Essential Fish Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant Units 6 and 7 Combined License Application

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permit Application Miami-Dade County, Florida

February 2015 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

Contents

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ...... 2-1 2.1 Existing Facilities at Turkey Point ...... 2-1 2.2 Site Location and Description ...... 2-2 2.2.1 Site Description ...... 2-2 2.2.2 Habitat Description ...... 2-6 2.3 Circulating-Water System Description and Operation ...... 2-7 2.3.1 Reclaimed Wastewater System ...... 2-8 2.3.2 Radial Collector Well System ...... 2-8 2.3.3 Cooling Towers ...... 2-9 2.3.4 Deep-Injection Wells ...... 2-9 2.4 Equipment Barge Canal Expansion ...... 2-10 3.0 Description of Essential Fish Habitat and Habitat of Particular Concern ...... 3-1 3.1 EFH and Applicable Fishery Management Plans ...... 3-1 3.1.1 Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan ...... 3-2 3.1.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan ...... 3-2 3.1.3 Pink Shrimp Fishery Management Plan ...... 3-2 3.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern ...... 3-3 4.0 EFH Species Life-History Information ...... 4-1 4.1 Snapper-Grouper Fishery ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Gray Snapper ( griseus) ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Dog Snapper (Lutjanus jocu) ...... 4-2 4.1.3 Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus analis) ...... 4-3 4.1.4 White Grunt (Haemulon plumieri) ...... 4-3 4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery ...... 4-3 4.3 Shrimp Fishery ...... 4-4 5.0 Potential Adverse Effects on EFH ...... 5-1 5.1 Construction and Operation of the Cooling Water System using Reclaimed Wastewater ...... 5-2 5.1.1 Construction ...... 5-2 5.1.2 Operation ...... 5-2 5.2 Construction and Operation of the Radial Collector Well Cooling System ...... 5-3 5.2.1 Impacts of Construction ...... 5-3 5.2.2 Impacts of Operation ...... 5-4

iii Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

5.3 Equipment Barge-Unloading Area Expansion to Support Construction of Units 6 and 7 ...... 5-6 5.4 Deep-Aquifer Injection of Cooling-Tower Blowdown ...... 5-7 6.0 EFH Cumulative Effects Analysis ...... 6-1 6.1 Historical Context ...... 6-1 6.2 Existing Turkey Point Units ...... 6-1 6.3 Cutler Units 5 and 6 ...... 6-2 6.4 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration ...... 6-2 6.5 Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan ...... 6-2 6.6 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program ...... 6-4 6.7 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary ...... 6-5 6.8 Population Growth and Coastal Development ...... 6-5 6.9 Climate Change ...... 6-5 6.10 Summary of Potential Impacts on EFH and HAPCs ...... 6-7 7.0 Conclusions ...... 7-1 8.0 References ...... 8-1

Figures

2-1 Turkey Point Site and 50-Mile Region ...... F4.2-4 2-2 Location of the Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area Within the Turkey Point Site ...... F4.2-5 4-1 Commercial Landing of Gray, Dog, and Mutton Snapper from the East Coast of Florida, 2000−2010 ...... F4.4-2 4-2 Commercial Landing of Spiny Lobster and Pink Shrimp from the East Coast of Florida, 2000−2010 ...... F4.4-4

Tables

3-1 Fish and Shellfish Species with Designated Essential Fish Habitat Likely to Occur near the Turkey Point Site ...... F4.3-1 7-1 Potential Impact on EFH and HAPCs in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound from the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 ...... F4.7-1

iv Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit > greater than ac acre(s) AP1000 Advanced Passive 1000 (pressurized water reactor) BBAP Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve BMP Best Management Practice CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations COL combined operating license, or combined construction permits and operating licenses CWS cooling-water system dB decibel(s) EFH essential fish habitat EIS environmental impact statement ER Environmental Report FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FMNH Florida Museum of Natural History FMP fishery management plan FPL Florida Power and Light Company fps feet per second ft (foot) feet gpm gallon(s) per minute ha hectare(s) HAPC habitat area of particular concern in. inch(es) IWF industrial wastewater facility km kilometer(s) km2 square kilometer(s) lb pound(s) m meter(s) MDWASD Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Mgd million gallons per day mi mile(s) MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act MW(e) megawatts electric nm nautical mile(s) NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPS National Park Service NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

v Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

µPa micropascal(s) ppt parts per thousand RCW radial collector well RMS root mean square RWTF reclaimed wastewater-treatment facility SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SCA Site Certification Application SEL Sound Exposure Level SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SWS service-water system USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USGS U.S. Geological Survey

vi Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 1.0 Introduction

2 For the purpose of this review, the proposed U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the 3 Commission) Federal action under consideration is the issuance, under the provisions of Title 4 10 the Code of Federal Regulations Part 52 (10 CFR Part 52) (TN251), of two combined 5 construction permits and operating licenses (combined licenses, or COLs) authorizing the 6 construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 at Florida Power and Light Company’s 7 (FPL’s) Turkey Point site, located near Homestead, Florida, in Miami-Dade County. The 8 proposed USACE Federal action is the decision whether to issue, issue with modifications, or 9 deny a Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to the requirements in Section 404 of the 10 Clean Water Act (33 USC Section 1344) (TN427) and Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors 11 Act of 1899 (33 USC Sections 403 and 408) (TN660) to authorize certain activities potentially 12 affecting WOTUS based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative 13 impacts, of the proposed activities on the public interest. By a letter dated June 30, 2009 (FPL 14 2009-TN1229), as supplemented by a letter dated August 7, 2009 (FPL 2009-TN1230), FPL 15 applied to the NRC for two COLs for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. On June 30, 16 2009, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) received a Department of the Army 17 (DA) permit application from FPL in connection with the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 18 and associated structures, including a reclaimed water facility, access roads, radial collector 19 wells, pipelines, transmission lines, and other related infrastructure. The proposed work would 20 result in the alteration of waters of the United States including wetlands. The USACE permit 21 decision will be made in its Record of Decision (ROD). This assessment of the potential effects 22 of siting, preconstruction, construction, and operation of Units 6 and 7 on designated essential 23 fish habitat (EFH) and habitat of particular concern (HAPC) is based on Revision 6 of the COL 24 application including the Environmental Report (ER) (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL’s responses to 25 requests for additional information, supplemental information available in the Site Certification 26 Application (SCA) provided by FPL to the Florida Department Environmental Protection (FDEP) 27 (FPL 2010-TN170), and a variety of additional sources of information.

28 In a final rule dated October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416) (TN260), the Commission limited the 29 definition of “construction” to those activities that fall within its regulatory authority (10 CFR 51.4) 30 (TN250). Many of the activities undertaken to build a nuclear power plant are common to all 31 major industrial construction projects (e.g., clearing and grading, excavation, and erection of 32 support buildings), but do not involve radiological health and safety or the common defense and 33 security, and, therefore, are not defined as construction by the NRC. These matters are not 34 within the NRC’s licensing authority over nuclear power reactors, and are not part of the NRC 35 action to license Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. The activities associated with building the plant 36 that are not within the purview of the NRC are grouped under the term “preconstruction.” 37 Preconstruction activities include clearing and grading, excavating, erection of support buildings 38 and transmission lines, and other associated activities. To at least some extent, these activities 39 would be necessary to build any thermal power plant. Because preconstruction activities are 40 not part of the NRC action, their impacts are not reviewed as a direct effect of the NRC action. 41 Rather, the impacts of the preconstruction activities are considered in the context of cumulative 42 impacts. Although the preconstruction activities are not part of the NRC action, certain 43 preconstruction activities require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), as

1-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 well as other Federal, State, and local agencies. Because the USACE permits would authorize 2 the activities denoted as “preconstruction” under NRC regulations, and this is a joint EFH 3 assessment for both the NRC and USACE and was developed with the assistance of the 4 National Parks Service (NPS), the distinction between construction and preconstruction 5 activities is not carried forward in this EFH assessment. Since NRC-defined preconstruction 6 activities are construction under the USACE regulatory framework, both are discussed jointly 7 and are referred to as “construction” in this EFH assessment.

8 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (16 USC 1801 9 et seq.) (TN1061), which was amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 USC 1801 10 et seq.) (TN1060) and reauthorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Act of 2006 11 (NOAA 2006 TN1846), sets forth the EFH provisions designed to protect important of 12 Federally managed marine and anadromous species. EFH is defined as the waters and 13 substrate necessary for fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (16 USC 1802) 14 (TN1060). Identifying EFH is an essential component of the development of fishery 15 management plans (FMPs) by regional fishery management councils to evaluate the effects of 16 habitat loss or degradation on fishery stocks and take actions to mitigate such damage. As 17 described by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA; NOAA 2010- 18 TN835), “HAPCs [habitat areas of particular concern] are considered subsets of EFH that are 19 either rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially important 20 ecologically, or located in an environmentally stressed area.” The National Marine Fisheries 21 Service (NMFS) also states that “federal actions with potential adversely impacts HAPCs [sic] 22 will be more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process and subject to more stringent 23 conservation recommendations” (NOAA 1999-TN1845).

24 The consultation requirements of Section 305(b)(2) of MSFCMA provide that Federal agencies 25 consult with the Secretary of Commerce on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, 26 or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. The consultation document must 27 include the following information: 28  a description of the proposed action, 29  an analysis of the potential adverse effects of the action on EFH and the Federally managed 30 species, 31  the Federal agency’s conclusions regarding the effects of the action on EFH, and 32  proposed mitigation, if applicable.

33 In an August 5, 2010 letter to the NRC (NOAA 2010-TN835), NOAA requested: 34  results of onsite inspections to evaluate the habitat and site-specific effects of the project, 35  views of recognized experts on the habitat or species that may be affected, 36  a review of pertinent literature and related information, and 37  an analysis of alternatives to the proposed action (or a reference to pertinent sections in the 38 NRC’s Turkey Point environmental impact statement [EIS]).

1-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 NOAA also requested that the EFH assessment include (1) a discussion of potential impacts of 2 the radial collector well (RCW) system operation on EFH and HAPCs, (2) an evaluation of 3 potential impacts on fish and wildlife from deep-well injection of cooling-tower blowdown, (3) a 4 discussion of how the proposed project could affect restoration activities associated with the 5 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, and (4) information about how the project is designed 6 to mitigate the potential effects of sea-level rise (NOAA 2010-TN835). The responses to NMFS 7 questions and requests are included within this EFH assessment.

8 This EFH assessment includes the review team’s evaluation of the potential impacts of the 9 construction and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7 on EFH or HAPCs. Section 2.0 10 describes the proposed action, provides a general description of the aquatic resources 11 potentially affected by construction and operation of Units 6 and 7, and includes a description of 12 the two proposed cooling systems. Section 3.0 provides descriptions of designated EFH and 13 HAPCs considered in this review, as described in the August 5, 2010 letter from NOAA 14 (NOAA 2010-TN835). In Section 4.0, life-history descriptions are provided for species 15 potentially affected by the construction and operation of Units 6 and 7. Section 5.0 provides an 16 assessment of the potential for adverse impacts of the construction and operation of Units 6 and 17 7 on EFH or HAPCs, and uses three impact level conclusions: 18  no adverse impact expected, 19  minimal adverse impact expected, and 20  substantial adverse impact expected.

21 Section 6.0 of this assessment presents the results of cumulative effects analysis that take into 22 account environmental stressors other than the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7; Section 23 7.0 provides a description of alternatives to the proposed action and final conclusions. 24 References are provided in Section 8.0.

1-3

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action

2 As described above, the proposed action under consideration is the construction and operation 3 of two Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized 4 water reactors at the Turkey Point site located at the edge of Biscayne Bay near Homestead, 5 Florida. The proposed Units 6 and 7 would be located directly south of existing units 1 through 6 5. All systems and structures directly supporting power generation for Units 6 and 7 would be 7 built as new, independent facilities. Proposed new facilities also include nuclear administration 8 and training buildings, parking areas, reclaimed water treatment facility, an expanded equipment 9 barge-unloading area, security buildings, and an RCW system on the Turkey Point peninsula. 10 To connect proposed Units 6 and 7 to the power grid, two new 500 kV circuits and three new 11 230 kV circuits are proposed. FPL proposes to build the new transmission lines originating from 12 a proposed new onsite substation (Clear Sky substation) and connecting to the existing Levee 13 substation (500 kV circuits) and the existing Turkey Point, Davis, and Pennsuco substations 14 (230 kV circuits). Two major corridors—the West and the East corridors—are planned with 15 several transmission lines within these corridors. A complete description of the proposed 16 action, including the new transmission lines, is provided in FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-TN4058).

17 Two Federal agencies, the NRC and the USACE, are involved in the review of FPL’s proposal, 18 and a third, the NPS, provided comments in preparation of the EIS on the proposed action. The 19 proposed NRC Federal action is issuance, under the provisions of Title 10 of the Code of 20 Federal Regulations Part 52 (10 CFR Part 52) (TN251), of COLs authorizing the construction 21 and operation of two new AP1000 reactors at the Turkey Point site. The proposed USACE 22 Federal action is the decision whether to issue, issue with modifications, or deny a DA permit 23 pursuant to the requirements in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC Section 1344) 24 (TN427) and Sections 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC Sections 403 and 408) 25 (TN660) to authorize certain activities potentially affecting WOTUS based on an evaluation of 26 the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activities on the public 27 interest. The EIS for the proposed action will be prepared primarily by NRC staff in consultation 28 with the USACE and NPS, and much of the information presented here was developed during 29 the EIS process. The NPS has assisted the review team in assessing the impacts of the 30 construction and operation of Units 6 and 7 to hydrologic and ecologic resources. FPL’s 31 application states that preconstruction activities, which include activities the USACE denotes as 32 “construction,” are expected to occur for 60 months, and construction activities, as defined by 33 the NRC, are expected to occur for 66 months (FPL 2014-TN4058).

