ML12053A345

Request to Initiate Abbreviated Efh Consultation for Proposed Extended Power Uprate at St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2

ML12053A345
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/20/2012
From:	Andy Imboden NRC/NRR/DLR/RERGUB
To:	Croom M US Dept of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
Logan D
References
TAC ME5091
Download: ML12053A345 (48)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 March 20, 2012 Mr. Miles Croom Assistant Regional Administrator for Habitat Conservation NMFS Southeast Regional Office 263 13th Avenue South St. Petersburg, FL 33701

SUBJECT:

REQUEST TO INITATE ABBREVIATED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT CONSULTATION FOR PROPOSED EXTENDED POWER UPRATE AT ST. LUCIE PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NO. ME5091)

Dear Mr. Croom:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing a license amendment request to increase the licensed core power level at the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 (St. Lucie). If granted, the increase in power (also called an "extended power uprate" or EPU) would increase the temperature of water discharged to the Atlantic Ocean. Because this change in effluent temperature has the potential to affect local essential fish habitat (EFH), the NRC has prepared the enclosed EFH Assessment. With this letter, the NRC staff requests to initiate abbreviated EFH consultation per 50 CFR 600.920(h)(2) for the proposed EPU at St. Lucie.

St. Lucie is located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The island is a barrier island bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Indian River Lagoon to the west. The cooling system withdraws water from the Atlantic Ocean to cool the condensers of the two operating reactors. The Atlantic Ocean provides cooling and receiving waters for both units' condensers and auxiliary cooling systems through common intake and discharge canals with ocean piping.

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) submitted its license amendment request to the NRC for Unit 1 on March 31,2010. The amendment request proposes an increase in Unit 1's licensed core power level from 2700 megawatts thermal (MW(t>> to 3020 MW(t). On February 25, 2011, FPL submitted a second license amendment request to increase the licensed core power level of Unit 2 from 2700 MW(t) to 3020 MW(t).

Per 50 CFR 600.920(a)(1), Federal agencies must consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding EFH for actions that they authorize, fund, or undertake, or those actions that are proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken that may adversely affect EFH. In this case, the Federal action is NRC's decision to grant the license amendment request for an EPU at St. Lucie. Implementation of the EPU would cause the St. Lucie Plant to increase the temperature of its effluent to the Atlantic Ocean. The amount and rate of water withdrawn from the ocean would remain unchanged, as would entrapment, entrainment, impingement, and all other effects of the plant on the ocean environment.

In the enclosed EFH Assessment, the NRC considered the potential effects of the proposed EPU on 42 Federally managed species and their designated EFH near the site. The staff found

M. Croom -2 no adverse effects to EFH for 2 species and minimal adverse effects on EFH for the remaining 40 species. The NRC requests your concurrence with our EFH Assessment determination within 30 days per 50 CFR 600.920(h)(2). If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me at 301-415-2327 or bye-mail at Andy.lmboden@nrc.gov or Dennis Logan, Aquatic Biologist at 301-415-0490 or bye-mail at Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

~~

Andrew S. Imboden, Chief Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Listserv Jocelyn Karazsia Biologist Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service c/o USEPA 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment st. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 Proposed Extended Power Uprate February 2012 Docket Numbers 50-335 and 50-389 U.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Prepared by:

Ann L. Miracle, Ph.D.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ENCLOSURE

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 1 2.1 Site Location and Description .................................................................................... 2 2.2 Cooling Water System Description and Operation .................................................... 3 2.2.1 Cooling Water Intake and Discharge Systems ....................................................... 3 2.2.2 Cooling System Discharge and Heat Dissipation ................................................... 4 2.2.3 St. Lucie NPDES Permit Limitations ....................................................................... 4 3.0 EFH Near the Site ..................................................................................................... 5 4.0 EFH Species Considered for In-Depth Analysis ...................................................... 10 4.1 Coral ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species ............................................................... 11 4.2.1 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna .......................................................................................... 11 4.2.2 Swordfish ............................................................................................................ 11 4.2.3 Bil/fish .................................................................................................................. 11 4.2.4 Large Coastal Sharks ........................................................................................... 11 4.2.5 Small Coastal Sharks ........................................................................................... 14 4.3 Shrimp Species ....................................................................................................... 15 4.4 Snapper-Grouper Complex ..................................................................................... 15 4.4.1 Snapper Species .................................................................................................. 15 4.4.2 Grouper Species .................................................................................................. 15 4.4.3 Blueline Tilefish .................................................................................................... 16 4.4.4 Greater Amberjack ............................................................................................... 16 4.4.5 Red Porgy ............................................................................................................ 16 4.4.6 White Grunt. ......................................................................................................... 16 4.4.7 Wreckfish ............................................................................................................. 16 5.0 Potential Adverse Effects to EFH ............................................................................ 17 5.1 Impingement and Entrainment ................................................................................ 17 5.2 Entrapment ............................................................................................................. 18 5.3 Thermal Effects ....................................................................................................... 18 5.4 Potential Impacts on Identified EFH ........................................................................ 19 5.4.1 Coral .................................................................................................................... 19 5.4.2 Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species ............................................................ 19 5.4.3 Shrimp ................................................................................................................. 20 5.4.4 Snapper-Grouper Complex .................................................................................. 20 6.0 Cumulative Effects to EFH ...................................................................................... 21 ii

6.1 Continued Operation of St. Lucie ..............................................., ............................ 21 6.2 Fishing and Boating ................................................................................................ 22 6.3 Water Quality and Habitat Degradation ................................................................... 22 6.4 Invasive Species ..................................................................................................... 22 6.5 Disease ................................................................................................................... 23 6.6 Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 23 6.7 Total Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................... 24 7.0 EFH Conservation Measures and Conclusions ....................................................... 24 7.1 Conservation Measures .......................................................................................... 24 7.2 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 25 8.0 References ............................................................................................................. 36 Figures Figure 1. Geographic Location of St. Lucie Plant Along the Florida Atlantic Coast.. ...... 30 Figure 2. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Southward Currents ............... 31 Figure 3. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Northward Currents ................ 32 Figure 4. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Slack Currents ........................ 33 Figure 5. Composite Map of St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms at 119°F(48°C) .... 34 Figure 6. Location of HAPC Hard Bottom Habitat Near St. Lucie Discharge ................. 35 Tables Table 1. Calculated Flow Velocities at Various Points in the St. Lucie Intake .................. 3 Table 2. Species of Fish with Designated EFH in the Vicinity of St. Lucie ....................... 5 Table 3. EFH Species Excluded from EFH Assessment ................................................. 8 Table 4. Species of Fish Retained for In-Depth Analysis ................................................. 9 Table 5. Impacts on EFH Species from the Proposed St. Lucie EPU ............................ 25 iii

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols degrees Celsius degrees Fahrenheit less than greater than CFR Code of Federal Regulations cm centimeter(s)

EEZ exclusive economic zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPU extended power uprate FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FMP fishery management plan FPL Florida Power & Light Co.

fps feet per second FR Federal Register ft feet ft3 cubic feet FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GElS Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants HAPC habitat area of particular concern in. inch(es) km kilometer(s)

Ibs pounds m meter(s) m3 cubic meter(s) m3/d cubic meters per day MGD million gallons per day mi mile(s) mls meters per second MSA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended MW(t) megawatts thermal NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement St. Lucie St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 U.S.C. U.S. Code iv

Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for the Proposed Extended Power Uprate at St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2 1.0 Introduction In compliance with Section 305(b)(2) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267). the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC; the staff) prepared this Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment for the proposed Federal action: NRC's decision whether or not to grant a license amendment for an extended power uprate (EPU) at St. Lucie Plant. Units 1 and 2 (St. Lucie). located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County. Florida.

This EFH Assessment describes the proposed action. identifies relevant commercially.

Federally-managed species within the vicinity of the proposed action site, assesses whether the proposed action may adversely affect any designated EFH, and describes potential measures to avoid, minimize, or offset potential adverse impacts to EFH as a result of the proposed action.

2.0 Description of the Proposed Action The proposed Federal action is NRC's decision of whether or not to grant Florida Power and Light Co. (FPL) license amendments that would authorize FPL to increase the core power level from 2700 MW(t) to 3020 MW(t) for each of the two St. Lucie units.

FPL, which owns and operates St. Lucie, submitted two separate license amendment requests for EPUs on November 22, 2010, and February 25, 2011, for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively. If approved, these two amendment requests would increase the licensed core thermal power for each of the two St. Lucie units from 2700 MW(t) to 3020 MW(t), an increase of 11.85 percent.

If approved, the proposed EPU would not change the rate of water withdrawal or quantity of water withdrawn at St. Lucie. Additionally, FPL would not change any component of the cooling system design.

