg for males) every day(Costa, 1976; Fausett, 1976) .

There is little subcutaneous fat for energy storage arxl m layer ofbl~ for thermoinsulation as in pinnipeds ard cetaceans. Insula-tion frcm cold sea water is provided entirely, by air trapped in thefur (Harrison et al., 1974) . The anall body size of the otter arxl therelatively inefficient insulation provided by,its fur necessitates ahigh st-uxlard metabolic rate (SMR) for survival in the marine errvirorxnent.

The interrelationship between food consumption and SMR in critical.Kenyon (1969) reported that otters-, when mt fed, may lose up to10 percent of their body weight per day and that a 25 percent weightloss is norn)ally fatal.

The effect of mn-human predation on sea otter numbers. is unknown.Shark teeth from the white shark '. (Carcharodon'carcharias) and woundssuggestive of shark. attack have been fourxl zn ched carcasses inCalifornia (bhr'ejohn et'al., 1975).

At present, the greatest. threat to the survivorship and recovery of theSSO population is oil contamination within.the sea otters'ange.Otters are anx)ng the marine manae1s rrx)st ~y to be affected by oilspills (Davis and Anderson, 1976; Geraci and Smith, 1977) . It is mtkmwn whether sea otters are capable of detecting and avoiding oilcontan)irected areas. Prelimit~.studies by Williams (1978) on Alaskansea otters in captivity darx)nstrated that, otters do mt avoid oilcontaminated areas.arxl even repeatedly enter such a'reas after initialexposure. urer 100 otters died as a result, of contamination frcma tanker groundizg and subsequent oil spi11 at Paramushir Island(Bar~-Nikiforov'et al., 1968), thus suggesting that otters arenot capable of avoiding oil mr possibly even detecting it. Kooyman

June 19, 1980Page Four

ard Costa (1979) conclude that crude oi1 contamination over smallareas of the sea otter's fur would probably cause significant tonalstress and could lead to hypothermia and/or pneurrnnia resulting indeath.

The U.S. Fish arxl NildlifeService is currently drafting the SouthernSea Otter Reccwery Plan. The Service and CDFG recogru.ze the estab-lislx~t of a viable population of SSO in at least one disjuncttranslocation site would in all probability be adequate to de1istthe otter fran its present status as:threatened.

California Brown Pelican

CBP's formerly nested in the Wnterey region in large colonies on manyof the islards off southern California and the northern Baja coast. In1968 Schreiber and DeIong (1969) surveyed bros pelicans in the ChannelIslards and fourd nest abardorxnent prevalent in those areas where breed-ing birds were found. Risebrough 'et 'al. (1971) found an incredibly highdegree of nest failures due to a 50 percent reduction in mean eggshellthickness. This significant reduction in productivity as a result ofenviroanental pollution by DDZ and its metabolites led the Secretaryof the Interior to declare the CBP an endangered species. 'Ihe speciesis also listed by the State of California as exxtangered.

The degree of eggshell thinning has been sham in many studies to behighly correlated with concentrations of DDE, a metabolite of DDT inegg lipids (Gress 1970; Jehl 1973; Risebrough 'et al., 1971; Schreiberand Risebrough, 1972) . The high levels of contanu.nation began tosubside when the manufacturer of 'DDT,ceased dumping liquid wastesinto the Los Ange1es sewage systan. Subsequently, the percentage of~ fledged fran breeds colonies increased. Although we are un-aware of pollutant levels still reaching the marine envirorxnent, wesuspect contanunation still exists.

The northern anchovy is the main constituent of the pelican diet.Anderson (pers. caan.) be1ieves that reproductive success directlycorrelates with anchovy abundance. Any factors that would depresspopulation levels of anchovies or food avai1ability could have asevere impact on the recoverability of the pelican.

The 5k)nterey region is an area of great: importance to the CBP, partic-ularly during the northward post-breeding dispersal (Baldridge, 1973) .

Althxgh mt ccmoon until June, numbers of birds increase steadilythrough July. and August, with peak nundoers in December an3. January.

june 19, 1980Page Five

Historically aad presently, important large surrrner arxl fall roostshave been located on Big Sur coastal rocks, on offshore rocks. at Pt.Zobos arxl Pt. Pious,.at the sand spit. at the mouth of the Salinas River,Elkhorn Slough, Wss Laadiag, aad at the rrouth of the Pajaro River.