34 2.1 Existing Facilities at Turkey Point

35 The 9,400 ac Turkey Point site currently contains five power-generating stations. Units 1 and 2 36 are 400 MW(e) natural-gas/oil steam electrical generating units. Unit 1 has been in service 37 since 1967; FPL plans to convert it to operate as a synchronous condenser in 2016. 38 Synchronous condenser mode provides voltage stability for the regional transmission system, 39 but it does not provide electrical generation capacity. Unit 2, placed in service in 1968, has 40 already been converted to operate in synchronous condenser mode (FPL 2013-TN2630). Two 41 pressurized water reactors and associated facilities (Units 3 and 4) are located on the site. 42 Unit 3 has been in service since 1972 and Unit 4 has been in service since 1973. The NRC

2-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 approved a power uprate for Units 3 and 4 that was completed by FPL in 2013 (NRC 2012- 2 TN1438; FPL 2014-TN3360). The net power output of Units 3 and 4 together increased from a 3 nominal 1,400 MW(e) to 1,632 MW(e) as a result of the uprate (FPL 2000-TN3947; FPL 2014- 4 TN3360). Unit 5, a natural-gas combined-cycle unit rated to produce 1,150 MW(e), began 5 operating in 2007. These existing units occupy approximately 195 ac. Units 1 through 4 on the 6 Turkey Point site rely on a system of canals, which occupy approximately 5,900 ac of the site, to 7 provide cooling. While the canals are operated as a closed-loop cooling system and are 8 permitted as an industrial wastewater facility (FPL 2014-TN4058), they are not considered a 9 closed hydrologic system. Mechanical draft cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from Unit 10 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is withdrawn to provide makeup water to Unit 5. 11 Blowdown water from the cooling towers is sent to the cooling canals of the industrial 12 wastewater facility (FPL 2014-TN4058).

13 2.2 Site Location and Description

14 Descriptions of the Turkey Point site and associated habitats are found in the following sections.

15 2.2.1 Site Description

16 The Turkey Point site is located on the southeastern coast of Florida in unincorporated Dade 17 County. Figure 2-1 shows the location of the Turkey Point site with respect to Biscayne Bay 18 and the surrounding area. Figure 2-2 shows the location of proposed Units 6 and 7 and 19 associated infrastructure, including the location of the proposed RCW system. Onsite aquatic 20 resources include the existing industrial wastewater facility (IWF), surface-water habitats and 21 canal systems, and nearshore areas adjacent to the Turkey Point peninsula. Offsite aquatic 22 resources that may be affected by the proposed action are located within Biscayne Bay, 23 Biscayne National Park, Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve (BBAP), Florida Keys National Marine 24 Sanctuary, Card Sound, and Everglades National Park.

25 Prior to drainage and development activities, the wetland and aquatic ecosystems of southern 26 Florida covered approximately 8.9 million ac, and included ridge and slough landscapes, 27 sawgrass plains, cypress and mangrove swamps, and coastal lagoons and bays 28 (USACE/SFWMD 1999-TN116). Ogden et al. (2005-TN196) characterized this pre-drainage 29 condition as a “hydrologically interconnected, slow flowing system that extended from the 30 Kissimmee River and Lake Okeechobee southward over low-gradient lands to the estuaries of 31 Biscayne Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, and Florida Bay, and eastward and westward to the 32 northern estuaries.” Browder et al. (2005-TN151) noted that prior to development, Biscayne 33 Bay possessed both marine and estuarine habitat and fauna, and that construction of major 34 canals and subsequent water drainage affected the salinity gradients and ecotones from the 35 Everglades through coastal wetlands and tidal creeks into the bay. Historical accounts suggest 36 that prior to inlet and navigational dredging and related development, the northern and central 37 portions of Biscayne Bay had much lower salinity conditions, low nutrient concentrations, and 38 low turbidity/high light transmittance that promoted the presence of extensive seagrass 39 meadows on the bay bottom (USACE/SFWMD 1999-TN116). Anthropogenic impacts over the 40 last century have substantially altered the ecosystem and profoundly affected the three 41 essential characteristics that defined historical conditions.

2-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 During the late 1800s and early 1900s, flood control was recognized as the principal 2 impediment to development in South Florida. Land was drained to support urban and 3 agricultural development, and a series of canals was constructed to support flood control, water 4 supply and retention, irrigation, and transport. In 1948, Congress authorized the creation of the 5 Central and Southern Florida Project—one of the largest water management systems in the

2-3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 2-1. Turkey Point Site and 50-Mile Region

3

2-4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 2 Figure 2-2. Location of the Proposed Units 6 and 7 Plant Area Within the Turkey Point 3 Site

2-5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 world (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196). As a result of this and other projects, a substantial portion of 2 the original wetland system in South Florida, including natural run-off or sheet flow of 3 freshwater, has been lost or converted to support agriculture, urban development, and related 4 infrastructure. These changes have dramatically reduced historic sheet flow and have created 5 point-source discharges of freshwater into estuarine and coastal wetland areas that have 6 substantially changed the dynamics of the system and aquatic species compositions. The 7 effects of these practices have included the creation of deeper-water habitats within canal 8 systems that have contributed to the spread of exotic and nuisance species, emergence of 9 unnatural habitats for predatory fishes and alligators, and reversals in wet and dry patterns 10 (Ogden et al. 2005-TN197).

11 2.2.2 Habitat Description

12 Biscayne Bay, including regions encompassing Biscayne National Park and BBAP, is a shallow 13 subtropical marine lagoon that extends the length of Miami-Dade County. The eastern edge of 14 the bay is bordered by a series of barrier islands that form the Florida Keys, including (north to 15 south) Virginia Key, Key Biscayne, Soldier Key, Boca Chita, Caesar Creek, Broad Creek, and 16 Key Largo. The northern boundaries of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) is 17 near, but does not include, the Turkey Point peninsula. The land west of the bay is rural, and 18 the land north of the bay near Miami is highly urbanized. Connection to the Atlantic Ocean is 19 greatest north of Boca Chita, where access to the ocean is greatest at an area called the Safety 20 Valve, and most restricted in the southern bay at Card Sound and Barnes Sound because of the 21 presence of Key Largo and associated barrier islands. The average depth of the bay is 22 approximately 5 ft (1.5 m) at mean lower low water, with a maximum depth of approximately 13 23 ft (4 m). Salinity is highly variable, ranging from approximately 24 to 44 ppt, and highly 24 influenced by rainfall and the point-source discharges of the existing canal systems. Natural 25 water temperatures range from approximately 59°F to 92°F (15°C to 33°C) at the surface 26 (FPL 2014-TN4058). The shallow depths of the bay and maximum spring tidal range of 3 ft (0.9 27 m) result in a vertically well-mixed system with weak stratification except in Biscayne Bay at the 28 mouth of drainage canals (Wang et al. 2003-TN105).

29 Biscayne National Park abuts the eastern (shoreline) boundary of the Turkey Point site. The 30 park was first established in 1968 as a national monument and was expanded in 1980 to 31 approximately 173,000 ac (70,010 ha) of water, coastal lands, and 42 islands. Boating, 32 snorkeling, and recreational and commercial fishing are allowed in the park, and numerous 33 environmental studies are conducted or sponsored by the NPS to assess the condition of 34 natural resources within park boundaries and provide information to support preservation and 35 restoration activities (NPS 2011-TN184). A portion of BBAP is located approximately 0.5 mi 36 (0.8 km) to the east of the proposed Units 6 and 7 plant area (FPL 2014-TN4058). The BBAP 37 includes 67,000 ac (27,114 ha) of sovereign submerged lands and is managed by the FDEP, 38 Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas. Waters within the preserve are designated as 39 Outstanding Florida Waters, which affords them special protection because of their natural 40 attributes (FPL 2014-TN4058). Designated on November 16, 1990, the FKNMS was dedicated 41 in 1990 and is one of 14 marine protected areas that make up the National Marine Sanctuary 42 System. The sanctuary protects 2,900 square nautical miles of waters surrounding the Florida 43 Keys, from south of Miami westward to encompass the Dry Tortugas, excluding Dry Tortugas

2-6 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 National Park. As described above, the northern sanctuary boundaries are near, but do not 2 include, the Turkey Point peninsula.

3 As described in Section 2.4.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176), Biscayne Bay in its present form 4 supports a dynamic assemblage of fish, invertebrates, marine mammals, and extensive 5 seagrass beds. According to Browder et al. (2005-TN151), at least seven species of seagrass 6 occur in Biscayne Bay; seagrass was believed to cover more than 60 percent of the bay bottom 7 in the 1980s. Common seagrass species include turtle grass (Thalassia testudinum), shoal 8 grass (Halodule wrightii), manatee grass (Syringodium filiforme), widgeongrass Ruppia 9 maritima, and three species of the genus Halophila, including H. johnsonii, which is a protected 10 species (Browder et al. 2005-TN151). Coastal mangrove communities are also present, 11 providing important habitat for many estuarine fish and invertebrate species. A study from 1998 12 to 2005, Serafy et al. (2007-TN215), found that the mangrove-lined shorelines of Biscayne Bay 13 were used by subadult and adult Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus), juvenile Great Barracuda 14 (Sphyraena barracuda), and adult Goldspotted Killifish (Floridichthys carpio). Browder et 15 al. (2005-TN151) identified species of special relevance and utility for monitoring and 16 assessment of Biscayne Bay, including pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), blue and stone crab 17 (Callinectes sapidus; Menippe mercenaria), oysters (Crassostrea spp.), estuarine fish 18 communities, bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), crocodiles (Crocodylus acutus), manatee 19 (Trichechus latirostris), and wading birds. Robles et al. (2005-TN198) identified four 20 representative marine species used to assess the condition of marine resources in Biscayne 21 National Park: spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), Red Grouper (Epinephelus morio), Red Drum 22 (Sciaenops ocellatus), and Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus).

23 The above-listed species are consistent with information provided by NOAA (2010-TN835) in its 24 August 5, 2010 letter, which indicated that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 25 (SAFMC) designates nearshore mangroves as EFH for juvenile Gray Snapper, Dog Snapper 26 (L. jocu), Bluestriped Grunt (Haemulon sciurus), spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), and pink 27 shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum – previously Penaeis duorarum). NOAA indicated that 28 seagrass habitats supporting pink shrimp, spiny lobster, and estuarine life stages of various 29 species within the snapper/grouper complex are EFH that should be included in an impact 30 assessment for proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, and also stated that any bottom-disturbing 31 activities within seagrass habitat areas must include the use of Best Management Practices 32 (BMPs). SAFMC designates soft-bottom habitat as EFH because of its important role in 33 influencing the ecological function of coastal ecosystems by controlling fluxes of nutrients 34 between the sediment and the water column. SAFMC also considers shallow water with an 35 unconsolidated bottom as EFH because it functions as a nursery ground and refuge for early life 36 stages of many benthic and estuarine species. A complete description of the FMPs for the 37 listed EFH, species, and HAPCs is provided in Section 4.0, and Section 5.0 provides species 38 life-history information based on the above guidance from NOAA (2010-TN835). What follows 39 is a description of the cooling-water systems and operational characteristics for proposed Units 40 6 and 7.

41 2.3 Circulating-Water System Description and Operation

42 As described in Section 3 of the NRC’s EIS (NUREG-2176), the primary source of cooling water 43 for proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be reclaimed wastewater from the Miami-Dade

2-7 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD). Because the reclaimed wastewater supply can vary 2 in quantity and quality, FPL has indicated that a secondary source of cooling-water (used 3 periodically) would be the RCW system, which would be situated on the Turkey Point peninsula 4 and would extract water from Biscayne Bay subsurface sediment. FPL describes its approach 5 to managing cooling-water supplies in the following way (FPL 2014-TN4058):

6 Reclaimed water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department 7 (MDWASD) would supply makeup water for the circulating-water system of 8 Units 6 & 7. When reclaimed water cannot supply the quantity and/or quality of 9 water needed for the circulating-water system, additional makeup water would be 10 saltwater supplied from RCW system. The circulating-water system would be 11 designed to accommodate 100 percent supply from reclaimed water, saltwater, 12 or a combination of the two sources. The ratio of water supplied by the two 13 makeup-water sources would vary based on the availability of reclaimed water 14 from the MDWASD.

15 FDEP has indicated that RCW use would be limited to 60 days per year (State of Florida 2014- 16 TN3637). A portion of the makeup water would be returned to the environment through deep- 17 injection wells that terminate in the Boulder Zone (a zone of cavernous, high-permeability 18 geologic horizon within the Lower Floridan aquifer) more than 3,000 ft (914 m) below grade 19 (FPL 2014-TN4058). The remaining portion of the water would be released to the atmosphere 20 via evaporative cooling through mechanical draft cooling towers. What follows is a general 21 description of the cooling-water system components and expected operational scenarios, as 22 provided by FPL in its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058) and FSAR (FPL 2014-TN4069). A more 23 complete description of the proposed cooling-water systems is provided in Section 3 of the NRC 24 EIS (NUREG-2176).

25 2.3.1 Reclaimed Wastewater System

26 Reclaimed wastewater from the MDWASD would be piped from the South District Wastewater 27 Treatment Plant to the reclaimed wastewater-treatment facility (RWTF) at the Turkey Point site. 28 The RWTF would be located west of the proposed units and occupy approximately 44 ac 29 (18 ha) (Figure 2-2). This treatment facility would reduce the concentrations of iron, 30 magnesium, oil and grease, total suspended solids, nutrients, and silica in the water prior to its 31 use as cooling water (FPL 2014-TN4058). The treated reclaimed wastewater would be stored 32 in a makeup-water reservoir occupying 37 ac (15 ha) immediately south of proposed Units 6 33 and 7 (FPL 2014-TN4058).