The proposed EPU would increase the temperature of discharged water. However, St. Lucie's Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit (FDEP 2011a) would continue to limit the maximum temperature of heated discharge water and the thermal mixing zone volume. The permit specifies the following limitations for water discharged from the diffusers into the Atlantic Ocean:

• Discharged water may not exceed a maximum of 115°F (46°C) or rise more than 30°F (16.rC) above the ambient water temperature during normal operations.

• Discharged water may not cause the ocean surface temperature to exceed 97°F (36°C) as an instantaneous maximum.

• Discharged water may not be more than 1rF (11°C) above the ambient water temperature in the receiving body of water outside a thermal mixing zone of 466.092 fe (13,198 m 3); and

• The total area of the mixing zone for St. Lucie may not exceed 511,804 ff (47,548 m2).

Note that the Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit, as in effect today, specifies that discharged water may not exceed a maximum of 113°F (45°C). However, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection revised FPL's permit to allow FPL to discharge water 2°F (1°C) higher-at a temperature 115°F (46°C)-upon NRC's approval of the proposed EPU.

The NRC issued operating licenses to FPL on March 1, 1976, and June 10, 1983, to operate Units 1 and 2, respectively. In 2001, FPL submitted applications to the NRC for renewed 1

licenses. The NRC issued renewed licenses for St. Lucie on October 2,2003. St. Lucie's current operating licenses expire on March 1, 2036 (Unit 1), and April 6, 2043 (Unit 2). If approved, the license amendment would authorize FPL to operate S1. Lucie at a higher core power level for the remainder of the renewed license term.

2.1 Site Location and Description St. Lucie lies on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County, Florida. The nearest municipalities to the north, west, and south are Fort Pierce, which is approximately 11 km (7 mi) northwest of the plant; Port St. Lucie, which is approximately 7 km (4.5 mi) to the west; and Stuart, which is approximately 13 km (8 mi) to the south. St. Lucie is located in a relatively flat, sheltered area of Hutchinson Island. Directly west of the facility, the land slopes downward, and mangroves cover the intertidal shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. Dunes and ridges separate the facility from the Atlantic Ocean to the east (NRC 2003a). Figure 1 shows the location of S1. Lucie in relation to the Atlantic Coast. Habitat potentially affected by the EPU is the nearshore and offshore Atlantic Ocean near St. Lucie.

The Atlantic nearshore and offshore marine communities in the vicinity of St. Lucie were studied in detail prior to the start of Unit 1 operation in 1976 (NRC 2003a). Three subtidal Atlantic microhabitats exist within the discharge pipeline and thermal plume area; shallow beach terrace, Pierce Shoal (approximately 2 mi (1.6 km) from shore), and a 30- to 40-ft (9- to 12-m) trough between the two areas. Each microhabitat differs by depth and sediment composition with the trough habitat area supporting the greatest diversity of macroinvertebrate species. The nearshore habitat intertidal worm reef communities support unique assemblages of macroalgae and macroinvertebrates (EAI 2001). No seagrass habitat exists in the vicinity, although intermittent hard bottom habitat now exists to the north of the discharge pipelines, which is likely due to recent hurricane activity in 2004 and 2005 (CSA 2009).

Fisheries assessments in association with startup and operations of St. Lucie provided information on offshore and transitional assemblages of marine organisms (FPL 1973). Bottom trawls and beach seines collected ichthyoplankton and fish at five offshore locations in the vicinity of the discharge and intake with the startup and operation of St. Lucie. Monitoring yielded 5,570 individuals distributed among 49 species. The five most abundant species accounted for nearly 70 percent of the catch (NRC 2003a):

• Atlantic bumper (Chloroscombrus chrysurus),

• Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus),

• Atlantic croaker (Micropogonias undulatus),

• spot (Leiostomus xanthurus), and

• bluefish (Pomatomus sa/tatrix).

Following the commencement of Unit 2 operations, benthic studies in the vicinity of St. Lucie reported 934 macroinvertebrate taxa. The studies also revealed minimal change from baseline conditions to operational conditions in the immediate vicinity of the thermal discharge. Likewise, sampled fish assemblages did not change significantly between operation of only Unit 1 and operation of both Units 1 and 2 (EAI 2001).

Nearshore hydrology patterns include a tidal range of 0.8 m (3 ft) and a rotary tidal current that continuously changes direction during a 12.4-hour cycle at an average speed of 0.74 fps (0.23 m/s) near the surface. The prevailing northerly current flows parallel along the east Florida coast and the secondary current flows to the south (FPL 2001).

2

2.2 Cooling Water System Description and Operation As discussed in Section 2.0, the EPU would not change the rate of water withdrawal or quantity of water withdrawn and would not change any component of the cooling system design.

However, this section describes the cooling water intake system and FPL's compliance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act for completeness. Unless otherwise noted, the description of the cooling system is summarized from NUREG-1437, Supplement 11, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2" (NRC 2003a).

2.2.1 Cooling Water Intake and Discharge Systems st. Lucie's once-through heat-dissipation system withdraws from and discharges water to the Atlantic Ocean. Approximately 1,200 ft (370 m) offshore, three cooling water intake structures take in water. The normal water depth is about 23 ft (7 m) at the intake. Each intake structure consists of a large concrete base with 'a vertical cylindrical opening in the center and a concrete velocity cap supported by columns that extends about 6 ft (1.8 m) from the base. The velocity cap reduces entrainment of marine organisms by eliminating vertical flow and limiting horizontal flow velocities. After entering the intake structures, water travels through separate buried pipes beneath the beach and dune system to the intake canal. Flow velocities vary within the intake system; Table 1 provides calculated flow velocities at four points along the intake path (Ecological Assoc. 2000 in NRC 2003a).

Table 1. Calculated Flow Velocities at Various Points in the st. Lucie Intake Velocity m/s (ft/s)

Location 3.7-m (12-ft) Diameter Intakes 4.9-m (16-ft) Diameter Intakes Velocity Cap Intake 0.11 to 0.12 (0.37 to 0.41) 0.27 to 0.30 (0.9 to 1.0)

Vertical Section 0.37 to 0.40 (1.2 to 1.3) 1.9 to 2.1 (6.2 to 6.8)

Intake Pipe 1.3 to 1.4 (4.2 to 4.7) 1.8 to 2.1 (5.9 to 6.8)

Intake Canal 0.30(a) (1.0)

(a) Flow rate represents the combined flow from all intake pipes once merged in the intake canal.

Table source: Ecological Assoc. 2000 in NRC 2003a The intake canal is a 4920-ft (1500-m)-long, 180-ft (55-m)-wide, and 30-ft (9.1 m) deep L-shaped channel that carries water to the intake wells during normal operations. Three barriers within the canal reduce the impingement of marine biota. First, two sets of barrier nets (one with 5-in. [12.7-cm] and one with 8-in. [20.3-cm] openings) prevent sea turtles and large fish from entering the intake canal. These mesh barrier nets lie along the east-west arm of the intake canal. The third barrier is a rigid barrier that lies across the north-south arm of the canal.

FPL regularly monitors the nets for sea turtles and other marine biota and inspects the mesh nets regularly for repair.

From the intake canal, water travels through a series of trash racks with vertical bars spaced 3 in. (7.6 cm) apart followed by 3/8-in. (1-cm)-mesh traveling screens, which are periodically backwashed. Water then enters one of eight separate intake wells (four per unit), at which point it is pumped through the main turbine condensers.

3

2.2.2 Cooling System Discharge and Heat Dissipation Once cooling water circulates through the main turbine condensers for cooling, it returns to the Atlantic Ocean via a 2200-ft (670-ft)-long discharge canal. Water travels from the canal to two discharges pipes, which transport the water beneath the beach and dune system to the Atlantic Ocean. During normal operations, St. Lucie returns approximately 1,478 MGD (5.6 million m 3/day) of heated effluent water to the Atlantic Ocean.

The northernmost discharge pipe extends 460 m (1500 ft) offshore and delivers heated effluent to the Atlantic Ocean waters via a two-port "V" diffuser. Water exists each port at a velocity of 13 fps (4 m/s), and the mixing zone extends 63 ft (19 m) horizontally and 0.8 ft (0.2 m) vertically from each port (FPL 2001). The southernmost discharge pipe extends 580 m (1900 ft) further out into the Atlantic Ocean than the northernmost pipe. This pipe discharges heated effluent through a multiport diffuser, which has a total of 58 diffuser ports. The exit velocity from each port is 11.5 fps (3.4 m/s) (FPL 2001). Under typical conditions, the 2°F (1.1 °C) isotherm thermal plume is about 180 ac (73 ha) and 175 ac (71 ha) from the northernmost and southernmost discharge pipes, respectively.