The pelican situation off southern California contiaues to ranain bleak.Apparently as one problen lessens, others intensify. As DDT aad PCB

pollution subsides (Anderson,'et'al., 1977)', offshore oi1 develogaent aadincreasing tanker traffic, increased anchovy harvests, sonic bxxm bythe space shuttle, arxl other'mpacts constitute new threats to pelicans.

California Least 'Tern

Least terns are the smaDest mmher of the tern family. Historicalbreediap range exteads along the Pacific Coast fram loess Laadirg,Monterey County, to San Jose del Cabo, southern Baja California (Dawson,1924; Grinne11 aacl MiU.er, 1944) . Although the present breediag rangemctenXs north to South San Francisco Bay, the continuing loss of bothshoreside nesting habitat, to lcm disturbance aad develogaent, a+ifeeding habitat to dredging,.di)cing, filling, arxl poU.ution have beenresponsible for a decline* in numbers up to the present time (Craig,1971) . The CVZ is aot only protected by the Endangered Species Actbut the State of California has also listed the CLT as endangered.

The tern is migratory, usually arriving at its breeding grourds duringthe last week in April aad departing in August (Davis, 1968; Massey,1974, Swickard, 1971) .

Least terns are colonial but do not nest in dense concentrations as domany other terns. They normally se1ect a nestiag site on an open exposeof sar6, dirt, or dried mud with loose substrate adjacent to a lagoon,estuary.; or a wetlaad where food is available (Davis, 1968; Craig, 1971;Massey, 1971'ad 1974; SwicIcazQ, 1971) . Formerly sandy ocean beacheswere used, but increased henan activity has rendered many of these sitesuninhabitable. Recently most nesting has occurred on mud aad sand flatsback fran the ocean or on marxnade "laad fi11s (Craig, 1971; Loaghurst,1969) .

The CLT obtains most of .its food fran shallow estuaries aad lagoons aadonly occasionally forages offshore in the ocean. These terns are 1mcam

to eat only fish, especially anall-bodied species such as the northernanc1rovy ( ulis mordax), deepbody arx:hovy (Aachoa camEressa), jack-

June 19, 1980Page Six

California grunion (Leuresthes 'tenuis), shiner sur fperch ' asterUX

ash 'Gambusia affinis) - (Massey, 1974) .

The impcxtmme of producti.ve foraging sites near the breeding groundsis evident since parental feeding of young continues until migration.Only after the young birds migrate fran the breeding grounds do theybecane canpetent fishers (Massey, 1974 SwickardF 1971 TcGpkinsF 1959).

The destruction and loss of nesting habitat are considered to be themajor factors. in the decline of the species. At the same time, feedingareas have been fi11ed and polluted. Sinu.larly, the disturbance ofbreeding areas and. nesting birds can pose significant threats to thereductive efforts. of this bird.'redators such as Norway rats, dogs,and gulls have been implicated in a number of egg losses. Zasses oftern chicks have teen attrihutei to the )aerican kestrel (Falco'sparverius) (Craig, 1971), house cats, and dogs. All factors thathave contributed to the decline of the tern continue to operate andthe bird's status contizues to be, precarious.

American Per ine Falcon

The American peregrine falcon historically nested throughout NorthAmerica, south of the boreal forest, wherever suitable nesting habitatand prey species occurred together. In the first half of this century,the peregrine population in the w(estern United States declined due todirect ad% ixxlirect impacts, particularly due to habitat loss and.

shooting (Boreal, 1946) . Herman 'et, 'al. (1970) estimated the breedingpopulation in California to be aEiout 100 pairs prior to 1947. A rapiddecline in peregrine populations occurred throughout a+st of Europe andNorth America during the years followiog World War II due to widespreaduse of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides (Hickey arxl Anderson, 1969) .By 1970', the California population was estimated to be less than 10reprcductive pairs (Herman'et'al., 1970). By this -time, the peregrinewas extirpated as a bree(Riap species in Canada south of the borealforest mrl in the United States east of the Rockies. In 1978 the 23

pairs of pere(3rines in California fledged an average of 1.38 young, withthe North Coast Range population fledging an average of 1.82 young(Harlow, 1978) . In 1979, 31 California pairs fledged an average of1..37 your@ per pair (Harlow'et'al., 1979) . Although these data areencouraging, reproductive f~ures due to thin eggshell curditions con-tinue to threaten the California peregrine populations. Recent datashow that egg~ thinning occurs in nearly all peregrine nest sites,and scme si.tes suffer severe thinning causing reproductive failure(Kiff, et al., 1979).