34 As stated by FPL in its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), the maximum reclaimed-water makeup rate to 35 the circulating-water system would be approximately 19,200 gpm per unit, based on maintaining 36 four cycles of concentration in the cooling towers. Normal operating blowdown water release 37 from the towers into the deep-injection wells would be 4,860 gpm per unit.

38 2.3.2 Radial Collector Well System

39 The RCW system proposed for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would consist of four collector wells 40 installed on the Turkey Point peninsula east of the Turkey Point site (Figure 2-2). Each RCW

2-8 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 would consist of a central reinforced concrete caisson with several laterals (horizontal collector 2 lines) extending out from the caisson. The laterals would extend horizontally up to 900 ft 3 beneath Biscayne Bay, and would be situated approximately 25 to 40 ft below the sediment 4 surface (FPL 2014-TN4058).

5 The maximum saltwater makeup-water rate under normal operating conditions would be 6 approximately 43,200 gpm, assuming 1.5 cycles of concentration in the cooling towers. The 7 blowdown rate into the deep-injection wells would be approximately 28,860 gpm per unit 8 (FPL 2014-TN4058).

9 2.3.3 Cooling Towers

10 Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would use closed-cycle, wet-cooling towers to dissipate 11 heat from both the cooling water system (CWS) and the service water system (SWS). As 12 described in Section 3.1 of the NRC’s EIS (NUREG-2176), each unit would use three cooling 13 towers for the CWS. The CWS cooling towers would be mechanical draft towers, octagonal in 14 shape, approximately 67 ft high and 246 ft in diameter, with fiberglass-reinforced plastic 15 structural members and casings (FPL 2014-TN4058). In each tower, fans would blow air across 16 water sprayed through fine nozzles, removing heat from the water and rejecting that heat to the 17 atmosphere. The six towers would be located south of the reactor units within the perimeter 18 wall of the makeup-water reservoir (Figure 2-2). Each new unit would also have one cooling 19 tower for the SWS, located adjacent to the AP1000 turbine building. These would also be 20 mechanical draft cooling towers, each divided into two cells.

21 Excess heat in the cooling water would be transferred to the atmosphere by evaporative and 22 conductive cooling in the cooling tower. In addition to evaporative losses, a small percentage of 23 water would be lost in the form of droplets (drift) from the cooling towers. Water lost to 24 evaporation and drift is considered consumptive use because the water is not available for 25 reuse. The CWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would both be 28,800 gpm. The 26 SWS normal and maximum evaporation rates would be 366 and 1,248 gpm, respectively. The 27 drift rates for both units combined would be 7 gpm for the CWS and 1 gpm for the SWS 28 (FPL 2014-TN4058). These evaporation and drift rates are independent of the makeup-water 29 source, meaning consumptive losses are similar whether reclaimed wastewater or saltwater is 30 used for cooling.

31 2.3.4 Deep-Injection Wells

32 Liquid discharges from proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be transported via pipeline 33 to deep-aquifer injection wells (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL indicates that “effluents would be 34 discharged to the Boulder Zone via deep-injection wells permitted by the Florida Department of 35 Environmental Protection (FDEP) underground injection control program” (FPL 2014-TN4058). 36 A total of 12 deep-injection wells and 6 dual-zone monitoring wells are proposed. Six injection 37 wells and three monitoring wells would be located along the east perimeter wall, and the other 38 six injection wells and three monitoring wells would be located along the south wall dividing the 39 filled area from the makeup-water reservoir. Each injection well would be a 24 in. diameter steel 40 well casing extending up to 3,500 ft below grade. A typical injection-well steel casing would be 41 lined with 18 in. diameter glass-fiber-reinforced plastic, with grout in the annulus between the

2-9 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 two. Its upper section would be reinforced with additional steel casings of increasing diameter, 2 as shown in the typical injection-well cross section in Section 3 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176).

3 Cooling-tower blowdown water and other plant wastewater would be discharged to the deep 4 Boulder Zone via Class I industrial injection wells. Cooling-tower blowdown water is the cooling 5 water that does not evaporate or drift from the towers but is routed back to the cooling-tower 6 basin at the base of each tower. Because evaporation of water from the cooling tower 7 increases the concentration of dissolved solids in the cooling water, a portion of the blowdown 8 water would be removed and replaced with makeup water from the makeup-water system. FPL 9 plans to maintain the chemical concentration factor for the CWS cooling tower between one- 10 and-a-half and four cycles of concentration. As noted previously, the CWS would be operated 11 at four cycles of concentration when using reclaimed wastewater as the source of cooling water 12 and at one-and-a-half cycles of concentration when using saltwater from the RCW system 13 (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL has indicated that RCW use would be limited to 60 days per year 14 (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). The blowdown water from each cooling tower would collect in 15 a basin at the base of the tower. Time spent in the basin allows for settling of suspended solids 16 and chemical treatment, if required by the State of Florida, prior to discharging the water to the 17 blowdown sump, and eventually to the Boulder Zone, through deep-injection wells. The 18 estimated concentrations of chemical constituents in the blowdown are discussed in 19 Section 3.4.4.2 of the ER (FPL 2014-TN4058).

20 In addition to blowdown water from the cooling towers, wastewater from the sanitary waste- 21 treatment plant, wastewater retention basin, and liquid radioactive waste-treatment system 22 would be discharged to the Boulder Zone via the injection wells. These internal liquid waste- 23 management systems are described further in Sections 3.4.3.2 and 3.4.4.2 of the NRC’s EIS 24 (NUREG-2176). Up to 10 injection wells would be used during normal operations, leaving 2 25 available as backup wells. The maximum injection rate of 58,922 gpm (85 Mgd) would occur 26 when saltwater is used for cooling; the normal injection rate when saltwater is used for cooling 27 would be 58,175 gpm (84 Mgd). The normal and maximum injection rates when 100 percent 28 reclaimed wastewater is used for cooling would be 12,461 gpm (18 Mgd) and 12,914 gpm (18.6 29 Mgd), respectively.

30 2.4 Equipment Barge Canal Expansion

31 As described in Section 4.3.2.2.1 of FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), the equipment barge- 32 unloading area located at the northeastern portion of the Turkey Point site would be expanded 33 to support construction activities. During the initial construction phase, this area would be 34 expanded to a total area of approximately 0.75 ac, which would involve the dredging of 35 approximately 0.1 ac in the turning basin (FPL 2014-TN4058). As reported in the ER 36 (FPL 2014-TN4058), a survey of the area showed sparse growth of seagrasses and algae 37 within the turning basin. FPL expects dredging to result in temporary impacts on water quality 38 because of increased turbidity, and would use turbidity curtains, silt screens, or similar 39 technology, as well as BMPs, to minimize impacts (FPL 2012-TN2582). Material dredged from 40 the turning basin would be placed in designated spoils areas located on existing berms within 41 the IWF. FPL submitted an application to the USACE for a permit to dredge under the Clean 42 Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 43 Material” (40 CFR Part 230) (TN427), as described in Section 4.3.2.2.1 of FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-

2-10 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 TN4058). As noted by FPL (2014-TN3717) and discussed below in Section 5.0, the equipment 2 barge canal expansion would also create percussive noise associated with sheet-pile 3 installation that may affect fish, but is not planned to extend beyond the area described below.

2-11

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 3.0 Description of Essential Fish Habitat and 2 Habitat of Particular Concern

3 As described above, on August 5, 2010, NOAA provided a letter to the NRC that described EFH 4 within the project area and provided a list of species and components to be included in the EFH 5 assessment. The NOAA letter also specifically listed issues that should be included in the 6 assessment of EFH within the project area, which includes nearshore mangrove communities 7 and seagrass and unconsolidated bottom habitats. HAPCs included nearshore mangrove and 8 seagrass habitats (NOAA 2010-TN835). What follows is a description of the EFH species and 9 applicable FMPs considered in this assessment, and HAPCs within the project area.

10 3.1 EFH Species and Applicable Fishery Management Plans

11 The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (16 USC 1801 et seq.) (TN1060) amended the MSFCMA 12 (16 USC 1801 et seq.) (TN1061) to create a program to protect EFH and to identify HAPCs. 13 The SAFMC is responsible for developing and implementing the FMPs; NMFS aids the 14 Secretary of Commerce, who evaluates and approves the council’s plan.

15 Table 3-1 provides a summary of species to be included in the EFH assessment, the applicable 16 FMPs, and EFH habitat designations based on communication between NOAA-NMFS and NRC 17 in 2010 (NOAA 2010-TN835). As noted by NPS in its preliminary review of this assessment, the 18 species list presented in Table 3-1 is not inclusive of all members of a FMP. However, the 19 review team assumes that the list provided by NOAA is representative of the many species 20 expected to occur near the Turkey Point site. What follows is a brief discussion of EFH and 21 HAPCs that will be included in the impact assessment for proposed Units 6 and 7 developed by 22 the review team.

23 Table 3-1. Fish and Shellfish Species with Designated Essential Fish Habitat Likely to 24 Occur near the Turkey Point Site Essential Fish Habitat Designation Applicable Seagrass and Fishery Unconsolidated Common Name Scientific Name Management Plan Mangrove Bottom Gray Snapper Lutjanus griseus Snapper-Grouper X X Dog Snapper L. jocu Snapper-Grouper X Mutton Snapper L. analis Snapper-Grouper X Bluestriped Grunt(a) Haemulon sciurus Snapper-Grouper X White Grunt H. plumieri Snapper-Grouper X Spiny lobster Panulirus argus Spiny Lobster X X Farfantepenaeus Pink shrimp Shrimp Fishery X X duorarum (a) This species was removed from the SAFMC’s snapper-grouper management complex in 2012 and is not discussed further in this document (SAFMC 2012-TN1325) Source: NOAA 2010-TN835

3-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 3.1.1 Snapper-Grouper Fishery Management Plan

2 The Snapper-Grouper FMP includes 10 families of fish containing 73 species (SAFMC 1998- 3 TN212). Based on the information provided by NOAA/NMFS (NOAA 2010-TN835), four species 4 belonging to this group have designated EFH near the Turkey Point site. A fifth species, the 5 Bluestriped Grunt (Haemulon sciurus), was removed from the SAFMC’s snapper-grouper 6 complex in 2012 and is not discussed further in this review (SAFMC 2012-TN1325). Mangrove 7 habitat is identified as EFH for juvenile Gray Snapper; seagrass and unconsolidated bottom are 8 identified as EFH for both adult and juvenile Gray Snapper, juvenile Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus 9 analis), and adult White Grunt (H. plumieri) (NOAA 2010-TN835). EFH for the snapper-grouper 10 complex includes reef systems, hard-bottom substrates, submerged aquatic vegetation, 11 and artificial reefs and outcroppings from shore to at least 600 ft (2,000 ft for Wreckfish 12 [Polyprion americanus]), where annual water temperature is sufficient to maintain adults. EFH 13 also includes spawning areas in the water column above adult habitat and additional pelagic 14 environments. With regard to specific life stages of this group, EFH includes areas inshore from 15 the 100 ft contour, and includes macroalgae, seagrass beds, salt and brackish , tidal 16 creeks, mangrove fringes, oyster reefs, shell banks, and soft- or hard-bottom substrates 17 (SAFMC 1998-TN212).

18 3.1.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan

19 As noted by NOAA (2010-TN835), both mangrove and seagrass/unconsolidated bottom habitats 20 are EFH for the spiny lobster. EFH for the spiny lobster includes nearshore, shelf, and oceanic 21 waters; shallow subtidal bottom; seagrass habitat; soft sediment; and coral, hard-bottom, 22 sponge, algal, and mangrove communities. HAPCs include Biscayne Bay and Card Sound 23 (SAFMC 1998-TN212). The Ecological Associates, Inc. (EAI 2009-TN154) reports that both 24 juvenile and adult spiny lobster may be present near the Turkey Point site.

25 3.1.3 Pink Shrimp Fishery Management Plan

26 SAFMC’s shrimp FMP (SAFMC 1998-TN212) includes five species: brown shrimp 27 (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), pink shrimp, rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris), royal red shrimp 28 (Pleoticus robustus), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). Of these, the pink shrimp is 29 considered the most common to Biscayne Bay, and is expected to occur near the Turkey Point 30 site; this species was specifically identified by NOAA/NMFS as a species with designated EFH 31 within the project area (Nelson et al. 1991-TN174; EAI 2009-TN154; NOAA 2010-TN835). 32 Juvenile and adult pink shrimp are omnivorous bottom feeders; they eat polychaetes, 33 amphipods, nematodes, other small , and organic debris or detritus. This species is 34 most commonly found on hard sand and shell bottom habitats. Rates of growth for all penaeid 35 shrimp are highly variable and are influenced by water salinity and temperature; low 36 temperatures and high salinity inhibit their growth (SAFMC 1998-TN212). EFH for penaeid 37 shrimp includes inshore estuarine nursery areas, offshore marine habitats, and all 38 interconnecting waterbodies. Inshore nursery areas include tidal freshwater, estuarine and 39 marine wetland systems, nearshore mangrove and seagrass habitats, and intertidal and subtidal 40 non-vegetated flats (SAFMC 1998-TN212).

3-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 3.2 Habitat Areas of Particular Concern

2 HAPCs for the snapper-grouper species complex include medium- to high-profile offshore and 3 nearshore hard-bottom areas, mangroves, seagrass, and all designated nursery areas 4 (SAFMC 1998-TN212; NOAA 2010-TN835). Spiny lobster HAPCs include Biscayne Bay and 5 Card Sound (SAFMC 1998-TN212). HAPCs for pink shrimp include all coastal inlets, all State- 6 designated nursery habitats of particular importance to shrimp, and all State-identified 7 overwintering areas (SAFMC 1998-TN212).