Figure 2 shows current thermal plume extent for summer ambient water and extreme discharge temperature (119°F) is shown under southward current conditions. Figures 3 and 4 show the thermal plume under northward current conditions and slack water conditions, respectively. As modeled, the defined area of thermal plume influence for surface waters is beyond the 18-ft depth contour seaward, and is, therefore, exempt from coastal waters thermal limits (Golder Assoc 2010b). The northernmost extent of the thermal plume (defined by the 2°F isotherm) reaches the northern tip of Pierce Shoal under northward current conditions. To the east, the 2°F isotherm extends approximately two nautical miles to Pierce Shoal primarily during slack tide. The southernmost extent of the 2°F isotherm reaches approximately four nautical miles from the discharge pipelines to the south during southward current flow. Modeling of vertical mixing of heated effluent following uprate activities depicts no contact of the thermal plume with the sea bottom under maximum predicted warmer month operating conditions (Golder Assoc 2010a).

FPL performed modeling of thermal plume mixing under the proposed EPU conditions. The modeling predicts that the mixing zone will increase slightly due to the higher effluent temperature. Based on the modeling, FPL predicted the proposed EPU would add an additional total combined volume of 6,896 ft3 (641 m3) over the current thermal mixing zone area (Golder Assoc. 2010a). This is a small incremental increase over the existing mixing zone and is not a significant change with respect to the receiving water body.

2.2.3 St. Lucie NPDES Permit Limitations Appendix B of the NRC license for St. Lucie contains the Environmental Protection Plan (NRC 2003b; 2003c), which states that the NRC relies on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to resolve water quality monitoring and permitting issues. The EPA delegated authority to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Discharge System (NPDES) permitting program in the State of Florida on May 1, 1995. The FDEP combined the Wastewater Permit with the NPDES permit, and the combined permit is referred to as the Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit. The FDEP most recently renewed St. Lucie's Industrial Wastewater Permit No. FL0002208 (FDEP 2011c) on September 29, 2011.

The permit specifies the following limitations for water discharged from the diffusers into the Atlantic Ocean:

4

• Discharged water may not exceed a maximum of 115°F (46°C) or rise more than 30°F (16.7°C) above the ambient water temperature during normal operations.

• Discharged water may not cause the ocean surface temperature to exceed 97°F (36°C) as an instantaneous maximum.

• Discharged water may not be more than 1rF (11°C) above the ambient water temperature in the receiving body of water outside a thermal mixing zone of 466,092 fe (13,198 m 3); and 2

• The total area of the mixing zone for St. Lucie may not exceed 511,804 ff (47,548 m ).

Concerning impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms, St. Lucie's Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit (FDEP 2011c) states that in order to maintain compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) 316(b) requirements, the permittee:

• " ... shall maintain the current intake through-screen velocity such that the maximum velocity is not exceeded,

• ... shall maintain current traveling screen practices at Units 1 and 2 so as to assure that the screens are cycled twice during each 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of continuous operation unless precluded by repair/maintenance requirements ...

• ... shall develop a plan .... to help return live fish, shellfish and other aquatic organisms collected or trapped on the intake screens to their natural habitat. ...

• ... shall monitor aquatic organism entrapment in the intake canal and capture and return entrained organisms in the intake canal safely and as quick as possible when practical not cause harm. The permittee shall provide a summary of these efforts with the permit renewal application".

3.0 EFH Near the Site The St. Lucie discharge affects the nearshore coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean from the shoreline outward to Pierce Shoal to the north and east and to the minor shoals to the south of Pierce Shoal. Figure 5 depicts this area with a composite of the 2°F surface water isotherm under current summer month conditions.

During the NRC's development of this EFH Assessment, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provided a list of species managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Table 2) (NMFS 2011a). During the initial review of life history and EFH requirements for each EFH species, the staff eliminated some species or life stages in Table 2 from further consideration if depth requirements or life history information suggested that the presence of those species or life stages is unlikely in nearshore Atlantic waters. Table 3 lists these eliminated species and life stages. The remaining species appear in Table 4, which indicates those species and life stages that NRC considers in more detail in this EFH Assessment.

Table 2. Species of Fish with DeSignated EFH in the Vicinity of St. Lucie Fishery Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name Coastafmlgratory pelagics,a) cobia Rachycentron canadum king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla Spanish mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus 5

Fishery Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name Coral!')

black coral Order Antipatharia octocorals Order Alcyonacea sea pens/sea pansies Order Pennatulacea stony coral Order Scleractinia Dolphin and wahoolll common dolphin Coryphaena hippurus pompano dolphin Coryphaena equiselis wahoo Acanthocybium solandri Golden crabla) golden crab Chaeceon fenneri Highly migratory coastal pelaglcs(b)

Tuna Atlantic albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga Atlantic bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus Atlantic bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Atlantic skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Atlantic yellowfin tuna Thunnus afbacares Swordfish swordfish Xiphias gfadius Bil/fish blue marlin Makaira nigricans longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri sailfish fstiophorus pfatypterus white marlin Tetrapturus afbidus Large coastal sharks basking shark Cetorhinus maximus big nose shark Carcharhinus altimus blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus bull shark Carcharhinus feucas Caribbean reef shark Carcharhinus perez; dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus great hammerhead shark Sphyma mokarran lemon shark Negapr;on brevirostris night shark Carcharhinus signatus nurse shark Gingfymostoma cirratum sand tiger shark Carcharias taurus sandbar shark Carcharhinus pfumbeus scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyma lewini 6

Fishery Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna tiger shark Galeocerdo cuvier whale shark Rhincodon typus white shark Carcharodon carcharias Small coastal sharks Atlantic angel shark Squatina dumeril Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae blacknose shark Carcharhinus acronotus bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo finetooth shark Carcharhinus isodon Pelagic sharks bigeye thresher shark Alopias superciliosus blue shark Prionace glauca longfin mako shark Isurus paucus oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus /ongimanus porbeagle shark Lamna nasus shortfin mako shark /surus oxyrinchus thresher shark Alopias vulpinus Sargassum{al sargassum Sargassum natans Sargassum fluitans Shrimp(a, brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum royal red shrimp Pleoticus robustus rock shrimp Sicyonia brevirostris white shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Snapper and grouper!l, blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanella blue line tilefish Caulolatilus microps goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara gray (mangrove) snapper Lutjanus griseus greater amberjack Seriola dumerili mutton snapper Lutjanus analis red porgy Pagrus pagrus red snapper Lutjanus campechanus scamp Mycteroperca phenax silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus 7

Fishery Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name snowy grouper Epinephefus niveatus speckled hind Epinephefus drummondhayi vermilion snapper Rhombopfites aurorubens Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus white grunt Haemufon pfumieri wreckfish Pofyprion americanus yellowedge grouper Epinephefus f/avolimbatus Spiny lobstera) spiny lobster Panufirus argus (al SAFMC 1998 (b) NMFS 2009 Table 3. EFH Species Excluded from EFH Assessment Fishery Management Plan Common Name Rationale for Exclusion Coastal Migratory cobia, Spanish mackerel, king EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open Pelagics mackerel waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(a)

Coral and Live*Bottom black coral (Antipatharia) and EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open Habitat order Pennatulacea (sea waters in the vicinity of the S1. Lucie Plant(a)

Dolphin-Wahoo common dolphin EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open Pompano dolphin waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(a) wahoo Golden crab golden crab EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open waters in the of the st. Lucie Plant(a}

Highly Migratory Atlantic albacore tuna EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open Coastal Pelagics Atlantic big eye tuna waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(b}

Atlantic bluefin tuna Atlantic yellowfin tuna blue marlin white marlin basking shark big nose shark night shark sand tiger shark whale shark Atlantic angel shark longfin mako shark porbeagle shark shortfin mako shark blue shark oceanic whitetip shark bigeye thresher shark thresher shark 8

Fishery Management Plan Common Name Rationale for Exclusion Sargassum Sargassum EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(a)

Shrimp royal red shrimp EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(a)

Spiny lobster spiny lobster EFH not present in Atlantic nearshore open waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant(a)