June 19, 1980Page Seven

PRMZCT IMPACTS

DCNPP is located on a marine terrace in San Luis Obispo County on areste site that is undeveloped axxl relatively uninhabited. The coastin this area is rugged with tidal pools and offshore rocks. The cliffsrise steeply fxan the high water line to the marine terraces. Thenearest town is Avila Beach about 7 miles east southeast (Figure 1) .Construction began in June 1968 and was subsequently completed. At,issue are the potential impacts operation of the facility may have onlisted end-mgered species. Of principal concern are the effects frcmthe cooling water'systen where seawater is taken in to cool the reactorani then discharged back. into Diablo Cove.. This heated discharge wi11dissipate into the cool'marine waters. bMels have been developedestimating. the possible increase in the tanperature regime of the localwaters. The cooling water flow will be about 3,864 cubic feet persecor'. The tanperature rise through the condenser will be about 19%'.The maximum historical tenperature observed in the cove has, been 63.5 P.Therefore, the maximum discharge taaperature is expected to be 82.5%.Thermal dissipation is dependent upon tide. stages, currentsg alxl seaconditions. An increase in ambient water taaperature will affect the

'ocalmarine camaxnity but .this change should mt be significant. Theranges of thermal dissipation are illustrated in Figures 2, 3, and 4.

Additional to the heated effluent is the concentrated foam generatedby this systen, plus recirculation of superheated water and chanicalscontained in the effluent including antifoammg agents, chlorine,titanium, heavy metals, and radioactive nuclides. Foam wiU. be gener-ated by the discharge of the cooling water. It is believed that thefoam ccmposition will be similar,to natural seafoam, although it isunknown what might be added to the foam via plant operation. 'Ihe thick-ness of the foam, the extant. of the mat, its influence on the marineenvirorxnent (such as eliminating.'ollo sis by algae from shading),and how itmight affect sea otters 'ar~ularly their fur) is unknown.Seafoam is not expected to affect the CBP, CLT, or APF.

Superheated seawater will be recirculated nonthly as a heat treatmentfor defouling the conduits. Water flow through the plant will be re-duced to one-fourth of normal and the bmperature elevated to about50 F above ambient. After holding Xor 1 lour for treatment, this waterwill then be discharged into the cove. Although this hot water willbe ccoled by ocean waters, the short, term and long term effects areunknown.

June 19, 1980Pdge Eight

Several chenicals willbe dished with the cxeling effluent. Chlorinewillbe used intermittently as a biocide in the auxiliary cooling systemand occasionally in the cond~ cooling systen. Pursuant to theNational Pollution Discharge Elimination Systan permit issued by theCalifornia Regiona1 Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region,the total residual chlorine in the plant discharge will rat exceed 0.1pgn. Sedentary invertebrates will mt be able to avoid any localizeddischarge plumes of an undesirable nature. Studies using concentrati(onsof res~ chlorine to test far chronic mortality (30 daily 20-minuteexposures) of 0.5 mg/l(~),'ree residual chlorine) resulted in mor-

~Sabalone (Haliotus cracherodu.; H; rufescence, turban snails (T abrunnea), and the purple sea urchin'(stre lacentrotus'purEuratus .Sauce test concentrations of residual chlorine exceeded that perudttedfor discharge,,it. is expected that the discharge effluent containingchlarine should have no deleterious effects on the invertebrates studied(PG&E, 1978) . Toxicity of chlorine to other species was not examined.

Ccrmercially prepared chemical antifoamiap agents are proposed to elimi-nate the generation of foam at DCNPP. Twa products were tested - IKPCO9290-A ~ NOPCO 2019-R —for toxicity to selected marine organisms(not erdargered species) . Antifoarnizg agents have mt yet been testedin the DCNPP cooling systan to determine effectiveness. NOPCO 9290-Ascans to be the less detrimental agent to the species tested (blackabalone, purple sea urchins, arxl copegcds) . Concentrations of thisagent necessary to cause rrc(rtality wiU. rut be reached in mrmal discharge.Again, there has been m correlation made.to impacts on endangered species.

Titanium (Ti) tubing is used in the condenser cooling systan. Thecorrosion product of Ti, Ti02, is an ~ oxide which forms an adherentprotective passivation coating on the surface. The corrosion rates of

. in sea water have been reported as nnil(s ranging fram 3 x 10-2 to3 X 10 mi1 penetration per year..Ti is also resistant to heated sea-water an% chlarinated semper. Ti toxicity has been found in very fewstudies ~ is not considered to be a problen (PG&E, 1978) .