8 HAPCs for coral, coral reefs, and hard bottoms include Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National 9 Park (NOAA 2010-TN835).

3-3

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.0 EFH Species Life-History Information

2 Life-history information for the snapper-grouper, spiny lobster, and shrimp fisheries is presented 3 in the following sections.

4 4.1 Snapper-Grouper Fishery

5 The Snapper-Grouper FMP recognizes 19 species. Of these, Tilefish (Lopholatilus 6 chamaeleonticeps), Snowy Grouper (Epinephelus niveatus), Blueline Tilefish (Caulolatilus 7 microps), Warsaw Grouper (Epinephelus nigritus), and Yellowedge Grouper (E. flavolimbatus) 8 make up 97 percent of the catch by weight (SAFMC 1998-TN212). These species exhibit a 9 variety of spawning patterns that include (1) spawning only during one or two winter months, (2) 10 spawning at low levels year-round with one or two peaks in spawning activity during warmer 11 months, and 3) year-round spawning with multiple peak spawning activities (SAFMC 1998- 12 TN212). EFH for this fishery includes coral reefs, live/hard-bottom substrates, submerged 13 aquatic vegetation, and artificial reefs or other features with medium to high profiles. These fish 14 are found in water depths ranging from intertidal (nearshore) locations to at least 600 ft. EFH 15 also includes spawning areas in the water column and pelagic environments. As described by 16 NOAA (2010-TN835), EFH in Biscayne Bay adjacent to the Turkey Point site includes attached 17 macroalgae, submerged aquatic vegetation and seagrasses, estuarine emergent vegetated 18 wetlands, mangrove fringe, oyster reef and shell banks, unconsolidated soft-bottom sediments, 19 and live/hard-bottom substrates. As described in Table 3-1, representative species included in 20 the Snapper-Grouper Fishery known to occur in Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point include Gray 21 Snapper, Dog Snapper, Mutton Snapper, Bluestriped Grunt, and White Grunt. As noted above, 22 Bluestriped Grunt were removed from SAFMC’s snapper-grouper management complex in 23 2012. Life-history information for each representative species follows. Unless otherwise noted, 24 life-history information was obtained from the Florida Museum of Natural History (FMNH) 25 (FMNH 2012-TN167).

26 4.1.1 Gray Snapper (Lutjanus griseus)

27 Gray Snapper are found in the western Atlantic Ocean from Massachusetts to Bermuda, and 28 are abundant along the Florida coast. Because Biscayne Bay serves as a juvenile nursery 29 habitat for Gray Snapper, Robles et al. (2005-TN198) included this species as a surrogate for 30 assessing the condition of marine resources in the bay. Nelson et al. (1991-TN174) noted that 31 Gray Snapper adults, juveniles, and larvae were abundant to highly abundant in Biscayne Bay 32 in salinities ranging from 0.5 to >25 ppt. In a 2008−2009 survey of Card Sound near Turkey 33 Point (EAI 2009-TN154), Gray Snapper accounted for approximately 3 percent of the fish 34 collected. Young fish are found in nearshore seagrass beds and soft and sand-bottom habitats, 35 including Biscayne Bay, and gradually move to coral reefs as young adults. Adult fish tend to 36 remain in the same area for long periods of time. SAFMC considers mangrove habitat as EFH 37 for juvenile Gray Snapper, and seagrass and unconsolidated bottom habitat as EFH for both 38 juvenile and adult Gray Snapper. Mangroves and seagrass communities are also considered 39 HAPCs for many species within the snapper-grouper complex (SAFMC 1998-TN212). Gray 40 Snapper are omnivorous; they eat a variety of invertebrate and fish species. Juveniles feed by 41 day in seagrass beds, eating crustaceans, smaller fish, and polychaetes; adults feed at night,

4-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 eating smaller fish, crab, shrimp, gastropods, and . Predators include sharks, 2 barracudas, groupers, moray eels, and other larger fish. SAFMC regulations for areas 3 to 3 200 mi off the coasts of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida include a 12 in. 4 minimum size for commercial and recreational fishing, and a bag limit of 10 snappers per 5 person for recreational harvest. Allowable gear for commercial and recreational fishing include 6 vertical hook and line, spearfishing gear without rebreathers, and powerheads, except where 7 expressly prohibited (SAFMC 2012-TN1325). Commercial landings of Gray Snapper on the 8 east coast of Florida from 2000 to 2010 ranged from a high of nearly 70,000 lb in 2002 to a low 9 of approximately 24,000 lb in 2010, and a general decline was noted during that period 10 (Figure 4-1). The total value of the catch from 2000 to 2010 was estimated to be approximately 11 $945,000 (NOAA 2012-TN1331).

12 13 Figure 4-1. Commercial Landing of Gray, Dog, and Mutton Snapper from the East Coast 14 of Florida, 2000−2010. (Source: NOAA 2012-TN1331)

15 4.1.2 Dog Snapper (Lutjanus jocu)

16 Dog Snapper have a distribution similar to Gray Snapper, although they are rarely found north 17 of Florida. Adult Dog Snapper are commonly found in and rocky bottom habitats in 18 water depths ranging from 16 to 100 ft. This species is one of the only lutjanids found in 19 freshwater, and young fish are often seen in estuaries and may swim into rivers. Dog Snapper 20 in March near Jamaica and the northeastern Caribbean, and both eggs and larvae are 21 planktonic. Post-larval stages settle out of to suitable bottom habitat, and juveniles 22 move to coral reef or rocky bottom habitat where they live as adults. The SAFMC considers 23 mangrove communities EFH for Dog Snapper, and mangrove and seagrass communities 24 HAPCs for species within the snapper-grouper complex (SAFMC 1998-TN212). Dog Snapper 25 are nocturnal predators that eat smaller fish and a variety of benthic invertebrates. Predators 26 include sharks, groupers, and other large fish. SAFMC regulations for this species are identical 27 to those described for Gray Snapper (SAFMC 2012-TN1325). Commercial landing of Dog 28 Snapper for the east coast of Florida from 2000 to 2010 was minimal, ranging from 37 to 216 lb 29 (Figure 4-1), with a total value of less than $2,000 (NOAA 2012-TN1331).

4-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 4.1.3 Mutton Snapper (Lutjanus analis)

2 Mutton Snapper are commonly found in the tropical waters of Florida, the Bahamas, and the 3 . Adults are found in offshore reef or rock rubble habitats, and juveniles are 4 frequently found in shallow nearshore waters that include tidal mangrove creeks, canals, and 5 sheltered bays where sandy or seagrass habitats are present. The SAFMC has designated 6 seagrass meadows as EFH for juvenile Mutton Snapper and mangrove and seagrass habitats 7 as HAPCs for many species within the snapper-grouper complex (SAFMC 1998-TN212). 8 Larvae feed on plankton near the surface of the water and on larger plankton and small 9 invertebrates as they grow and settle to the bottom. Larger individuals eat shrimp, snails, crab, 10 and smaller fish. Large predatory fish prey on Mutton Snapper. This species is a popular 11 recreational fish and made up the majority of the commercial snapper catch until population 12 declines limited harvest. This species is caught using seines, gill nets, longlines, handlines, 13 traps, and spearfishing gear. SAFMC regulations for Mutton Snapper include a 16 in. minimum 14 size for both commercial and recreational harvest, and commercial limits of 10 fish per person 15 per day or per trip, whichever is more restrictive. Allowable gear for the harvest of Mutton 16 Snapper is identical to that described for Gray Snapper (SAFMC 2012-TN1325). Commercial 17 landings of Mutton Snapper from the east coast of Florida from 2000 to 2010 ranged from over 18 47,000 lb in 2001−2002 to 13,293 lb in 2008; a general decline in the fishery was observed 19 during that period (Figure 4-1). The total value of the catch from 2000 to 2010 was estimated to 20 be approximately $811,000 (NOAA 2012-TN1331).

21 4.1.4 White Grunt (Haemulon plumieri)

22 The White Grunt is found in the western Atlantic Ocean from the Chesapeake Bay to the 23 eastern Gulf of Mexico, and in the Caribbean Sea south to Brazil. It rarely occurs north of South 24 Carolina. This species is found at nearshore locations to a depth of about 80 ft. The SAFMC 25 considers seagrass and unconsolidated bottom habitat as EFH for this species. Adults prefer 26 coral reef or sandy substrates; juveniles are found in nearshore seagrass beds. As described 27 above, mangrove and seagrass habitats are considered HAPC for many species within the 28 snapper-grouper complex (SAFMC 1998-TN212). Adult White Grunts are nocturnal feeders; 29 they eat a variety of prey, including benthic crustaceans, mollusks, echinoderms, and smaller 30 fish. Juvenile grunts are planktivores and feed during daylight hours. Predators include 31 members of the snapper-grouper complex, lizardfishes, Spanish Mackerel, and other large 32 piscivores. White Grunts are considered a recreational gamefish, but are not exploited 33 commercially. No commercial harvest statistics were available for this species from the east 34 coast of Florida (NOAA 2012-TN1331).

35 4.2 Spiny Lobster Fishery

36 The Caribbean spiny lobster (Panulirus argus), also known as the Florida spiny lobster, is found 37 in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, and in the Gulf of 38 Mexico. Spawning occurs from March to April, and larvae may be carried thousands of miles on 39 prevailing currents before settling in nearshore areas in seagrass meadows and algae beds. As 40 the lobsters mature, they make their way from nearshore nursery areas to deeper-water coral 41 reef systems, sponge flats, and hard-bottomed habitats (FFWCC 2010-TN162). Both Biscayne 42 Bay and Card Sound contain EFH and HAPC for spiny lobster, which is identified as nearshore

4-3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 shelf/oceanic waters, shallow subtidal bottom communities, seagrass and algae habitats, areas 2 where unconsolidated soft sediments occur, and coral and hard-bottom substrates 3 (SAFMC 1998-TN212). Spiny lobster eat a variety of prey, including snails, clams, crabs, and 4 urchins. Commercial and recreational fishery for spiny lobster occurs from August to March 5 (FFWCC 2010-TN162); harvest is not allowed from April 1 through August 5 (SAFMC 2012- 6 TN1325). Commercial landings from the east coast of Florida from 2000 to 2010 ranged from 7 approximately 300,000 to 600,000 lb, and appeared to vary without trend during that time period 8 (NOAA 2012-TN1331) (Figure 4-2).

9 10 Figure 4-2. Commercial Landing of Spiny Lobster and Pink Shrimp from the East Coast 11 of Florida, 2000−2010. (Source: NOAA 2012-TN1331)

12 4.3 Shrimp Fishery

13 In the southeast United States, white shrimp, brown shrimp, pink shrimp, and rock shrimp 14 compose the majority of the harvest (SAFMC 1998-TN212). Of these, pink shrimp adult, 15 juvenile, and larvae are common to, and abundant in, Biscayne Bay (Nelson et al. 1991-TN174). 16 Eggs, larvae, juveniles, adults, and spawning adult grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) are also 17 common in Biscayne Bay (Nelson et al. 1991-TN174). Brown shrimp in the Atlantic Ocean 18 occur primarily in offshore waters that are less than 55 m (180 ft) deep. Spawning occurs 19 offshore, and eggs and larvae drift into shallower habitat under the influence of tides and 20 currents. Pink shrimp are generally found in water depths of 11 to 37 m (36 to 121 ft), and are 21 also common in the shallow waters of Biscayne Bay. Pink shrimp spawn off eastern Florida, 22 primarily in the summer months, at depths of 3.7 to 15.8 m (12 to 52 ft). Rock shrimp prefer 23 sandy bottom habitat from a few meters to 183 m (600 ft) in depth. White shrimp primarily 24 aggregate in Atlantic Ocean waters less than 27 m (89 ft) deep. Spawning occurs off Georgia 25 and Florida when bottom water temperatures reach 22°C and 29°C (71.6°F and 84.2°F), usually 26 in mid-spring. As juveniles and adults, brown, pink, rock, and white shrimp feed on an

4-4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 omnivorous diet in benthic habitats at night. The SAFMC (1998-TN212) considers EFH for 2 penaeid shrimp to include inshore estuarine nursery areas, offshore marine habitats used for 3 spawning and growth to maturity, and all connecting waterbodies. HAPCs includes all coastal 4 inlets, all State-designated nursery habitats of particular importance to shrimp, and all State- 5 identified overwintering areas. As noted by NOAA/NMFS (NOAA 2010-TN835), mangroves, 6 seagrass, and unconsolidated bottom habitats in Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point are EFH for 7 pink shrimp. The shrimp fishery is highly regulated, and commercial trawlers must obtain a 8 commercial vessel permit from the SAFMC. The Penaeid Shrimp FMP also allows the States of 9 North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida to request a closure of the Atlantic coast fishery 10 if severe cold weather results in a reduction of white shrimp of 80 percent or greater. During a 11 Federal closure, a buffer zone extending from the shore out 25 nautical miles is established, 12 and trawling with a net that has a mesh size of less than 4 in. is not allowed (SAFMC 2012- 13 TN1325). Commercial catch statistics for pink shrimp for the east coast of Florida from 2000 to 14 2010 are presented in Figure 4-2. During that period, catches ranged from approximately 15 200,000 lb to 900,000 lb, with the highest catches occurring in 2000 and 2006 and the lowest 16 catches in 2003 and 2007 (NOAA 2012-TN1331).

4-5

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.0 Potential Adverse Effects on EFH

2 According to 50 CFR 600.810 (TN1342; 16 USC 1801 et seq. [TN1061]), adverse impacts on 3 EFH occur when there is a reduction in the quality or quantity of habitat attributes as defined 4 below.