(a) SAFMC 1998 (b) NMFS 2009 Table 4. Species of Fish Retained for In-Depth Analysis Fishery Management Plan Common Name Scientific Name Coral octocorals Order Alcyonacea stony coral Order Scleractinia HighlY Migratory Coastal Pelaglcs Tuna Atlantic skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Swordfish swordfish Xiphias gladius Bil/fish longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri sailfish Istiophorus platypterus Large Coastal Sharks blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus bull shark Carcharhinus leucas Caribbean reef shark Carcharhinus perezi dusky shark Carcharhinus obscurus great hammerhead shark Sphyrna mokarran lemon shark Negaprion brevirostris nurse shark Ginglymostoma cirratum sandbar shark Carcharhinus plumbeus scalloped hammerhead shark Sphyrna lewini silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis spinner shark Carcharhinus brevipinna tiger shark Ga/eocerdo cuvier white shark Carcharodon carcharias Small Coastal Sharks Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae blacknose shark Carcharhinus acronotus bonnethead shark Sphyrna tiburo finetooth shark Carcharhinus isodon Shrimp brown shrimp Farfantepenaeus aztecus 9

pink shrimp Farfantepenaeus duorarum rock shrimp Sicyonia brevirostris white shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Snapper-Grouper blackfin snapper Lutjanus bucca nella blueline tilefish Caulolatilus microps goliath grouper Epinephelus itajara gray (mangrove) snapper Lutjanus griseus greater amberjack Seriola dumerili mutton snapper Lutjanus ana/is red porgy Pagrus pagrus red snapper Lutjanus campechanus scamp Mycteroperca phenax silk snapper Lutjanus viva nus snowy grouper Epinephelus niveatus speckled hind Epinephelus drummondhayi vermilion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Warsaw grouper Epinephelus nigritus white grunt Haemulon plumieri wreckfish Polyprion american us yellowedge grouper Epinephelus f/avolimbatus Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) within designated EFH require special consideration. HAPC must meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) important for ecological functions,

2) sensitive to human degradation,

3) representative as rare habitat, or

4) has high probability of effects from development activities.

In addition to designated EFH for managed species, HAPC exist for coral and snapper-grouper in the nearshore (depths of 0 to 4m [0 to 12 ttl) hard bottom environments off the east coast of Florida from Cape Canaveral to Broward County, according to the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program. Offshore (depths of 5 to 30 m [15 to 90 ttl) HAPC for coral also exist in hard bottom environments off the east coast of Florida from northern Miami-Dade County to Palm Beach County (SAFMC 2009a) (Figure 6).

4.0 EFH Species Considered for In-Depth Analysis 4.1 Coral Most corals consist of aggregations of individual polyps that independently respire, feed, and reproduce. Coral communities provide the structure for development of complex ecosystems as habitat and/or food for most of the other members of the ecosystem. Coral reproduce and generate larvae that are initially planktonic or benthic and ultimately settle to complete metamorphosis to juvenile, sessile coral. As coral are unable to actively migrate to avoid 10

adverse conditions, all life stages are susceptible to water pollution, extreme temperatures, and sedimentation (SAFMC 2009a). Octocorals belonging to Order Alcyonacea include species such as soft corals and gorgonians. These coral species do not secrete a calcium carbonate skeleton and do not contribute to reef framework other than to increase reef diversity, complexity or as a food source. Stony corals include members of both the Class Hydrozoa (fire corals) and true stony corals (Order Scleractinia) and mayor may not contain endosymbiotic algae (zooxanthellae). Habitats for coral colonization include hardbottom inshore and offshore environments or existing relief structures such as wrecks, existing coral reefs, or artificial reefs.

Hardbottom reef communities found in nearshore waters establish ecosystems on limestone rock covered by a thin sandy layer. Hardbottom habitats provide important cover and feeding areas for many fish and invertebrates. EFH and coral HAPC exist in the coastal (nearshore and offshore) waters associated with the st. Lucie thermal plume.

4.2 Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species EFH definitions for the following highly migratory species rely on occurrence data of specific life stages and habitat characteristics such as temperature, salinity, and dissolved oxygen.

4.2.1 Atlantic Skipjack Tuna Atlantic skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), are pelagic and form schools associated with hydrographic fronts. Spawning occurs primarily in the warmer waters such as the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico and currents carry larvae to inshore habitats such as off the east coast of Florida (NMFS 2009). Juveniles and adults feed opportunistically in surface waters on fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans. EFH for juveniles and adults exists in the coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.2.2 Swordfish Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) reside in the upper pelagic zones in waters warmer than 13°C (55.4°F). Females spawn in waters less than 250 ft (75 m) deep, and spawning occurs year-round off the Florida coast (FMNH 2011 a). Juveniles occur in coastal waters where they feed on squid, fishes, and pelagic crustaceans (NMFS 2009). EFH for juveniles exists in the coastal waters associated with the st. Lucie thermal plume.

4.2.3 Billfish Longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus pfluegen) and sailfish (lstiophorus platypterus) inhabit upper pelagic and oceanic waters above the 21°C (69.8°F) thermocline. While longbill spearfish primarily reside in offshore waters, juvenile and adult EFH exists for coastal waters associated with the S1. Lucie thermal plume because adults and juveniles feed on fishes and squid that occur in nearshore waters. Sailfish school off the Florida and Caribbean coasts and known populations reside in east coast Florida waters (NMFS 2009). Juvenile and adult EFH for sailfish occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.2.4 Large Coastal Sharks Blacktip Shark The blacktip shark, (Carcharhinus limbatus) resides in shallow coastal and offshore surface waters. Blacktip sharks feed on schooling fish and occasionally crustaceans. Birth of live young occurs in estuarine habitats where neonates remain up to one year before moving to habitats that are more saline (FMNH 2011 b). EFH for juvenile and adult blacktip sharks exists in coastal waters along the Atlantic east coast of Florida from West Palm Beach north for 11

juveniles, and from southeast Florida north for adults (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for blacktip shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Bull Shark Primarily a shallow water shark, the bull shark (Carcharhinus /eucas) resides from northern Cape Canaveral south to Jupiter Island in coastal waters of 3 to 11 m (9.8 to 36 ft) (NMFS 2009). According to Heuter and Tyminski (2002) bull sharks near Tampa Bay and Yankeetown, Florida became entrapped within power plant thermal plumes when the waters outside of the plumes dropped below the species' tolerance levels. However, juveniles have been documented in waters as low as 16.4°C (61.5°F) (Hueter and Tyminski 2002). Bull sharks prey on bony fishes and small sharks, although reports of sea turtles, crustaceans, and sea birds document opportunistic feeding. Live birth of pups occurs in coastal lagoons or other low-salinity estuarine habitats (FMNH 2011c). EFH for neonate and juvenile bull sharks occurs along the mid-east Florida coast northward, while adult EFH occurs throughout the east Florida coast (NMFS 2009). EFH for bull shark neonates, juveniles, and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Caribbean Reef Shark The Caribbean reef shark (Carcharhinus perezl) inhabits seafloor bottom habitats near shallow coastal water reefs. Prey items include bony fishes (FMNH 2011d). Nursery locations in U.S.

waters remain uncharacterized, although documentation of nursery habitat offshore of Brazil and Belize indicate requirements for warmer water conditions. All life stages have designated EFH for Atlantic coastal areas along the Florida coast (NMFS 2009). EFH for the Caribbean reef shark occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Dusky Shark The dusky shark (Carcharhinus obscurus) migrates north-south throughout the year. It is one of the larger, inshore shark species. Adult dusky sharks avoid estuarine waters although juveniles school in shallow, estuarine coastal waters. Dusky sharks feed on invertebrates and a variety of fishes (FMNH 2011e). All life stages have designated EFH for Atlantic coastal areas along the Florida coast (NMFS 2009). EFH for the dusky shark occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Great Hammerhead Shark The great hammerhead (Sphyma mokarran) resides as a solitary fish in open ocean and shallow coastal waters. Great hammerheads feed on fish, crustaceans, and other elasmobranchs with a particular preference for stingrays. Reproducing biennially, great hammerheads move into shallower, warmer waters in the late spring to give birth to live pups (FMNH 2011f). Although nursery areas occur in coastal waters in the Gulf of Mexico, all life stages have deSignated EFH in Atlantic east coast waters (NOAA 2009). EFH for great hammerheads occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Lemon Shark Lemon sharks (Negaprion brevirostris) inhabit shallow coastal areas with coral reefs.