Trace amounts of copper, nickel, chranium, and other elaaents are expectto be discharged in the effluent. The accurmrlation of heavy metals inthe marine environment is knmm to be a serious pollution problem withboth acute and chronic toxicity effects. The severity of pollution andthe resultant impact(s) fran the operation of DCNPP are unlcnc(wn. InOctober 1975, the original 90-10 copper-nickel condenser tubing wasreplaced with Ti tubing in the coolie water condensers at DCNPP. Thecopper-nickel tube sheets were coated with epoxy to eliminate contactof the copper-nickel with seawater. Dissolution of the epoxy into marinewater was undetectable under test conditions.

June 19, 1980Page Nine

The re1ease of radioactive effluents fran thermal operations is antici-pated. No detectable effect is expected on the aquatic biota orwaterfowl.

Envirorxnental Studies (Volumes I and II) arxl studies for the Final.Envirorxnental Statement (1973) indicate that although. the envirorxnentand biota of Diablo Cove'and imneiiate vicinity.will be altered by DCNPPthe effects will not likely be significant. Havever, insufficient in-formation exists, at present to accurately determine the long term effectsof plant operation.. The extent. of the thermal plume, the buildup andcanposition of seafoam, the effect of accumulated heavy metals in themarine errvirorxnent, and other scenarios all need to be eaanuned whenconsidering the direct and secondary impacts on listed species. Thereare no foreseeable adverse impacts that would irrxnediately affect thesouthern sea otter g California brown pel ican, California 1east tern/ oxaerican peregrine falcon. however, impacts. that may result from theoperation of DCNPP, particularly long term impacts, cannot be adequatelymeasured and the NRC cannot protect against adverse impacts to endangeredor threatened species until the plant is operating ani thereafter theerrvirorxnent is nnnitored over a period of years. Only then, upon reviewand evaluation of subsequent reports by the Service, wiU. the effects,ifany, of plant. operation on the listed species be scmewhat identifiable.

BIOLOGICAL OPINION "

Based on the above discussion, it. is the opinion of this Service thatoperation of DCNPP is rut likely to jeopardize the continued existenceof the above listed species. However, in order to insur'e against irre-versible impacts to these species, their habitat and recoverabiU.ty,we recxmnend that in furtherance of the purgoses of the Act (Section 2(c)and 7(a) (1) ), NRC encourage PG&E to pursue the following activities, scmeof which PG&E current1y has planned:

l. Analyze the effluent and content of generated foam and conductstudies on a sample of sea otter fur to determine if there maybe any soi1ing effect or chemical cxagnsition that would rernvenatural oils fran sea otter fur.

2. Honitor dispersion of generated foam and study extent of impacton marine biota, particularly marine flora.

3. Mnitor discharge of titanium, heavy metals, chlorine, antifoamingagent, oils, and radioactive rruclides.

June 19, 1980Page Ten

4. Mnitor marine e~rment to determine if discharge (Iten 3) isaccuaaQ.ating in local biota or depressing adult survival, repro-duction, or survival of larval stages of local biota which subse-quently affects a listed species.

5. Examine the thermal plume (both rurmal operating plume and- thesuperheated, antifouling plume) for extent of direct and indirectimpacts on listed species.

6. Continue sea otter studies such as those conducted by SuzanneBeseech who has been studying sea,otters in this area since 1973.Someone would be needed who can identify aberrant sea otterbehavior that may occur because of plant operation.

7. If contaminants are found to be accumulating in the marine biota,study local current patterns to deteanine extent and severity ofcontamination relative to listed species.

8. If generated foam breaks down aaR does mt extend beyond the localarea, consider the practicality of rat using an antifoamiag agent.

Studies 2 through 7 should be maintained for at least 5 years in orderto assure.a quantifiable data base.

This concludes foxmal consultation. Should any of the above programsidentify potential impacts to the listed species, your agency shouMreinitiate consultation.

Should you have any questions regarding this opinion, please contactour Area Manager, Sacramento, California (PIS 468-4664 or (916) 484-4664).Thank you for this opportunity to ccxanent on your activity.

Sincerely yours,

L faber MarHnson

Regional Director

Attachments

Literature Cited

Anderson, D.W., R.M. Jurek and J.O. Keith. 1977. The status of brownpelicans at Anacapa Island in 1975. Calif. Fish and Game 63(1):4-10.