5 Adverse Effect on EFH 6 Adverse effect means any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may 7 include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, 8 or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such 9 modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions 10 occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including 11 individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. (50 CFR 600.810(a) (TN1342)

12 The review team will use the following three impact level conclusions with regard to the 13 construction and operation of the proposed Units 6 and 7: 14  no adverse impact expected, 15  minimal adverse impact expected, or 16  substantial adverse impact expected.

17 These impact categories are similar, but not identical, to the SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE 18 categories used in the NRC’s EIS (NUREG-2176). In this review, impacts on EFH or HAPCs 19 are evaluated for construction and operation of the reclaimed wastewater cooling system, 20 construction and operation of the RCW system, proposed barge canal expansion, and 21 discharge of cooling water blowdown into a deep-aquifer formation. Because the majority of the 22 construction activities would not occur in nearshore areas, aquatic effects resulting from the 23 construction of the reactor power block, related facilities and infrastructure, and transmission- 24 line systems would not be included in this assessment unless they have a potential to noticeably 25 affect groundwater or surface-water flows and affect Biscayne Bay or Card Sound. A complete 26 discussion of potential impacts related to the construction and operation of proposed Turkey 27 Point Units 6 and 7 will be found in the NRC’s EIS (NUREG-2176).

28 What follows is a discussion of potential impacts on EFH and HAPCs related to the construction 29 and operation of the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7. As described above, this review 30 focuses primarily on construction and operational activities that have the greatest potential to 31 affect EFH and HAPCs. The review incorporates, when applicable, the analysis and results 32 reported in the NRC’s EIS (NUREG-2176). The draft EIS provides a complete description of the 33 proposed site layout and plant description in Section 3, and an assessment of construction and 34 operational impacts in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Chapter 7 of the NRC EIS provides an 35 assessment of cumulative effects. As described above, additional information about the 36 proposed construction and operational activities for Turkey Point 6 Units 6 and 7 can be found 37 in FPL’s ER and the information and reports provided by FPL during the SCA process.

5-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.1 Construction and Operation of the Cooling Water System using Reclaimed 2 Wastewater

3 As discussed previously, the primary source of cooling water for proposed Units 6 and 7 would 4 be reclaimed wastewater from the MDWASD. Potential impacts on EFH and HAPCs in 5 Biscayne Bay and Card Sound could include habitat disturbance or loss during the construction 6 of the RWTF and associated water lines or cooling towers as well as indirect effects related to 7 stormwater or building or construction-related runoff entering nearshore areas. Because the 8 proposed units will not use a surface-water intake, operational impacts on EFH and HAPCs 9 related to the use of reclaimed wastewater would be associated with dispersion of very small 10 quantities of cooling-tower drift containing chemical contaminants not removed during the final 11 onsite treatment process to the IWF and nearshore waters of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. 12 Blowdown from the Units 6 and 7 cooling water system would be discharged to the Lower 13 Floridan aquifer by deep well injection with no surface water discharge.

14 5.1.1 Construction

15 As described in Section 3.2.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176), the RWTF would be located west 16 of the proposed units and occupy approximately 44 ac. Pipelines would extend north to link with 17 the MDWASD South District Wastewater Treatment Plant. Because construction of reclaimed 18 wastewater infrastructure would occur west and north of the Turkey Point site well away from 19 nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay (Figure 2-2), nearshore habitat disturbance would not occur 20 and no construction-related runoff would be discharged into nearshore locations. Thus, the 21 NRC staff does not expect adverse impacts on EFH or HAPCs to occur during the construction 22 of the reclaimed wastewater pipelines, RWTF, or related structures. Likewise, construction of 23 the cooling towers that would support both reclaimed wastewater and RCW systems would be 24 confined to Turkey Point property. RCW construction would not result in adverse impacts on 25 EFH or HAPCs in nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay with regard to habitat disturbance or loss, or 26 from construction or stormwater runoff because all collected water would be routed into the 27 existing IWF. There is also no evidence that construction-related activities would affect surface- 28 water or groundwater resources in such a way that noticeable effects would occur in nearshore 29 areas of Biscayne Bay or Card Sound.

30 5.1.2 Operation

31 During operation, proposed Units 6 and 7 would use approximately 50,000 gpm of reclaimed 32 wastewater from the MDWASD. Before entering the cooling system, the water would be treated 33 at an onsite facility to reduce the concentrations of iron, magnesium, oil and grease, total 34 suspended solids, nutrients, and silica (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, Section 3.2.2.2). Because the 35 cooling system design does not include a surface-water intake, no adverse impacts on EFH or 36 HAPCs in Biscayne Bay or Card Sound from impingement or entrainment would occur. During 37 the development of the EIS, the review team assessed the potential environmental impacts of 38 cooling-tower deposition that would occur when reclaimed wastewater is used. Because this 39 water source may contain chemical contaminants that are not removed by the water-treatment 40 process, there is a potential for deposition on waterbodies at or near the Turkey Point site. To 41 address the potential for cooling-tower drift to affect aquatic resources, the review team 42 conducted a screening-level assessment that identified potential contaminants in cooling-tower

5-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 drift and predicted their deposition using fate and transport models (Sections 5.2.1.3 and 5.3.2.1 2 in the NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Assessment in 3 Appendix F. Modeling results suggest that because the majority of the cooling-tower drift would 4 be confined over the existing IWF, adverse effects to nearshore waters of Biscayne Bay is 5 unlikely. Because of the extremely low drift rates from all the Units 6 and 7 cooling towers 6 (approximately 8 gpm), deposition into Biscayne Bay would be limited and widely dispersed, 7 and any contaminants entering Biscayne Bay or Card Sound would be further diluted and 8 undetectable in surface waters. Based on those results, the NRC staff does not expect adverse 9 impacts on EFH or HAPCs from cooling-tower drift when reclaimed wastewater would be used 10 in the Units 6 and 7 cooling system.

11 5.2 Construction and Operation of the Radial Collector Well Cooling System

12 As described above, the primary source of cooling water for the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 13 and 7 would be reclaimed wastewater from the MDWASD. Because the reclaimed wastewater 14 supply may vary in quantity and quality, FPL has chosen to install an RCW system on the 15 Turkey Point peninsula to provide a secondary source of cooling water. The RCW system 16 would consist of four reinforced caissons, each with laterals extending approximately 900 ft into 17 Biscayne Bay at a depth of 24 to 40 ft beneath the bay sediment. During RCW operation, 18 saltwater would be extracted from Biscayne Bay subsurface sediment and used as cooling 19 water for Units 6 and 7. RCW use would be limited to 60 days per year (State of Florida 2014- 20 TN3637). The review team noted that the actual duration of pumping would not be continuous 21 because the FDEP permit conditions require that pumping be limited to up to 60 days per year 22 (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). Potential impacts on EFH and HAPCs include those related to 23 the construction of the RCW system, and possible changes to nearshore salinity resulting from 24 RCW operation that have the potential to affect larval, juvenile, or adult fish and invertebrate or 25 seagrass resources. Infrequent entrainment of eggs or larvae is also possible during RCW 26 operation, and could increase if significant fractures of the limestone formations above the 27 laterals extending under Biscayne Bay occur. The review team also evaluated the potential for 28 cooling-tower drift containing salt or other chemicals or constituents to affect nearshore 29 resources in Biscayne Bay or Card Sound.

30 5.2.1 Impacts of Construction

31 As described in Section 4.3.2.1 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176) the RCW system would be 32 constructed on previously disturbed land at the northern edge of the Turkey Point site. 33 Approximately 3 ac of land would be needed for the RCW system and associated facilities, an 34 additional 3 ac of industrial/fill habitat would be needed for construction activities, and 35 approximately 13 ac of land would be disturbed during the construction of the water-supply 36 pipelines to the new units. FPL’s general concern about construction activities on the Turkey 37 Point peninsula is related to the potential for disturbance or loss of mangrove habitat that 38 supports important aquatic species, including those with designated EFH. FPL has indicated 39 that RCW caissons would be installed primarily in areas of existing upland fill and roadways to 40 avoid affecting adjacent mangrove wetlands. FPL expects pipeline installation to result in 41 temporary impacts on approximately 3 ac of mangrove wetlands. After installation, these areas 42 would be backfilled with native soil and allowed to naturally revegetate (FPL 2012-TN2582). 43 Because the majority of the RCW construction would occur at upland locations, the review team

5-3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 expects potential impacts on EFH or HAPCs in Biscayne Bay to be minimal and temporary. 2 During lateral drilling, BMPs would be used to reduce the potential for surface-water or sediment 3 disturbance. The effects of noise and vibration associated with on-land construction were 4 assessed in Revision 6 of FPL’s ER (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL stated that construction-related 5 noise could reach 100 dBA at 100 ft from the source of the sound. However, at 400 ft from the 6 sound source, FPL predicted that noise levels would drop to within 60 to 80 dBA; a level that is 7 unlikely to startle wildlife. The general conclusion in ER Revision 6 (FPL 2014-TN4058) and 8 FPL 2014-TN3717 was that aerial noise would likely not affect aquatic species near the Turkey 9 Point site. The effect of noise and vibration related to the construction of the RCW laterals 10 using microtunnneling techniques is discussed by FPL (2014-TN3717). Modeling results 11 presented in the report suggest that installation of RCW laterals would generate a maximum of 12 120 dB re 1Pa at 1 m from the drill head, and drilling would occur 25 to 40 ft below the bottom 13 of Biscayne Bay. FPL estimated that construction duration would be approximately 2 to 4 years. 14 FPL concluded that sound and vibration would be dampened by the overlying limestone and 15 bottom sediments as it moved upward to the sediment-water interface at the bottom of Biscayne 16 Bay (FPL 2014-TN3717). The significance of these noise and vibration emissions is discussed 17 below.

18 5.2.2 Impacts of Operation

19 Potential impacts on aquatic resources of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound from the operation of 20 the RCW system are described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176). To 21 determine if the operation of the RCW system could noticeably change nearshore salinity and 22 adversely affect aquatic resources, the review team evaluated historical salinity data provided 23 by the NPS and others to better understand the inherent spatial and temporal variability of 24 salinity at both nearshore and offshore locations within Biscayne Bay. The review team also 25 reviewed the salinity impact numerical models developed by FPL, the NPS, and the U.S. 26 Geological Survey (USGS) to assess how RCWs might affect nearshore salinity (NUREG-2176, 27 Section 5.2.2.1).

28 To assess the potential for RCW operation to noticeably change nearshore salinity patterns and 29 adversely affect sensitive species, the review team evaluated historical salinity data provided by 30 the NPS and others to understand the inherent spatial and temporal variability at nearshore and 31 offshore locations in Biscayne Bay near Turkey Point. The team also reviewed assessments of 32 salinity impacts provided by FPL and the NPS, and a numerical model developed by the USGS 33 that compared existing (base case) salinity conditions to predicted conditions under three RCW 34 operational scenarios: 1) continuous RCW pumping throughout the year (Scenarios A, B, and 35 C), 2) repeated annual periods of pumping of 3 months duration during the dry season followed 36 by 9 months with no pumping (Scenario D), and 3) repeated pumping periods of 30 days 37 followed by 90 days of no pumping (Scenarios E, F, and G). The review team evaluated the 38 base case and Scenarios A (continuous pumping) and D (3 months pumping followed by 9 39 months without pumping). A description of the USGS model results is presented in Section 40 5.2.1.1; additional information is provided in Appendix G of the EIS, NUREG-2176 and by 41 NRC (2014-TN3078).

42 The review team’s examination of time series indicated that variations in salinity predicted from 43 continuous pumping were mostly within ±1 psu, with only transient increases to near 2 psu

5-4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176 Appendix G, Figure G-9). When the review team examined the spatial 2 distribution results at the time when salinity time-series differences predicted an increase 3 (10/3/2003), the increase (which was less than +2 psu) was predicted to occur in a relatively 4 small area north of Turkey Point (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, Appendix G, Figure G-10). When 5 the review team examined the spatial distribution results at the time when salinity time-series 6 differences predicted a decrease (10/25/2004), the decrease (which was greater than -2 psu) 7 was also predicted to occur in a relatively small area north of Turkey Point (NRC EIS, NUREG- 8 2176, Appendix G, Figure G-11). These results show that the variation in salinity would be 9 minimal with continuous RCW pumping. The review team noted that the actual duration of 10 pumping would not be continuous because the FDEP permit conditions require that pumping be 11 limited to 60 days or less per year (State of Florida 2014-TN3637). A shorter duration would 12 allow time for the groundwater system to recover following RCW pumping and limit the 13 entrainment of saltwater from Biscayne Bay. Therefore, the effect on Biscayne Bay salinity from 14 any permitted pumping would be much reduced from the already minimal salinity change 15 predicted with the USGS modeling analyses.