Nearshore habitats dominated by shallow water mangrove islands serve as nursery areas (NMFS 2009). Lemon sharks mature slowly with juveniles remaining in nursery habitat for several years. Lemon sharks hunt over sandy or muddy bottom habitat for crustaceans and bony fishes (FMNH 2011g). EFH for juvenile and adult lemon sharks occurs in coastal areas along the Atlantic east coast of Florida (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for lemon shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

12

Nurse Shark Nurse sharks (Ginglymostoma cirratum) reside near the sea floor in shallow coastal waters characterized by coral reefs or rocks. Shallow reef and turtle grass habitat serve as nursery areas, and juvenile nurse sharks inhabit shallow coastal waters 3 to 11 m (9.8 to 36 ft) deep from northern Cape Canaveral, Florida to Jupiter Island nearshore waters (NMFS 2009). Nurse sharks feed nocturnally on fish, crustaceans, stingrays, and molluscs. Females reproduce ovoviviparously, with fertilized eggs in egg cases developing and hatching within the female prior to birth (FMNH 2011 h). EFH for juvenile and adult nurse sharks exists in coastal waters along the entire Atlantic east coast of Florida (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for nurse shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Sandbar Shark The sandbar shark (Carcharhinus p/umbeus) resides in shallow coastal water as a bottom dwelling species that avoids rough bottom or coral reef habitat. The sandbar shark is an opportunistic bottom-feeder and preys on fishes, molluscs, and crustaceans. Adults migrate as far north as Cape Cod in the summer months and return south during winter months. Males migrate in congregations while females migrate in solitary fashion (FMNH 2011 i). Adults typically reside in waters deeper than 20 m (60 ft), although nursery habitat exists in shallow coastal waters. EFH for juvenile and adult sandbar sharks exists in localized coastal waters along the entire Atlantic coast of Florida (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for sandbar shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Scalloped Hammerhead Shark Scalloped hammerheads (Sphyma /ewim) form large schools in warm waters and range from nearshore coastal waters to offshore deeper waters. Like the congeneric great hammerhead, scalloped hammerheads feed on a variety of fish, crustaceans, smaller sharks, and stingrays, and move to warmer coastal waters to give birth (FMNH 2011j). Nursery habitat associated with Florida waters exists in waters adjacent and to the south of Cape Canaveral, Florida (NMFS 2009). EFH for scalloped hammerhead juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Silky Shark The silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) resides in offshore, warm water habitats (23°C [74.1 OF]), although juveniles frequent coastal inshore waters during summer months.

Silky sharks prey on fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans. Neonates spend the first months of life near reef habitats, primarily along the Caribbean islands in the western North Atlantic (FMNH 2011 k). Designated EFH extends along the Atlantic coast from Florida to New Jersey for all life stages (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for all silky shark life stages occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Spinner Shark Spinner sharks (Carcharhinus brevipinna) reside in inshore waters and school as adults.

Spinner sharks prey on pelagic fishes, stingrays, and cephalopods (FMNH 20111).

Characterization of nursery areas for spinner sharks include sandy bottom, warm water habitats.

EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult spinner sharks exists in coastal waters along the entire Atlantic coast of Florida (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for spinner shark neonates, juveniles, and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Tiger Shark The tiger shark (Ga/eocerdo cuvier) prefer warm oceanic and shallow coastal waters. Although not well described, nursery areas for tiger sharks occur in offshore areas (NMFS 2009). Tiger 13

sharks feed at night and move inshore to prey on a diversity of items such as sea turtles, sharks, rays, fishes, sea birds, marine mammals, cepahlopods, and crustaceans {FMNH 2011 m}. EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult tiger sharks exists in coastal waters along the entire Atlantic coast of Florida {NMFS 2009}. Therefore, EFH for tiger shark neonates, juveniles, and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

White Shark White sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) roam nearshore coastal and offshore surface waters throughout the western North Atlantic as the largest of the mackerel sharks. White sharks prefer cold to temperate waters (12 to 25°C [53.6 to 77°FJ) and feed on a variety of prey items from fish to marine mammals (NMFS 2009). Sparse reproduction information assumes a biennial reproduction with live birth in temperate shelf waters (FMNH 2011 n). NMFS has designated the mid- and northern east coast of Florida as EFH for all life stages (NMFS 2009).

EFH for white sharks occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.2.5 Small Coastal Sharks Atlantic Sharpnose Shark The Atlantic sharpnose shark (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) resides year-round in the Gulf of Mexico and along the coasts of Florida and South Carolina. The Atlantic sharpnose schools in coastal waters and primarily exist in waters less than 10 m (32 ft) deep (FMNH 20110). Prey items of the Atlantic sharpnose include bony fishes, crustaceans, and molluscs. Females stay offshore during gestation, but give birth to live young in nearshore habitats (FMNH 20110). EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult Atlantic sharpnose sharks exists in coastal waters along the mid-Florida coast (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for Atlantic sharpnose shark neonates, juveniles, and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Blacknose Shark Blacknose sharks (Carcharhinus acronotus), range along the western North Atlantic from North Carolina to Brazil. The blacknose is common off Florida's east coast in the summer and fall (NMFS 2009). Blacknose sharks prefer coastal habitats in waters over sandy or coral bottoms, with juveniles residing in shallow waters and adults moving to deeper waters of over 9 m (30 ft).

Primarily preying on small fishes, the blacknose shark forms large schools and reproduce biennially (FMNH 2011 p). EFH for juvenile and adult blacknose sharks exists in coastal waters along the mid-Florida coast (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for blacknose shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

Bonnethead Shark The bonnethead shark (Sphyrna tiburo) resides in shallow coastal waters characterized by muddy or sandy bottoms. Bonnethead sharks travel long distances daily and form small schools. Bonnetheads feed during daylight hours on crustaceans, molluscs, and small fishes.

Female bonnethead sharks move to shallow waters in the late summer to give birth following a 4- to 5-month gestation, the shortest among all sharks (FMNH 2011q). EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult bonnethead sharks exists in coastal waters along the mid-Florida coast (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for the bonnethead shark neonates, juveniles, and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the S1. Lucie thermal plume.

Finetooth Shark The finetooth shark (Carcharhinus isodon) resides in coastal waters up to 10 m (32 ft) in depth.

Like other small coastal sharks, the finetooth shark forms large schools and prey on small fishes (FMNH 2011 r). EFH for juvenile and adult finetooth sharks exists in coastal waters along the 14

mid-Florida coast (NMFS 2009). Therefore, EFH for finetooth shark juveniles and adults occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.3 Shrimp Species Brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) in the Atlantic Ocean occur primarily in offshore waters less than 55 m (180 ft) deep. Brown shrimp Spawn offshore, and eggs and larvae drift into shallower habitat under the influence of tides and currents. Pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus duorarum) are common in shallower marine habitats with a range depth of 11 to 37 m (36 to 121 ft). Pink shrimp spawn off eastern Florida primarily in the summer months at depths of 3.7 to 15.8 m (12 to 52 ft). Rock shrimp (Sicyonia brevirostris) prefer sandy bottom habitat from a few meters to 183 m (600 ft) in depth. White shrimp (Utopenaeus setiferus) primarily aggregate in Atlantic Ocean waters of less than 27 m (89 ft). Rock shrimp spawn off Georgia and Florida when bottom water temperatures reach 22° and 29°C (71.6 and 84.2°F), usually in mid-spring.

As juveniles and adults, brown, pink, rock, and white shrimp feed in benthic habitats at night and have an omnivorous diet. White, brown, and pink shrimp belong to the family Penaeidae. The SAFMC Fishery Management Plan for penaeid shrimp has designated the coastal waters off the east coast of Florida as EFH for juvenile and adult shrimp (SAFMC 2009b). EFH for shrimp occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4 Snapper-Grouper Complex Designated Snapper-grouper EFH exists in coastal habitats such as coral and artificial reefs, live/hard bottom, medium to high profile outcroppings, and submerged aquatic vegetation.

Species in this group utilize these habitats for one or all life stages as well as spawning areas in the water column above adult habitat (SAFMC 1998).