Baldridge, A. 1973. The status of the brown pelican in the Montereyregion of California: past and present. Western Birds 4(4):93-100.

Barabash-Nikiforov, I.I., S.V. Marakov and A.M. Nikolaev. 1968. Otters(sea Otters). Izd-vo Nauka, Leningrad, P. 1-184 (In Russian).Pg. 115-116 Translated in English.

Bolin, R.L. 1938. Reappearance of the southern sea otter along theCalifornia coast. J. Mammal. 19(3):301-303.

Bond, R.M. 1946. The peregrine population of western North America.Condor 48:101-106.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1976. A proposal for sea otterprotection and research, and request for the return of managementto the State of California. Unpubl. report. Jan. 1976. 2 vol.

Costa, D. 1976. Water balance in the California sea otter. Paperpresented at 56th meeting of the American Society of Mi ammalogists.11pp.

Costa, D. 1978. The sea otter: its interaction with man. Oceanus21(2): 24-30.

Craig, A.M. 1971. Survey of California lest tern nesting sites.Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Job Completion Report, Prospect W-54-R-4,Job II-51.. 55pp.

Davis, J.E. and S.S. Anderson. 1976. Effects of oil pollution onbreeding gray seals. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 7(6):115-118.

Davis, M.E. 1968. Nesting behavior of the least tern (Sternaalbifrons). Unpub. M. SC. thesis, Univ. Calif., Los Angeles.72pp ~

Dawson, W.L. 1924. The birds of California. South Ml sultan County, SanDiego. 2,162pp.

Ebert, E.E. 1968. A food habits study of the southern sea otter,~Enh dra lurris nereis. Calif. Pish and Game 54:33-42.

Fausett, L.C. 1976. Assimilation efficiency of captive sea otters,~Enh dra lutris ( Car nivera: Mu stel idee). Cnpuhl. M.A. Thesis, Calif.State Univ., Long Beach. 39pp.

Fisher, E.M. 1939. Habits of the southern sea otter. J. Mammal.20:21-36.

Geraci, J.R. and T.G. Smith. 1977. Consequences of oil fouling onmarine mammals. In: Effects of Petroleum on Arctic and SubarcticMarine Environments and Organisms. Vol. II, Biological Effects.D.C. Malins, ed. Academic Press, N.Y.

Gress, F. 1970. Reproductive status of the California brown pelican in1970, with notes on breeding biology and natural history. Calif.Dept. Fish and Game, Wildl. Mgmt. Branch, Admin. Rept. 70-6 21pp.

Grinnell, J. and A. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds ofCalifornia. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27:1-608.

Harlow, D.L. 1978. The reproductive success and protective effort ofperegrine falcons in California. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv.,unpubl. rept. 18pp.

Harlow, D.L., B.J. Walton, and D.A. Boyce. 1979. Reproductive statusof the peregrine falcon in California. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, November 8-12,1979, Davis, California.

Herman, S.G., M.N. Kirven and R.W. Risebrough. 1970. The peregrinefalcon in California, Part 1. A preliminary review. Audubon FieldNotes 24:209-613.

Hickey, J.J. and D.W. Anderson. 1969. The peregrine falcon: lifehistory and population literature. Pages 3-42 In Hickey (ed.)peregrine falcon populations: their biology and decline.

Jehl, J.R. 1973. Studies of a declining population of brown pelicansin northwestern Baja California. Condor 75:69-79.

Kenyon, K.W. 1969. The sea otter in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. NorthAm. Fauna 68. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, Washington. 352pp.

Kiff, L.F., D.B. Peakall, B.J. Walton, D.L. Harlow and C.G. Thelander.1979. California peregrine falcon eggshell thickness and associatedDDE residue levels, 1975-1979. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, November 8-12, 1979,Davis, California.

Kooyman, G.L. and D.P. Costa. 1979. Effects of oiling on temperatureregulation in sea otters. Yearly Progress Report. Outer ContinentalShelf Energy Assessment Program.

Longhurst, A.R. 1969. The status of an endangered bird (Sterna albifrons)in San Diego County, 1969. U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries: LaJolla. 7pp.

Massey. B.W. 1971. A breeding study of the California least tern.Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Wildl. Mgmt. Branch, Admin. Rept. No.71-9. 22pp.