16 In Section 5.3.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176), the review team assessed the potential for 17 impingement and entrainment of larval fish and invertebrates from RCW system operation. In 18 Section 5.3.1.2 of its ER (FPL 2014-TN4058), FPL estimates the downwelling water velocity 19 during RCW operation would be approximately 0.00002 fps. Because the downwelling velocity 20 is expected to be hundreds to thousands of times smaller than current speeds measured by 21 acoustic Doppler profilers during ebb and flood tide events for south-central Biscayne Bay 22 (McAdory et al. 2002-TN1155), entrainment or impingement of aquatic species would be highly 23 unlikely. Thus, the review team does not expect adverse impacts on benthic communities from 24 RCW operation. However, if significant fractures of the limestone above the RCW laterals were 25 to occur (e.g., frac-out), preferential flow patterns associated with RCW system operation could 26 noticeably alter flow dynamics at specific locations surrounding the Turkey Point site, and the 27 potential for some limited impingement and entrainment could occur. Life stages susceptible to 28 impingement and entrainment would include eggs, larvae, or juvenile forms of species included 29 in the Snapper-Grouper FMP, and the eggs, larvae, and juvenile forms of spiny lobster and 30 penaeid shrimp. Because significant fractures of the limestone overlying the RCW laterals 31 would likely be confined to a small portion of Biscayne Bay above the RCW well laterals, 32 impingement and entrainment effects would likely not be noticeable, and would neither 33 destabilize nor noticeably alter EFH or HAPCs. Because FDEP permit conditions limit RCW 34 use to 60 days per year (State of Florida 2014-TN3637), the potential for impingement or 35 entrainment would be further reduced. Based on the above discussion, the review team 36 concludes that no adverse effects associated with the entrainment or impingement of aquatic 37 resources under normal RCW system operation are expected, and minimal, localized adverse 38 effects are expected if a frac-out event occurs. The review team reached a similar conclusion of 39 no adverse effects on EFH and HAPCs with regard to cooling-tower salt deposition during RCW 40 system operation. As described in Section 5.2.1.3 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176), deposition 41 of salt and chemicals associated with RCW system operation would occur primarily over the 42 IWF and areas to the south and west of the Turkey Point site. Any cooling-tower drift falling 43 onto Biscayne Bay would be rapidly diluted and undetectable.

5-5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 5.3 Equipment Barge-Unloading Area Expansion to Support Construction of 2 Units 6 and 7

3 As described in Section 2.4, the existing equipment barge-unloading area located at the 4 northeastern port of the Turkey Point site would be dredged and expanded to support 5 construction of proposed Units 6 and 7 (Figure 2-2). A complete description of the planned 6 expansion of the existing equipment barge-unloading area is provided in Section 4.3.2.2.1 of the 7 FPL ER (FPL 2014-TN4058). FPL plans to expand the barge-unloading area to a total area of 8 approximately 0.75 ac, which would involve the dredging of approximately 0.1 ac in the turning 9 basin. FPL (FPL 2014-TN4058) describes a survey of the area that showed sparse growth of 10 seagrasses and algae within the turning basin. Material dredged from the turning basin would be 11 placed in designated spoils-disposal areas located on existing berms within the IWF. FPL has 12 submitted an application to USACE for a permit to dredge under the Clean Water Act, Section 13 404(b)(1) “Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material” (40 CFR 14 Part 230) (TN427), as described in the ER (FPL 2014-TN4058). Although FPL intends to use 15 sheet piles and curtain walls to separate the excavation area from the barge-turning basin to 16 reduce turbidity impacts on Biscayne Bay, temporary impacts on water quality would be likely 17 during construction. Based on the description of the expansion activities, the NRC staff expects 18 adverse impacts on EFH and HAPCs to be minimal, but could be substantial but temporary at 19 specific nearshore locations when dredging and expansion activities occur. Larval and juvenile 20 forms of species included in the Snapper-Grouper, spiny lobster, and penaeid shrimp FMPs are 21 most susceptible to water-quality or turbidity impacts. Impacts would be expected to diminish 22 after dredging and construction activities ceased. Because these impacts would be localized 23 and temporary, the NRC staff does not expect adverse impacts related to nearshore dredging 24 and construction activities elsewhere in Biscayne Bay or Card Sound. Construction activities 25 would also involve 80 barge deliveries of heavy equipment to the equipment barge-unloading 26 area during the 6-year construction period. This barge traffic could lead to more frequent 27 grounding that may damage seagrass or soft-bottom resources along the barge route, but may 28 be offset by the significant decrease in barge fuel oil deliveries resulting from the decision by FPL 29 to place both Units 1 and 2 (fossil units that burn oil) in synchronous condenser mode 30 (FPL 2013-TN2630), which would likely eliminate the five to seven fuel oil deliveries per week 31 that were needed to operate these units. To assess the potential for damage to EFH and 32 HAPCs from additional barge traffic, the NRC staff reviewed U.S. Coast Guard reports on 33 grounding events near Turkey Point for the past 20 years. These records suggest that grounding 34 events associated with the current delivery rates are exceedingly rare; only three incidences 35 were reported from 1992 to 2012 (NRC EIS, NUREG-2176, Section 4.3.2.1). FPL has made 36 improvements in navigational channel marking and barge/tug masters to comply with the existing 37 Barge Delivery Plan (FPL 2009-TN169). Changes in the operation of Units 1 and 2 will also 38 significantly reduce or eliminate future fuel oil deliveries. Thus, the NRC staff does not expect 39 adverse effects on EFH and EFH species’ prey or HAPCs from barge groundings to occur.

40 The potential for impacts from in-water or nearshore construction activities at the equipment 41 barge-unloading area are discussed in FPL 2014-TN3717. Noise or vibration-producing 42 activities are primarily associated with pulsed sound associated with sheet-pile installation in the 43 equipment barge-unloading area, which would occur over a 2-week period. To assess the 44 effects of percussive sound emissions that would occur during sheet-pile installation, FPL used

5-6 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 numerical models and other sources of information to calculate potential impact radii 2 corresponding to the threshold for physical or auditory injury (180 dB peak, 187 Sound 3 Exposure Level [SEL]) and behavioral response changes (150 dB root mean square [RMS]) in 4 representative fish species (Smalltooth Sawfish and Nassau Grouper). Given predicted noise 5 levels at the sheet-pile installation location of 220 dB peak pressure and 194 dB cumulative 6 sound exposure, physical or auditory injury to fish is possible at a distance of 30 ft from the 7 sheet-pile installation site and behavioral responses could occur up to 2,815 ft from the site 8 (FPL 2014-TN3717). The significance of the noise modeling estimates is discussed below.

9 5.4 Deep-Aquifer Injection of Cooling-Tower Blowdown

10 As described in Section 3.2.2.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176) and Section 3.3 of the FPL ER 11 (FPL 2014-TN4058), liquid discharges from the proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 would be 12 transported via pipeline to injection wells for disposal. Because deep-injection wells would 13 extend 3,500 ft below grade, the NRC staff does not expect adverse effects on EFH or HAPCs 14 from liquid discharge disposal.

15 The NRC staff found no information available on biological communities that may be present in 16 deep-aquifer formations near Turkey Point. Therefore an assessment of adverse effects to 17 such potential communities is not possible. However, because the isolation of this habitat from 18 surface waters is significant, no impact to EFH is expected.

5-7

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 6.0 EFH Cumulative Effects Analysis

2 The description of the aquatic habitat presented in Section 2.4.2 of the NRC EIS (NUREG-2176) 3 serves as the baseline for the cumulative effects analysis. What follows is a brief summary of 4 the historical context for the cumulative impacts assessment, followed by a description of 5 current or reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect EFH and HAPCs near the project 6 area.

7 6.1 Historical Context

8 As described in Section 2.2.1, the landscape and ecosystem of South Florida have changed 9 dramatically since the late 1800s and early 1900s when flood-control systems were constructed 10 to support development and farming. The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project 11 authorized by Congress in 1948 resulted in the loss of thousands of acres of wetlands and 12 substantially altered the hydrologic connections and patterns in the region. The result has been 13 dramatically reduced sheet flow, the creation of point-source discharges of freshwater into 14 coastal areas, and a noticeable change in the aquatic food webs presented in freshwater, 15 estuarine, and marine systems. Thus, the existing environment is considered substantially 16 altered from historical conditions and may or may not face further degradation and alteration 17 during the proposed Units 6 and 7 license period. The way the system looks and functions in 18 the future will depend, in part, on the influence of existing and future stressors, and the success 19 or failure of planned restoration efforts, as described below.

20 6.2 Existing Turkey Point Units

21 The existing Turkey Point site described in Section 3 encompasses 9,400 ac and currently 22 contains five power-generating plants. Units 1 and 2 are natural-gas/oil steam electrical 23 generating units designed to produce 400 MW(e). Unit 1 has been in service since 1967 and 24 Unit 2 has been in service since 1968. Unit 2 was recently converted to operate in synchronous 25 condenser mode to provide voltage stability for the transmission system in southeastern Florida. 26 In this mode, it no longer generates power using a steam cycle or provides a significant thermal 27 discharge to the IWF. FPL also expects to convert Unit 1 to a similar purpose starting in 2016 28 (FPL 2013-TN2630). Two pressurized water reactors, each producing approximately 29 810 MW(e), and associated facilities (Units 3 and 4) are also located on the site. Unit 3 has 30 been in service since 1972 and Unit 4 has been in service since 1973. Both units received 31 renewed operating licenses, which will allow Unit 3 to operate until 2032 and Unit 4 to operate 32 until 2033 (NRC 2012-TN1299). Unit 5 is a natural-gas combined-cycle unit that began 33 operating in 2007 and is rated to produce 1,150 MW(e). These existing units occupy 34 approximately 195 ac. Units 1 through 4 on the Turkey Point site rely on a system of canals that 35 occupy approximately 5,900 ac on the Turkey Point site to provide cooling water. The canals 36 are used as a closed-loop cooling system, and they are permitted as an IWF. Mechanical draft 37 cooling towers are used to dissipate heat from Unit 5. Water from the Upper Floridan aquifer is 38 withdrawn to provide makeup water to Unit 5. Blowdown from the cooling towers is sent to the 39 cooling canals of the IWF (FPL 2014-TN4058).

6-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 As noted in Section 6, the hydrological connection between the IWF and Biscayne Bay is not 2 well understood, but there is no direct discharge from the IWF into nearshore areas of Biscayne 3 Bay. Because the existing Units 1−5 have limited connection to Biscayne Bay and surrounding 4 waterbodies, the cumulative effects of their operation will likely be confined to species inhabiting 5 the IWF.

6 6.3 Cutler Units 5 and 6

7 Cutler Units 5 and 6 are located approximately 14 mi north of the Turkey Point site. These 8 fossil-fuel units have a combined rated output of 232 MW and a design flow of 297 Mgd to 9 support once-through cooling. Cooling water is obtained from and discharged to Biscayne Bay 10 under the State of Florida National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit FL0001481 11 (FDEP 2005-TN1148). These units were retired in the fourth quarter of 2012 (FPL 2013- 12 TN2630) and dismantled. Thus, the contribution of Cutler Units 5 and 6 to cumulative effects is 13 negligible.

14 6.4 Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition Restoration

15 The Model Lands Basin and Southern Glades Addition projects are located south and west, 16 respectively, of the Turkey Point site and represent a collaborative effort by the Environmentally 17 Endangered Lands Program of Miami-Dade County and the Save Our Rivers Program of the 18 South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The restoration area encompasses about 19 34,000 ac of freshwater and coastal wetlands, and serves as a key area for freshwater flow to 20 Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and Barnes Sound (SFWMD 2005-TN217). 21 Programmatic goals include improving the overall condition of wetlands through removal of 22 exotic plants, improving access control to sensitive areas, implementing a prescribed fire 23 program, and restoring wetland function through removal of physical barriers to overland flow. 24 Although many of the restoration actions do not specifically involve aquatic resources, the 25 overall program will benefit aquatic species by restoring historic flow patterns into Biscayne Bay 26 and Card Sound, and limiting future impacts through programmatic planning. If successful, 27 these projects could result in ecosystem connection and function that more closely resembles 28 what was present before industrialization and urbanization occurred in South Florida. 29 Unfortunately, noticeable changes in aquatic environments may not be evident for many years 30 after project implementation.

31 6.5 Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan

32 In May 2014, the NPS announced the availability of the final EIS for Biscayne National Park’s 33 FMP to protect and restore Biscayne National Park’s existing fisheries (NPS 2014-TN4072). 34 The plan is intended to ensure that fishing activities are conducted in a sustainable manner and 35 to comply with the NPS mandate to provide inspiration, education, and enjoyment to future 36 generations. The plan includes the following five alternatives related to future conditions within 37 Biscayne National Park:

38

6-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 1. Maintain status quo. This no-action alternative serves as a basis of comparison with the 2 other alternatives. No regulatory changes would be triggered by the establishment of 3 the FMP 4 5 2. Maintain at or above currently levels. This alternative seeks to maintain Biscayne 6 National Park's fisheries resources at or above currently existing levels. As needed, 7 management actions would be implemented (in conjunction with the FFWCC) and could 8 include moderate increases in minimum harvest sizes, moderate decreases in bag limits, 9 and seasonal and/or spatial closures 10 11 3. Improve over current levels. This alternative aims to increase the abundance and 12 average size of fishery-targeted species within the Park by at least 10 percent over 13 existing conditions. A range of management actions to achieve the desired resource 14 status would be considered, and include moderate increases in minimum harvest sizes, 15 moderate decreases in bag limits, and seasonal and/or spatial closures. Under this 16 alternative, the lobster mini-season would be eliminated in the Park and regulations 17 would be enacted to prohibit the use of an air supply or gear with a trigger mechanism 18 while spearfishing. Numbers of commercial fishers would remain at current levels or 19 decrease over time, and fishing-related habitat impacts would be reduced. 20 21 4. Rebuild and conserve park fishery resources (selected alternative). This alternative is 22 the NPS's preferred alternative and proposes to increase the abundance and average 23 size of fishery-targeted species within the Park by at least 20 percent over existing 24 conditions, as well as reduce fishing-related habitat impacts. Possible management 25 actions to achieve substantial improvement of fisheries resources could include 26 considerable increases in minimum size limits, designation of slot limits, substantial 27 decreases in bag limits, and seasonal and/or spatial closures. Under Alternative 4, the 28 lobster mini-season would be eliminated in the Park and regulations would be enacted to 29 prohibit the use of an air supply or gear with a trigger mechanism while spearfishing. 30 Numbers of commercial fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non- 31 transferable permit system. 32 33 5. Restore park fishery resources. This alternative seeks to return the sizes and 34 abundance of targeted species within 20 percent of their estimated, historic (pre- 35 exploitation) levels and to prevent further decline in fishing-related habitat impacts. 36 Possible management actions to achieve the desired conditions would be enacted in 37 conjunction with the FFWCC and could include substantial increases in minimum size 38 limits, designation of slot limits, substantial decreases in bag limits, seasonal and/or 39 spatial closures, prohibition of extractive fishing (i.e., only allowing catch-and-release 40 fishing), and a temporary moratorium on all fishing activity within the Park. Under this 41 alternative, the lobster mini-season would be eliminated in the Park and regulations 42 would be enacted to prohibit spearfishing within the Park. Numbers of commercial 43 fishers would decrease over time via establishment of a non-transferable permit system.