4.4.1 Snapper Species Snapper belonging to the species Lutjanus and Rhombop/ites associated with the snapper-grouper Fishery Management Plan (FMP) include the blackfin snapper (L. buccanella) ,

gray snapper (L. griseus) , mutton snapper (L. ana/is), red snapper (I. campechanus) , silk snapper (L. vivanus) and the vermilion snapper (R. aurorubens). The blackfin, silk, and vermilion snappers reside in waters deeper than 18 m (59 ft) as adults, spawn in deep, offshore waters, and produce eggs and larvae that are pelagic and drift with the currents in the South Atlantic Bight. As juveniles, these species occupy shallow reef habitat and tend to move offshore as they mature (FMNH 2011s; SAFMC 2009c). These species of snapper do not typically reside in shallow, inshore coastal waters, but may forage over shallow water reefs to prey on fishes, crustaceans, and benthic invertebrates. In contrast, gray, mutton, and red snapper occupy shallow reef or sandy bottom habitats as either juveniles, adults, or both and feed on fishes, crustaceans, and cephalopods (FMNH 2011t; 2011 u; 2011v). EFH for all these snapper species occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.2 Grouper Species Grouper species occupy a range of depths and display territorial preference for habitat with relief such as caves, wrecks, ledges, and reefs. The scamp (Mycteroperca phenax) , snowy grouper (E. niveatus) , speckled hind (Epinephelus drummondhaYI) , Warsaw grouper (E. nigritus) and yellowedge grouper (E. f1avolimbatus) prefer habitats deeper than 25 m (82 ft),

however, juveniles may occur in shallow coastal habitats (SAFMC 2009c). The goliath grouper (E. itajara) resides in inshore shallow waters up to 46 m (150 ft) and is one of the few grouper species that can tolerate brackish water conditions (FMNH 2011w). All grouper species listed 15

here prey on fishes, cephalopods, and crustaceans (SAFMC 2009c). EFH for all these grouper species occurs in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.3 Blueline Tilefish The blueline tilefish (Caulolati/us microps) resides in deep coastal waters along the continental shelf at depths of 30 to 236 m (98 to 774 ft). Blueline tilefish broadcast spawn from February to October, and eggs and developing larvae drift with shelf currents. Juveniles forage in nearshore habitats prior to migrating to offshore habitats characterized by irregular bottom relief structures (SAFMC 2009c). EFH for the blueline tilefish occurs in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.4 Greater Amberjack The greater amberjack (Seriola dumerill) reside primarily in offshore deepwater habitats ranging from 18 to 360 m (60 to 1181 ft). However, eggs, larvae, and greater amberjack juveniles may drift into shallower marine habitats, and some populations migrate into inshore waters to forage (FMNH 2011x). Greater amberjack prey on benthic and pelagic fishes, crustaceans, and cephalopods (SAFMC 2009c). EFH for the greater amberjack occurs in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.5 Red Porgy Red porgy (Pagrus pagrus) occur at depths of 25 to 90 m (82 to 295 ft) as adults and may reside in shallower waters as juveniles. Red porgy prey on crustaceans, molluscs and fishes near bottom relief structures (SAFMC 2009c). EFH for the red porgy occurs in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.6 White Grunt White grunts (Haemulon plumier) inhabit nearshore live-bottom habitat of sponge-coral reefs between the shoreline and up to 35 m (118 ft) offshore. White grunts prey nocturnally over open sand or reefs on crustaceans, molluscs, benthic invertebrates and small fishes. Spawning occurs offshore, and pelagic eggs drift inshore with currents (FMNH 2011 y). EFH for the white grunt occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

4.4.7 Wreckfish The wreckfish (Polyprion americanus) occurs in deep water (over 400 m [1312 ftl in depth).

Wreckfish eggs and larvae presumably drift with currents and encounter nearshore habitat for foraging as juveniles. Wreckfish prey on crustaceans, fishes, and cephalopods (SAFMC 2009c). EFH for the wreckfish occur in coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume.

16

5.0 Potential Adverse Effects to EFH The provisions of the MSA define an "adverse effect" to EFH as the following (50 CFR 600.810):

Adverse effect means any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH.

Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem components, if such modifications reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.

As previously discussed, under proposed EPU conditions, St. Lucie's Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit Discharged would limit the temperature of heated discharge water to a maximum of 115°F (46°C) or a rise no more than 30°F (16. rC) above the ambient water temperature during normal operations. Therefore, in addition to entrainment, entrapment, and impingement, this EFH assessment includes the potential adverse effects of heat shock on EFH. Section 6 presents a discussion of potential cumulative impacts to EFH species or their habitat resulting from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity of St. Lucie.

5.1 Impingement and Entrainment Entrainment and impingement affect EFH in two ways. First, by removing individuals of EFH species from the water volume entrained by the plant, entrainment and impingement change inhabited habitat to uninhabited habitat and decrease the size of EFH species populations.

Second, impingement and entrainment remove potential prey and competitors of EFH species from the entrained volume of water and so change EFH.

In its Final Environmental Statement Regarding the Operation of St. Lucie, Unit 1 (NRC 1982),

the NRC estimated potential entrainment at St. Lucie based on monitoring data taken at six stations in the ocean near the intake and stations in the intake and discharge canals during preoperational and early operational monitoring for Unit 1. The most common larval fishes in the area of the intake were herrings and anchovies of the family Clupeidae. The staff estimated that under normal operating conditions, the two units would entrain 0.4 percent (on average) of the fish eggs and larvae passing the site. Under extreme conditions, entrainment would include less than 4 percent of the fish eggs and larvae passing the intake. Based on this assessment, the NRC concluded that entrainment losses under two-unit operation would not represent a significant impact to the local fisheries (NRC 1982).

In 2003, the NRC published a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) to assess the environmental impacts of license renewal at St. Lucie (NRC 2003a). The SEIS also summarized impingement sampling carried out at St. Lucie, Unit 1, from 1976 through 1978.

During this period, 226 24-hour collections were made of fish and shellfish trapped on the traveling intake screens. Assuming continuous operation, annual impingement rates were estimated at 34,000 (1978) to 131,000 (1976) finfish, and 26,000 (1976) to 37,000 (1978) shellfish. Over the course of the entire study, the mean numbers of finfish and shellfish impinged per 24-hour period were 222 and 82 individuals, respectively. Corresponding mean total weights per 24-hour period were 1.7 kg (3.7Ib) and 0.5 kg (1.1Ib), respectively. The most commonly impinged species groups were anchovy (Anchoa sp.), grunt (Haemulidae), jack (Carangidae), croaker (Micropogonias sp.), mojarro (Gerreidae), shrimp (Panaeidae, some of which are EFH species), and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus). The length of over 80 percent of the impinged fish was 8 cm (-6 in.) or less, and virtually all of the impinged shrimp were 4 cm 17

(-3 in.) or less in length. The NRC concluded in 1982 that impingement losses at Unit 1 were insignificant when compared to the fish populations in the site vicinity and (for shrimp) the number caught commercially off Florida's east coast. The NRC also acknowledged in 1982, that startup of Unit 2 would double the intake flow volume and increase impingement rates over those measured during Unit 1 operation. Doubling the weight of organisms impinged would be equivalent to less than one-half of one percent of the commercial catch of fish and shellfish in either St. Lucie or Martin County. Based on this, the NRC concluded that even the combined estimates of Unit 1 and Unit 2 impingement would be insignificant when compared to local commercial landings. Additional impingement monitoring for Unit 2 was not required. Today the FDEP and not the NRC regulates the design, operation, and any potential mitigation for the intake structure.

5.2 Entrapment Entrapment at St. Lucie affects mostly larger, adult individuals and has the potential to affect EFH in the same manner as entrainment and impingement. Between August 20 and 24, 2011, an exceedingly large number and volume of moon jellyfish (Aurelia aurita) were pulled into the St. Lucie Plant's intake cooling water canal. According to the Environmental Protection Plan Report (FPL 2011 a):

The St. Lucie Plant intake cooling water pipes are approximately 1,600 feet in length. As sea water traverses the intake pipes it becomes quite turbulent and reaches a flow rate of 6.8 feet/second. During that turbulent journey the jellyfishes' stinging nematocysts are broken off and are then released into the water column. The heavy concentration of moon jellyfish and corresponding nematocysts in the water column finally reached a lethal concentration on August 22, 2011. These conditions were responsible for the mortality of an estimated 10,000 pounds of fish in a 24-hour period.

The plant began to remove fish immediately after the jellyfish incursion began and continued until crews had to cease work due to the stinging effects of the nematocysts. In that time, the staff biologists rescued ten goliath groupers (Epinephelus itajara) , one nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirraturm), and eight snappers (Lutjanidae). The highest concentrations of moon jellyfish that caused the mortality lasted less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (FPL .2011 b).

Goliath grouper, nurse shark (a large, coastal shark), and some snappers are managed species under the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council and NMFS Designated Highly Migratory Species Management Plan and have designated EFH. FPL (2011 a) reports that entrainment of moon jellyfish into the intake canal is a natural event that occurs yearly at the St. Lucie plant, although numbers high enough to cause such fish mortality are rare. FPL (2011 b) performed a search on a utility database from 2006 through 2011 and found "five events similar to the circumstances of this jellyfish intrusion event." FPL's (2011a) mitigative action is "to minimize the high fish mortality by the St. Lucie Fish Removal campaign to keep the entrained fish population as low as possible." As part of an ongoing Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with NMFS for sea turtles, FPL is installing additional barriers that will limit future entrapment around the offshore intake structure.

5.3 Thermal Effects Heat shock is acute thermal stress caused by exposure to a sudden elevation of water temperature that adversely affects the metabolism and behavior of fish and other aquatic organisms. In addition to heat shock, increased water temperatures in the thermal plume can cause chronic thermal effects by reducing the available habitat for aquatic organisms or if 18

thermal plume temperatures are higher than the environmental preferences of a particular species (e.g., resulting in displacement of managed species or their forage species). Impacts to EFH species' food (forage species) occur in the form of displacement or loss of forage species and loss of forage species habitat.