Massey, B.W. 1974. Breeding biology of the California least tern.Proc. Linnaean Soc. N.Y. 72:1-24.

Moregohn, G.V., J.A. Ames and D.B. Lewis. 1975. Post mortem studies ofsea otters, ~Enh dra latria in California. Calif. Dept Fi.sh andGame, Mar. Tech. Rept. 30. 81pp.

Morrison P., M. Rosenmann and J.A. Estes. 1974. Metabolism andthermoregulation in the sea otter. Physiol. Zool. 47:218-229.

PG6E. 1978. Environmental Investigations at Diablo Canyon, 1975-1977.Volume II. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. San Ramon, CA.

Rfsebrough, R.W., F.C. Sibley and M.N. Kirven. 1971. Reproductivefailure of the brown pelican on Anacapa Island in 1969. Am. Birds25:8-9.

Sandegren, F.E., E.W. Chu and J.E. Vandevere. 1973. Maternal behaviorin the California sea otter. J. Mammal. 54(3):668-679.

Schreiber, R.W. and R.L. DeLong. 1969. Brown pelican status in California.Aud. Field Notes 23:57-59.

Schreiber, R.W. and R.W. Risebrough. 1972. Studies of the brown pelicanpopulations in the United States. Wilson Bull. 84:119-135.

Swickard, D. 1971. The status of the California least tern at CampPendleton, 1971. Camp Pendleton M'arine Corps Base. Unpubl. Rept.3Opp ~

Tompkins I.R. 1959. Life history notes on the least tern. 'WilsonBull. 71(4):313-322.

Vandevere, J. 1979. Gestation and dependency period update. The otterRept. 2:7.

Wild, P.W. and J.A. Ames. 1974. A report on the sea otter, ~gnh dralutris, in California. Resources Agency, Calif. Fish and Game,Nar. Res. Tech. Rept'. No. 20. 93pp.

Williams, T.D. 1978. Chemical immobilization, baseline hematologicalparameters and oil contamination in the sea otter. Final Rept. toU.S. Marine Mammal Commision in fulfillment of contract MM7AD094.Rept. No MMC-77/06. U.S. Dept of Commerce, National TechnicalInformation Service PB-283. 969. 27pp.

550 LV fRARSUISS<ON LIRCTROV UORRO OAT UCSALIIIC,

0

SOOAV TtlH5VI55IOIILINCTO OATCS SII~ STATION

TS sRZ ~

ISSOAV/ SRITCIIZARO

~ RORCRTZ40uROARZM RtstRVOIR

/oiirco ci»ro» crcc»

~ SOOLV TRARSUISSIOII LIRCSTO UIOtlfSVSSTATIOIS

44 alI~ 5

oil4 to cr»zo» crEN . ~

SOOAV SWITCNZARO

LIUITS Or TILL

ORC004

I.NCVAOl

SAR ZIIAIICISCO

CALIF. L

SAIIWIS OSCRbqOIA4LOCAIIION ITC

SANTA 4lR444 I

L05 AR0CLCS

MCY Ult ~eQ

40(ROARZ~~ R RCRTZ

'Q

UNIT IuRIT'4

IIORIH COI'C

Jr

c'OOLVIOtlftROI5CVAR4C

PIROCO COZC

UtftOROLOOICAlTOttt

COOLIIIO WATCR IHTARC

SO»lHCOZC

4RCARWATCRS0 ~ '400 ITOO ISOO

I~ II

4. ~ all~ 5 TOAVILA4CACII

~„

Fig. l. Plot plan of the Diablo Canyon plant site.

h

1 ~

.SI "~

'%y

~ l~ I

r

T

oQ 0

04 "Il ~

lO~

Oo /iiI I/ I

y REOION OF PLUME / I5EPARATIOll fROM / ISOT TOM 6 /

/ /]

I//

ro

0Q/o

Fig. 2. High tide isotherms of thermal plume in Diablo Cove.

g~

~l'

~ ~

~ ~

0>SCHMO TSTfcVCTVIC

0IA1 I.OCOVE

OREAKWATfIIS

PACIFIC 'CC AN

«$

500'ige

3 High tide i=otherms of,thermal plume outside Diablo Cove.

t

~P

0

OO \

C7

IIIO'

~ ~

DO

. ~

//D///

P Ir

5 ~

REGION OF PLUMESEPARATION FROMSOT TOM

~ ~

~ ~

1

Fig. 4 Lou tide isotherms of thermal plume fn Diablo Cove.