6-3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 Details of the plan are provided by the NPS’s FMP (NPS 2014-TN4073). The cumulative effect 2 of this proposed FMP on Biscayne Bay is unknown, but the review team expects it will provide a 3 net ecological benefit to Biscayne Bay.

4 6.6 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program

5 The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) was approved under the Water 6 Resources Development Act of 2000 (33 USC 2201) (TN1037), and is intended to provide a 7 framework for restoration, protection, and preservation of water resources in central and 8 southern Florida. The program encompasses 16 counties and more than 180,000 mi2, and is 9 expected to take more than 30 years to complete at a cost of nearly $12 billion in 2007 dollars. 10 The primary goals of CERP are to capture freshwater that now flows into nearshore coastal 11 areas as point sources and redirect it to promote more historic hydrologic conditions and 12 enhance environmental connectivity (CERP 2012-TN1035).

13 One of the key CERP projects that will affect aquatic resources in the vicinity of the Turkey Point 14 site is the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). 15 The lead agency for this project is the USACE Jacksonville District; the SFWMD serves as the 16 non-Federal cost-sharing partner. The overall goal of the project is to rehydrate coastal 17 wetlands and reduce point-source discharge of freshwater into Biscayne Bay by redirecting the 18 water to spreaders in coastal wetlands that are currently bypassed by the canal systems. This 19 is intended to improve nearshore substrate and fish habitat that are affected by high salinity 20 during the dry season and to reduce excessive freshwater outflow during the rainy season. As 21 designed, the project will divert an average of 59 percent of the freshwater discharged into 22 Biscayne Bay from coastal structures into freshwater and saltwater wetlands (USACE/SFWMD 23 2011-TN1038). If this program meets its intended goals, it should result in detectable 24 improvements in nearshore habitats and salinity reductions in Biscayne Bay.

25 As noted by the National Research Council (2008-TN666), CERP is an extremely complex, 26 long-term restoration program with 68 separate subprojects that require sophisticated scientific 27 knowledge of ecosystem function and dynamics, and the development of new approaches and 28 technologies to support water management. In its second biennial review of CERP progress, 29 the Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades Restoration Progress (National 30 Research Council 2008-TN666) concluded CERP was “…bogged down in budgeting, planning, 31 and procedural matters and is making only scant progress toward achieving restoration goals.” 32 The Committee went on to state that the ecosystems CERP is intended to save remain in peril 33 while rising construction costs and ongoing population growth and development make 34 restoration challenges more difficult (National Research Council 2008-TN666). Unfortunately, in 35 its third biennial review, the National Research Council concluded that natural system 36 restoration progress from the CERP remained slow and noted that “continued declines in some 37 aspects of the ecosystem coupled with environmental and societal changes make accelerated 38 progress in Everglades restoration even more important" (National Research Council 2010- 39 TN1036). A similar finding was reached in 2012 (National Research Council 2012-TN2685). 40 Thus, it is difficult to predict whether CERP-related restoration actions, or those funded by other 41 sources, will meet their intended goals and result in a detectable beneficial change to affected 42 aquatic resources in South Florida.

6-4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 6.7 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary

2 Because improved water quality and habitat may positively influence Card Sound and Biscayne 3 Bay, the past, present, and future activities associated with the FKNMS may influence 4 cumulative effects. In 2011, NOAA released a report that summarized the state of FKNMS 5 resources with respect to water, habitat, living resources, and maritime archaeological 6 resources (NOAA 2011-TN1847). The conclusions related to water suggested that, although 7 some management actions have reduced impacts on water quality, conditions were either 8 declining or had not appreciably changed. A similar conclusion was reached for metrics 9 associated with habitat and living resources. In response to this report, the FKNMS indicated it 10 will continue implementation of its water-quality protection program in conjunction with the U.S. 11 Environmental Protection Agency and FDEP to reduce point and nonpoint-source pollution and 12 work collaboratively with State and Federal agencies to provide enforcement of existing laws. 13 FKNMS will also continue to implement its marine zoning and permitting program to reduce 14 habitat loss and destruction within sanctuary boundaries. These actions are expected to benefit 15 both FKNMS and surrounding waterbodies, including open-ocean environments adjacent to the 16 sanctuary and Card Sound and Biscayne Bay to the north.

17 6.8 Population Growth and Coastal Development

18 Increased population growth and coastal development have been cited as serious ecological 19 concerns by many Federal and State resource agencies, nongovernmental groups, and 20 researchers studying South Florida ecosystems. For instance, the National Research Council, 21 in its 2012 review of CERP, noted that an expanding population in South Florida would create 22 competition with ecosystem restoration for finite resources, and that planned restoration efforts 23 could be in conflict with agriculture when farmed areas interrupt intended water flow for 24 rehydration and restoration (National Research Council 2012-TN2685). Environmental effects 25 related to historical and current population growth have also been incorporated into ecosystem 26 conceptual models for South Florida (Ogden et al. 2005-TN196; Ogden et al. 2005-TN197) and 27 identified as a major threat to Biscayne National Park (Robles et al. 2005-TN198). A similar 28 concern was stated in the Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and EIS for the 29 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland Phase 1 Project (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038), which 30 indicated that without the Phase 1 project, further development and creation of impervious 31 surfaces would lead to increased runoff and larger point-source freshwater discharges into 32 nearshore areas. USACE/SFWMD also indicated that if the plan was not implemented, much of 33 the study area for the project would likely be developed, resulting in increased stormwater runoff 34 and pollution, and additional use of chemicals to reduce mosquito populations and support 35 agricultural development (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). Increased population and growth in 36 nearshore areas of South Florida may also necessitate the need for shoreline armoring or 37 creation of barrier systems in response to sea-level rise and climate change, as discussed 38 below

39 6.9 Climate Change

40 Climate change in South Florida is projected to alter seasonal precipitation and temperature 41 regimes, increase storm frequency and intensity, and increase the sea level. Temperatures in 42 South Florida are expected to increase while spring and summer rainfall is projected to

6-5 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 decrease (GCRP 2009-TN18). The intensity of Atlantic hurricanes is also projected to increase. 2 Sea levels are projected to rise (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034; USACE 2009-TN1359). Increased 3 temperatures coupled with decreased rainfall during spring and summer could stress existing 4 plant communities and lead to substantial alterations of plant cover. Fire frequency could also 5 increase with increased temperatures and decreased precipitation, resulting in a greater 6 prevalence of early successional habitats in inland settings. Coastal mangrove wetlands within 7 and adjacent to the Turkey Point site are similar to mangrove wetlands throughout much of 8 South Florida in that they occur at relatively low elevations and would thus be susceptible to 9 changes in climate and sea level. The quality, quantity, and spatial distribution of low-elevation 10 coastal wetlands would likely change as a result of saltwater intrusion, erosion, and accretion 11 caused by predicted sea-level rise (Titus et al. 2009-TN1360). Some coastal wetlands may be 12 converted to open water, while other wetland types may be displaced inland. Climate change 13 could affect precipitation patterns and alter hydrological flow, connectivity, and timing. Elevated 14 sea levels may threaten existing aquatic and wetland environments and coastal infrastructure 15 and affect the success of ongoing or planned restoration activities.

16 The potential for climate change to influence ongoing or future restoration success is of 17 particular relevance to aquatic resources present at or near the Turkey Point site, because long- 18 term changes in rainfall patterns or saltwater intrusion into estuarine areas could negate efforts 19 to re-establish historical flow and salinity conditions. For example, in an analysis of the effects 20 of climate-induced sea-level rise on the success of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 21 Project, the USACE and SFWMD estimated that within a 20-year time frame after project 22 construction was completed in 2012, approximately 8 percent of the project ecosystem benefits 23 were likely to be at risk from sea-level rise. At the end of 50 years, expected benefits would be 24 diminished by 41 percent, as determined by comparing flood-prediction maps for a 2 ft sea-level 25 rise to the benefitted area projections in the plan (USACE/SFWMD 2011-TN1038). Thus, 26 salinity intrusion related to sea-level rise both confounds ecological restoration efforts designed 27 to reduce nearshore salinities and affirms the need for such actions to ensure further 28 degradation does not occur.

29 A second important climate-change−induced stressor on the aquatic resources at or near the 30 Turkey Point site is the likely use of additional shoreline armoring or infrastructure to protect 31 cities, urban areas, roads, bridges, and agricultural land from rising sea levels. For instance, in 32 Miami-Dade County, 4,358 km2 of land are at elevations of 5 m or less, and 3,500 km2 are at 33 elevations of 2 m or less above the spring high-water level (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034). Because 34 coastal lands have a high property value and support tourist, recreational, and commercial 35 enterprises, property owners and local governments can be expected to demand protection of 36 many of these coastal areas from erosion, inundation, infrastructure damage, and flooding. 37 Areas in Miami-Dade County, where shore protection is “reasonably likely” or “almost certain” 38 include the existing IWF at the Turkey Point site and nearshore areas extending north toward 39 Miami (Cela et al. 2010-TN1034). The armoring and protection actions in these areas, including 40 the IWF, could contribute to habitat fragmentation or interfere with restoration activities designed 41 to restore historical hydrological flow and ecological connections. Coupled with increased 42 population and urbanization, protection activities could become a permanent part of the coastal 43 landscape, and dramatically influence the future of aquatic resources in South Florida. As

6-6 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 discussed above, the cumulative effects of these actions cannot be predicted until a 2 comprehensive plan for climate change adaptation is developed by the State of Florida.

3 6.10 Summary of Potential Impacts on EFH and HAPCs

4 Clearly, many factors will contribute to the cumulative ecological effects experienced by aquatic 5 communities at or near the Turkey Point site over the next 40 years. Although the effects of 6 construction and operation of proposed Units 6 and 7 contribute to the overall cumulative 7 impacts experienced by aquatic communities at or near the Turkey Point site, the largest source 8 of uncertainty related to future conditions appears to be the success or failure of existing and 9 pending restoration activities, the magnitude of the hydrological alterations that could result from 10 changes to rainfall patterns associated with climate change, and the response of State and 11 Federal agencies to a sea-level rise that may threaten coastal population centers or critical 12 infrastructures. While the operation of proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7 could contribute to 13 cumulative effects on both EFH and HAPCs in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, as well as the 14 prey items many of the EFH species depend on, it is likely the environmental “signal” related to 15 the impacts of construction and operation of these units would be lost in the “noise” associated 16 with (1) the success (or failure) of existing or planned restoration activities, (2) the dramatic 17 changes and resulting variability that could occur as a result of climate-induced alterations to the 18 nearshore hydrology, and (3) sea-level rise that further increases nearshore salinity or prompts 19 protection actions that affect hydrological and ecological connectivity. Given the extent of 20 lowland areas in coastal Florida, it is also likely that efforts designed to protect people and 21 infrastructure from coastal flooding will create a new set of environmental stressors that could 22 dramatically alter ecological connectivity and persistence. Cumulative effects related to current 23 or planned restoration activities will depend on the success (or failure) of the programs and are 24 unresolved. Cumulative effects related to climate change and sea-level rise will depend on the 25 nature and extent of the climatological changes that occur, as well as the Federal, State, and 26 local response to predicted sea-level rise. Climate change and sea-level rise could result in a 27 substantial impact on EFH and HAPCs in Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, and other nearshore 28 regions of South Florida. The presence of these stressors (and the impacts of the response 29 actions) could further alter existing conditions, or result in the creation of seawalls, berms, or 30 other infrastructure that adversely affect EFH and HAPCs.

6-7

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 7.0 Conclusions

2 Using the guidance from NOAA/NMFS (NOAA 2010-TN835), the review team evaluated the 3 potential effects on mangrove, seagrass, and unconsolidated bottom habitat for representative 4 species within the Snapper-Grouper, spiny lobster, and penaeid shrimp (pink shrimp) FMPs. 5 For the reasons stated above, the NRC staff does not expect adverse effects on EFH, HAPCs, 6 and the prey species that are important environmental components to occur when reclaimed 7 wastewater from the MDWASD is used as cooling water for proposed Units 6 and 7 (Table 7-1). 8 Construction of the RWTF and associated infrastructure would occur on the Turkey Point site, 9 well away from nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, and potential entrainment 10 and impingement impacts are eliminated because a conventional surface-water intake is not 11 used. Fate and effects modeling of chemical deposition to nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay 12 and Card Sound from cooling-tower drift predicts unlikely effects on EFH or HAPCs because the 13 majority of the cooling-tower plume is located over the existing IWF, as well as west and south 14 of the Turkey Point site.

15 Although the majority of the RCW system construction activities would be confined to terrestrial 16 areas on the Turkey Point peninsula, disturbance of some nearshore mangrove resources is 17 possible, so minimal, temporary adverse impacts may occur. Because the NRC staff expects 18 RCW system construction impacts to be confined to shoreline areas near caisson installation, 19 the staff does not expect adverse impacts on seagrass or unconsolidated bottom EFH and 20 HAPCs to occur.