Comparison of baseline aquatic monitoring of phytoplankton, zooplankton, macrophytes, benthic invertebrates, worm reefs, fish, and sea turtles with Unit 1 post-operational monitoring resulted in observations of no sUbstantial or widespread effects on thermal effluents in coastal Atlantic waters (EAI 2001). Monitoring of offshore benthic macroinvertebrates and fish communities following commencement of Unit 2 operation showed no measurable effect on the abundance or diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates, nor any interference with movement or migration of pelagic fish communities (EAI 2001). The fish communities in coastal Atlantic waters are transitional assemblages of temperate and tropical forms. Since oceanic fishes are most diverse and abundant near reefs and other hardbottom areas, FPL sited intake and discharge structures for st. Lucie in areas devoid of these habitats (NRC 2003a). However, as discussed previously, the modeling conducted by FPL indicated that the increase in the thermal mixing zone following the initially requested EPU, increases the thermal load for a total combined volume of 6896 fe (195.3 m 3) over current conditions. Coastal migratory species, sessile species, forage species, and planktonic life stages of marine organisms may still encounter the increased mixing zone area.

The staff determined that the potential for heat shock from the EPU is not likely because of the design, location, and operation of discharge for St. Lucie. In high-temperature plumes, mobile organisms generally avoid environmental conditions that compromise survival (Hall et al. 1978).

The increase in thermal mixing zone by 6896 fe (195.3 m 3) occurs over an area devoid of coral reefs and submerged aquatic vegetation, thus occurs in sub-optimal habitat. Therefore, the staff concludes that thermal impacts from Units 1 and 2 EPU would be minor.

5.4 Potential Impacts on Identified EFH The following sections address potential adverse effect to the Federally managed species identified for in-depth analysis in Section 4.0. For each species and life stage, the NRC evaluated the effects of St. Lucie operating under EPU conditions to determine whether the proposed EPU would result in (1) no adverse impact, (2) minimal adverse impact, or (3) substantial adverse impact to EFH. The staff determined impact level through review of FPL monitoring data, scientific journal articles, NMFS publications, technical reports, and other relevant information. Section 6.0 addresses cumulative impacts.

5.4.1 Coral As described in Section 4.1, habitats for coral colonization include hardbottom inshore and offshore environments and provide important cover and feeding areas for many fish and invertebrates. EFH and coral HAPC exist in the coastal (nearshore and offshore) waters associated with the far-field St. Lucie thermal plume. The increased thermal plume from the proposed EPU may affect an additional 6896 ft3 (195.3 m 3)-of a total 9949 ft3 {281.7 m 3)-of coastal Atlantic waters in the mixing zone, but will not change the existing far-field thermal plume which contains EFH and HAPC for coral. The proposed EPU would likely have a minimal adverse effect on coral EFH and HAPC.

5.4.2 Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species Section 4.2 describes the potential for neonates, juveniles, and adults of 19 highly migratory coastal fishes and sharks to inhabit coastal Atlantic waters associated with the far-field st. Lucie thermal plume, or feed on prey that reside in coastal areas associated with the st. Lucie thermal 19

plume. Recreational fishery records for the east coast of Florida between 1981 and 2011 record landings of all coastal migratory pelagic species described in Section 4.2 (NMFW 2011b). The swordfish fishery represents a substantial commercial fishery off Florida's east coast with over 1.4 million Ibs (635,000 km) caught in coastal St. Lucie waters alone between 2005 and 2010 (FWC 2011a-f). Commercial shark fishing regulations for sharks described in Section 4.2 allow for harvesting of blacktip, bull, lemon, nurse, spinner, silky, great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, tiger, Atlantic sharpnose, blacknose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks (NMFS 2011 b). Commercial fishing records for St. Lucie County record almost 600,000 Ibs (272,000 kg) of unspecified shark landings between 2005 and 2010 (FWC 2011 a-f).

Recreational and commercial landing records confirm the presence of all species described in Section 4.2 in Atlantic coastal waters. However, highly migratory coastal pelagic species and their prey can avoid the thermal changes and increase in mixing zone for the nearshore Atlantic coastal waters. The increased thermal plume from the proposed EPU may affect an additional 6896 fe (195.3 m 3)-of a total 9949 fe (281.7 m3)-of coastal Atlantic waters in the mixing zone, but will not change the existing far-field thermal plume which contains EFH for neonate, juvenile, and adult highly migratory coastal pelagic species. The proposed EPU would likely have a minimal adverse effect on highly migratory coastal pelagic species EFH.

5.4.3 Shrimp Section 4.3 describes the potential for juvenile and adult penaeid shrimp to inhabit coastal Atlantic waters. The SAFMC Fishery Management Plan for penaeid shrimp designates the coastal waters off the east coast of Florida as EFH for juvenile and adult shrimp (NOAA 2009b),

which includes coastal waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume. Commercial fishing record for shrimp species in St. Lucie coastal waters reports virtually no landings between 2005 and 2010, although 2,328 Ibs (1,055 kg) of brown shrimp were harvested in 2007 (FWC 2011 a-f). Prior to 1982, trawling and seine surveys in the vicinity of St. Lucie Plant intake and discharge reported limited numbers of brown, pink, and rock shrimp and were therefore discontinued (EAI 2001). No reports of white shrimp in the vicinity of St. Lucie coastal waters are available. The increased thermal plume from proposed EPU may affect an additional 6896 fe (195.3 m 3)-of a total 9949 fe (281.7 m 3)-of coastal Atlantic waters in the mixing zone, but will not change the existing far-field thermal plume which contains EFH for juvenile and adult penaeid and rock shrimp. The proposed EPU would likely have minimal adverse effect on penaeid and rock shrimp species EFH.

5.4.4 Snapper-Grouper Complex Section 4.4 describes the potential for neonates, juveniles, and adults of 17 fishes of the snapper-grouper complex inhabit Atlantic waters associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume, or feed on prey that reside in coastal areas associated with the St. Lucie thermal plume. Of the species described in Section 4.4, only the goliath grouper and wreckfish did not specifically appear in records of Florida east coast recreational fishery landings between 1981 and 2011 and may be rare or uncommon in these waters (NMFS 2011 c). Commercial catch records for St. Lucie County Atlantic waters report small takes <<6,000 Ibs [2,700 kg]) between 2005 and 2010 with the exception of snowy grouper (>14,000 Ibs [6,350 kg]) (FWC 2011a-f). Operational studies for St. Lucie, Unit 1, concluded that no significant variation in sport, commercial, and forage fish numbers and species occurred in nearshore waters adjacent to St. Lucie as a result of Unit 1 operations (EAI 2001). In spite of being rare in these waters, goliath grouper were entrapped, however, in St. Lucie's intake canal when an unusually large number of jellyfish were entrained into the canal in 2011 (event described in Section 5.2). The increased thermal plume from the proposed EPU may affect an additional 6896 fe (195.3 m3)-of a total 9949 ft3

{281.7 m3)-of coastal Atlantic waters in the mixing zone, but will not change the existing 20

far-field thermal plume which contains EFH for egg, larvae, juvenile and adult snapper-grouper complex species. The proposed EPU would likely have minimal adverse effect on snapper-grouper complex EFH.

6.0 Cumulative Effects to EFH This section addresses the direct and indirect effects of the proposed EPU on Federally managed species and their EFH when added to the aggregate effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The primary effects on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species as a result of the proposed EPU will occur as a result of the increased temperature of cooling water discharged to the Atlantic Ocean.

The geographic boundaries for assessing cumulative aquatic impacts are somewhat variable and depend on the specific aquatic resource. The mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters between Cape Canaveral, Florida and Jupiter Inlet, including coastal waters for Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties, bound the potentially affected area as influenced by hydrological patterns driven by the Florida Current. Gilmore described this region as the most diverse continental shelf fish assemblage with a diversity of habitats for temperate and tropical species (Gilmore 2001).

The main stressors that can cause cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species within mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters include:

• The continued operation of St. Lucie, including entrainment, impingement and thermal impacts under proposed EPU conditions;

• Fishing (commercial and recreational) and boating;

• Water quality and habitat degradation;

• Invasive species;

• Disease; and

• Climate change.

Each of these may influence the structure and function of mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters in a way that could result in observable changes to Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species. The following is a brief discussion of how the stressors listed above could contribute to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species in mid- to south-Florida Atlantic coastal waters.