21 As described in Section 5.3.2 of the EIS (NUREG-2176), FPL, the NPS, and the USGS have 22 assessed potential changes in surface and groundwater resources during RCW operation. The 23 review team evaluated this information and concluded that during extended RCW use operation 24 would produce small increases (and decreases) in salinity levels at nearshore locations of 25 Biscayne Bay. Furthermore, because FDEP has decided to limit RCW use up to 60 days per 26 year (State of Florida 2014-TN3637), the potential for adverse effects is further reduced. 27 Impingement and entrainment of eggs, larvae, and juvenile lifestages are highly unlikely if the 28 RCW system functions as designed, but could occur at localized nearshore areas if the 29 limestone above the RCW laterals fractures during operation.

30 Table 7-1. Potential Impact on EFH and HAPCs in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound from 31 the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7

Expected Impacts on EFH or HAPC Seagrass and Action or Activity Potential Impact Mangrove Unconsolidated Bottom Construction of Habitat No adverse impacts No adverse impacts reclaimed wastewater disturbance or loss system Operation of Units 6 Entrainment or No adverse impacts No adverse impacts and 7 cooling systems impingement using reclaimed Cooling-tower No adverse impacts No adverse impacts wastewater from the deposition MDWASD

7-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

Construction of RCW Habitat Minimal, temporary No adverse impacts cooling system disturbance or loss adverse impacts on mangroves in the vicinity of RCW caissons Operation of Units 6 Noticeable Minimal impacts Minimal impacts and 7 cooling systems alterations to expected, but localized, expected, but localized, using RCWs nearshore salinity temporary minimal temporary minimal in Biscayne Bay adverse impacts could adverse impacts could occur from increased occur from increased salinity in nearshore salinity in nearshore areas areas near the Turkey near the Turkey Point site Point site Entrainment or No adverse impacts No adverse impacts under impingement normal operation; minimal to substantial localized impacts if frac-out occurred Cooling-tower No adverse impacts No adverse impacts deposition Equipment barge- Water-quality No adverse impacts Minimal impacts unloading area degradation; noise expected, but localized, expansion emissions, habitat temporary substantial disturbance or loss adverse impacts from water-quality changes and noise emissions could occur during dredging operations and sheet-pile installation adjacent to the unloading area Minimal habitat loss or disturbance is expected Deep-aquifer injection Indirect impacts on No adverse impacts No adverse impacts of blowdown water quality that affects EFH or HAPCs

1 The NRC staff does not expect adverse impacts associated with the proposed alterations and 2 expansion of the equipment barge-unloading area for mangrove EFH and HAPCs because 3 those habitats are not present in the construction area. Minimal to substantial adverse impacts 4 on water quality for nearshore seagrass and unconsolidated bottom habitat are possible during 5 dredging operations and sheet-pile installation, but these impacts would be episodic and 6 localized. Because only 0.1 ac of dredging would occur, the NRC staff expects minimal adverse 7 impacts on benthic habitats to occur; additionally, these effects would be localized and 8 temporary. Finally, regardless of the cooling-water source, adverse effects on EFH are not 9 expected from deep-aquifer injection of cooling-tower blowdown because injection wells would 10 be located approximately 3,500 ft below grade, thus eliminating potential effects on surface 11 water.

7-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 8.0 References

2 10 CFR Part 52. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, "Licenses, 3 Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants." Washington, D.C. TN251.

4 40 CFR Part 230. 2008. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 5 230, "Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill 6 Material." Washington, D.C. TN427.

7 50 CFR Part 600. 2012. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 50: Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 8 600, "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions." Washington, D.C. TN1342.

9 16 USC 1801 et seq. Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. TN1060.

10 16 USC 1801 et seq. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996. 11 TN1061.

12 33 USC 1251 et seq. Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 [also referred to as Clean 13 Water Act]. TN662.

14 33 USC 2201 et seq. Water Resources Development Act of 2000. TN1037.

15 Browder, J.A., R. Alleman, S. Markley, P. Ortner and P.A. Pitts. 2005. “Biscayne Bay 16 Conceptual Ecological Model.” Wetlands 25(4):854-869, Fargo, North Dakota. TN151.

17 Cela, M., J. Hulsey, and J.G. Titus. 2010. “South Florida.” Chapter 8 in The Likelihood of 18 Shore Protection along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Volume 2: New England and 19 the Southeast. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Accession No. 20 ML12269A197. TN1034.

21 CERP (Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan). 2012. “About CERP: Brief Overview.” 22 West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML12269A241. TN1035.

23 EAI (Ecological Associates, Inc.). 2009. Species and Relative Abundances of Fish and 24 Shellfish in the Vicinity of the Turkey Point Plant Based on Recent Collections. Jensen Beach, 25 Florida. Accession No. ML12240A280. TN154.

26 FDEP (Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2005. Bioassays of Florida Power & 27 Light Company - Cutler Power Plant. Division of Resource Assessment and Management, 28 Tallahassee, Florida. Available at ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/labs/lds/reports/6101.pdf. 29 TN1148.

30 FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission). 2010. Blue Crab, Callinectes 31 sapidus, Rathbun, 1896. Tallahassee, Florida. Available at 32 http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/status-trends/invertebrates/blue-crab/. TN162.

8-1 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 FMNH (Florida Museum of Natural History). 2012. Ichthyology at the Florida Museum of 2 Natural History Biological Profiles. Gainesville, Florida. Available at 3 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Education/bioprofile.htm. TN167.

4 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2000. Florida Power & Light Company Application for 5 Renewed Operating Licenses, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, Applicant's Environmental Report— 6 Operating License Renewal Stage, Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. Florida Power & Light Company 7 Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251, Revision 1. Accession No. ML003749667. TN3947.

8 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Barge Delivery Plan 9 Barge Facility. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML12240A281. TN169.

10 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2009. Letter from M. Nazar to NRC, dated June 30, 11 2009, regarding "Application for Combined License for Turkey Point Units 6 and 7.” L-2009- 12 144, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML091830589. TN1229.

13 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2010. FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Threatened and 14 Endangered Species Evaluation and Management Plan. Revision 1, Homestead, Florida. 15 Accession No. ML12240A282. TN170.

16 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from M.J. Raffenberg to C. Mulkey, 17 dated November 12, 2012, regarding "FPL Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Project Amendment to Site 18 Certification Application (PA 03-45A3)." FPLDEP-12-0370, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 19 ML14336A342. TN2582.

20 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2012. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated October 21 17, 2012, regarding "Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Letter 120329, (eRAI 22 6354 Rev 0) Related to ESRP Section 2.3.1 – Hydrology." L-2012-337, Juno Beach, Florida. 23 Accession No. ML12293A236. TN2688.

24 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2013. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2013–2022. 25 Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A344. TN2630.

26 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2014–2023. 27 Miami, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A345. TN3360.

28 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Letter from W. Maher to NRC, dated August 29 12, 2014, regarding "Florida Power & Light Company Proposed Turkey Point Units 6 and 7, 30 Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041, Construction Noise and Vibration Impacts Assessment Report 31 for the Combined License Application Part 3 – Environmental Report.” L-2014-260, Juno 32 Beach, Florida. Accession No. ML14336A346. TN3717.

33 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 34 Application – Part 3: Environmental Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession No. 35 ML14342A011. TN4058.

8-2 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 FPL (Florida Power and Light Company). 2014. Turkey Point Plant, Units 6 and 7 COL 2 Application - Part 2, Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 6, Juno Beach, Florida. Accession 3 No. ML14311A247. TN4069.

4 GCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the 5 United States. T.R. Karl, J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (editors). Cambridge University Press, 6 New York, New York. Available at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate- 7 impacts-report.pdf. TN18.

8 McAdory, R., T.C. Pratt, M.T. Hebler, T.L. Fagerburg, and R. Curry. 2002. Biscayne Bay Field 9 Data, Volume 1, Main Text. ERDC/CHL TR-02-8, U.S. Army Engineer Research and 10 Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Accession No. ML14211A617. TN1155.

11 National Research Council. 2008. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Second 12 Biennial Review – 2008. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN666.

13 National Research Council. 2010. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Third 14 Biennial Review – 2010. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN1036.

15 National Research Council. 2012. Progress Toward Restoring the Everglades: The Fourth 16 Biennial Review – 2012. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. TN2685.

17 Nelson, D.M., M.E. Monaco, E.A. Irlandi, L.R. Settle, and L. Coston-Clements. 1991. 18 Distribution and Abundance of Fishes and Invertebrates in Southeast Estuaries. ELMR Report 19 Number 9, NOAA/NOS Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, Silver Spring, Maryland. 20 Accession No. ML12240A286. TN174.

21 NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 2000. Essential Fish 22 Habitat: New Marine Fish Habitat Conservation Mandate for Federal Agencies. National 23 Marine Fisheries Service, St. Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML101880617. TN1845.

24 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2006. "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 25 Conservation and Management Act Reauthorized." Accession No. ML14279A347. TN1846.

26 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2010. Letter from M.M. Croom to 27 NRC, dated August 5, 2010, regarding "Review of Letter dated June 23, 2010 and Federal 28 Register Announcement dated June 15, 2010." National Marine Fisheries Service, St. 29 Petersburg, Florida. Accession No. ML102250231. TN835.

30 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2011. "Condition Report 2011 for 31 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary." Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Key West, 32 Florida. Accession No. ML14309A278. TN1847.

33 NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. “Annual Commercial 34 Landing Statistics.” Silver Spring, Maryland. Accession No. ML14267A008. TN1331.

35 NPS (National Park Service). 2011. Biscayne National Park Nature & Science. Washington, 36 D.C. Accession No. ML12240A276. TN184.

8-3 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Biscayne National Park Fishery Management Plan. 2 Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A029. TN4072.

3 NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Fishery Management Plan Final Environmental Impact 4 Statement. Homestead, Florida. Accession No. ML14342A030. TN4073.

5 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2009. Florida Power & Light Company 6 Acceptance for Docketing of an Application for Combined License for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 7 Nuclear Power Plants Docket Nos. 52-040 and 52-041. 7590-01-P, Washington, D.C. 8 Accession No. ML092380323. TN264.

9 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. “Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Unit 4.” 10 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14217A573. TN1299.

11 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2012. Letter from J.C. Paige to Florida Power 12 and Light Company, dated June 15, 2012, “Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 – Issuance of 13 Amendments Regarding Extended Power Uprate (TAC Nos. ME4907 and ME4908).” 14 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML11293A365. TN1438.

15 NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2014. Estimated Effects of Proposed Radial 16 Collector Well Pumpage Near Turkey Point Nuclear Facility, Miami-Dade County, Florida. In 17 conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. Accession No. ML14345A290. 18 TN3078.

19 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, K.J. Jacobs, T. Barnes, and H.E. Fling. 2005. “The Use of 20 Conceptual Ecological Models to Guide Ecosystem Restoration in South Florida.” Wetlands 21 25(4):795-809, Fargo, North Dakota. TN196.

22 Ogden, J.C., S.M. Davis, T.K. Barnes, K.J. Jacobs, and J.H. Gentile. 2005. “Total System 23 Conceptual Ecological Model.” Wetlands 25(4):955-979, Fargo, North Dakota. TN197.

24 Robles, M.D., T. Armentano, D. DiResta, M.R. Lara, D.L. Jones and M.J. Butler. 2005. 25 Condition of the Natural Resources of Biscayne National Park. National Parks Conservation 26 Association, Washington, D.C. TN198.

27 SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 1998. Final Habitat Plan for the South 28 Atlantic Region. Charleston, South Carolina. Accession No. ??. TN212.

29 SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2012. “Federal Fishing Regulations for 30 South Atlantic Waters.” Accession No. ML14231B324. TN1325.

31 Serafy, J.E., M. Valle, C.H. Faunce, and J. Luo. 2007. “Species-Specific Patterns of Fish 32 Abundance and Size Along a Subtropical Mangrove Shoreline: An Application of the Delta 33 Approach.” Bulletin of Marine Science 80(3):609-624, Miami, Florida. TN215.

34 SFWMD (South Florida Water Management District). 2005. South Dade Wetlands Conceptual 35 Land Management Plan 2005 – 2010. West Palm Beach, Florida. Accession No. 36 ML12198A094. TN217.

8-4 Essential Fish Habitat Assessment National Marine Fisheries Service

1 State of Florida. 2014. "Final Order on Certification, In Re: Florida Power and Light Company 2 Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Power Plant Siting Application No. PA 03–45A3." State of Florida 3 Siting Board, OGC Case No. 09–3107, Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 09– 4 03575–EPP, Tallahassee, Florida. Accession No. ML14345A291. TN3637.

5 Titus, J.G., K.E. Anderson, D.R. Cahoon, D.B. Gesch, S.K. Gill, B.T. Gutierrez, E.R. Thieler, 6 and S.J. Williams. 2009. Coastal Sensitivity to Sea-Level Rise: A Focus on the Mid-Atlantic 7 Region. U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), Washington, D.C. Available at 8 http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap4-1/sap4-1-final-report-all.pdf. TN1360.

9 USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2009. Water Resource Policies and Authorities 10 Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Circular No. 1165-2- 11 211, Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML14267A012. TN1359.

12 USACE/SFWMD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/South Florida Water Management District). 13 1999. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 14 Washington, D.C. Accession No. ML12193A285. TN116.

15 USACE/SFMWD (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/South Florida Water Management District). 16 2011. Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, 17 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 Final Integrated Project Implementation Report and 18 Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 – Main Report. Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, 19 Florida. Accession No. ML12270A058. TN1038.

20 Wang, J.D., J. Luo, and J.S. Ault. 2003. "Flows, Salinity, and Some Implications for Larval 21 Transport in South Biscayne Bay, Florida." Bulletin of Marine Science 72(3): 695-723, Miami, 22 Florida. TN105.

23

8-5