6.1 Continued Operation of St. Lucie As described in Section 2.1, St. Lucie marine monitoring surveys since operation began in the early 1980s record no significant variation in plankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, or fish species occurrences (EAI 2001). The NRC's SEIS for the St. Lucie license renewal in 2003 provides the most current review of operating impacts for aquatic resources. Assessments of impingement and entrainment of aquatic organisms in the cooling water intake canal concluded that losses would not represent a significant impact to local fisheries and that mitigation efforts to reduce any losses were sufficient (NRC 2003a). Discharge impact assessments, including thermal modeling for heat shock, also concluded that placement of discharge pipes and compliance with Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit No. FL0002208 would mitigate all impacts related to thermal stress (NRC 2003a). The NRC staff concludes that St. Lucie operation will continue to be a contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species.

21

6.2 Fishing and Boating Many fish and shellfish species in mid-Atlantic coastal waters, including Federally managed species, are harvested for recreational or commercial purpose. Federal or State agencies regulate commercial and recreational catches, but losses of some species (including Federally managed species) occur as the result of bycatch or illegal capture. Over-harvesting of prey species may degrade the habitat value of EFH for higher trophic level fish by depleting the food resources. The extent and magnitude of fishing pressure and its relationship to overall cumulative impacts to Federally managed species is difficult to determine. Normal use of fishing gear and discarded or lost fishing gear poses a threat to Federally managed species, but regulatory guidelines are established for SAFMC FMPs to limit impacts on EFH for these species and corresponding prey species (SAFMC 1998).

The 2010 commercial finfish and shellfish landings for Brevard, Indian River, St Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach Counties recorded a total of 12,430,4051bs (5,638,337 kg) offinfish, 1,486,248 Ibs (674,151 kg) of invertebrates (excluding shrimp), and 1,104,087 Ibs (500,805 kg) of shrimp (FWC 2011f). Specific descriptions of commercial and recreational fishery landings for the last six years for EFH managed species as described in Section 4 indicate that active fisheries for many of these species persist. Recreational and commercial boating adversely affects aquatic resources along the Atlantic coast through introduction of petroleum products at marinas and docks, improper navigation around shoal and shallow reef habitat, and through anchoring on reef habitat (FDEP 2011 b). Because fishing and boating remain a concern, the NRC staff concludes that these stressors will continue to be an important contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species within the mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters.

6.3 Water Quality and Habitat Degradation Point-source chemical and thermal discharges can adversely affect EFH by reducing habitat functions, modifying community structure, bioaccumulation, and habitat modification (Hanson et al. 2004). No other industrial discharge to the Atlantic Ocean other than the S1. Lucie discharge is known to occur in the immediate area. However, nonpoint sources such as urban and stormwater runoff, marine fuel spills, agricultural runoff and sewage disposal facilities may contribute impacts to mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters. Management of water quality in these counties includes a number of conservation and restoration activities managed by the State to stabilize shorelines to reduce sedimentation, creation of water storage for reuse of agricultural runoff, and retrofits to hold and treat urban stormwater runoff (FDEP 2000b; FDEP 2008; SFWMD 2009).

Dredging activities and sand mining for beach restoration impacts nearshore inlet and shoal habitats. While these activities require approval by FDEP and other State and Federal agencies, impacts to the surrounding ecosystem may occur (Gilmore 2009; Martin County Board of County Commissioners 2011). The NRC staff concludes that water quality and degradation for the mid-Florida Atlantic coast will continue in the future and will be a potential contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species.

6.4 Invasive Species The introduction of invasive species is often is a source of critical stress to endemic species or their habitats. Estuaries and sheltered coastal areas are among the most susceptible to invasive species, especially those that have suffered prior disturbance by navigation, industrial development, and urbanization. Most invasive species in marine systems result from 22

transportation and introduction from ballast water or attachment to ship hull, or through live trade of exotic species or plants (Moser and Leffler 2010). Currently, one fish species in particular is of concern for the mid-Florida Atlantic coastal habitats. The lionfish (Pterios volitans) negatively affects reef communities through competition of resources and predation on various fish species. Local communities sponsor lionfish derbies throughout coastal Florida regions to help reduce numbers of lionfish (REEF 2010). The NRC staff concludes that invasive species will continue to be a concern and a potential contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species.

6.5 Disease Aquatic biota may encounter a number of diseases-causing organisms. Among the most prevalent to all organisms is red tide, which is a toxic algal bloom. The marine algae Karenia brevis, produces a toxin in coastal Florida waters that can cause mortality to marine life, including Federally managed species (FWC 2011g). Red tide blooms typically initiate in nutrient-poor waters and migrate with ocean and wind currents (Alcock 2007). Red tide monitoring stations occur throughout the Gulf of Mexico coastal counties, and along the southern portion of Miami-Dade County. Red tide outbreaks primarily occur in these regions and no monitoring stations occur in the area described for cumulative impacts to EFH for St. Lucie Plant (FWC 2011 h). However, red tide blooms may migrate up the south Florida coast with weather events.

Black band and white band diseases affect coral species when stressed by other environmental perturbations such as high water temperatures, sedimentation, and nutrient levels. Black band disease occurs when the filamentous bacteria Phormidium corallyticum destroys live coral and leaves behind the carbonate skeleton. Outbreaks of black band disease occur globally and occur more frequently in the summer months (FMNH 2011z). White band disease primarily affected branching corals such as stag horn or elkhorn and results in a similar result of dead coral as for black band disease. The cause of white band is currently unknown, but implications point to filamentous algae overgrowth (FMNH 2011 aa).

Bleaching is another coral-related phenomenon believed to occur with stressful environmental conditions. In many species of coral, photosynthetic algae (zooxanthellae) live symbiotically within coral polyp tissue, provide a source of food and oxygen and assist with waste removal for the coral community. Zooxanthellae also give many corals their color. Loss of zooxanthellae in coral tissues, while not lethal, leaves behind a "bleached" coral structure, retards coral growth, and affects overall health of coral and coral communities with the loss of the photosynthetic algae (FMNH 2011ab).

The NRC staff concludes that red tide and coral disease remains a concern and a potential contributor to cumulative impacts on Federally managed species and their forage species.

6.6 Climate Change Global climate change represents a potential stressor for the coastal Atlantic for Federally managed species that migrate throughout the Atlantic Ocean.

The potential cumulative effects of climate change on mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters may arise from a number of environmental factors such as sea level rise, temperature increases, salinity changes, wind and water circulation changes, and ocean acidification (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2009; Raven et al. 2005). Changes in sea level could result in effects to nearshore communities, including the reduction or redistribution of optimal habitat and turbidity.

Water temperature and salinity changes could affect habitat utilization by indigenous or invasive 23

species, frequency of disease outbreaks, or spawning patterns and successful reproduction (Florida Oceans and Coastal Council 2009).

The NRC staff concludes that climate change impacts to Federally managed species and their EFH could be an important contributor to cumulative impacts for mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters.

6.7 Total Cumulative Impacts Based on the NRC staff review, multiple stressors affect the aquatic resources of mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters. Management actions may address the impacts of some of the stressors (e.g., cooling system operations, fishing pressure, and water and habitat quality). Although the impacts associated with cumulative impacts cannot be quantified, cumulative impacts on aquatic resources have had or potentially will have destabilizing and adverse effects on at least some aquatic resources, including Federally managed species and their EFH and forage species.

7.0 EFH Conservation Measures and Conclusions 7.1 Conservation Measures The intake of the St. Lucie cooling system consists of three intake structures with velocity caps, three buried pipelines, a common intake canal, and two intake well structures (one for each unit). St. Lucie already has a number of features that minimize impacts to aquatic biota, including Federally managed species:

• The velocity caps minimize entrainment of fish and other organisms by eliminating vertical flow and slowing horizontal flow.

• In the intake canal, a series of barriers prevents sea turtles and other biota from being impinged on the screens where the water enters the plant. Two of these barriers are mesh nets and the third is a rigid barrier.

• NRC is currently in consultation with NMFS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As part of this consultation, FPL is adding additional protective measures at the intake.

Thermal discharge impacts related to proposed EPU could influence Federally managed species, their EFH, or their prey species. The Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit revision for EPU requires submission of a biological plan of study to assess and describe representative and indigenous population diversity at all trophic levels, seasonal sustainability, surveys of food chain species, and presence of pollution-tolerant species. FPL submitted a biological plan of study to assess representative important species and water quality parameters. The baseline monitoring would begin following FDEP approval of the monitoring plan. It would continue until the Unit 1 EPU has been completed. Post-operational monitoring will begin once the Unit 2 EPU is completed and will continue for two years. Three study sites for sampling include areas associated with the discharge along the multi-port diffuser discharge line, and two reference areas to the north and south along the coast encompassing 2,224 ac (900 ha) each. Multiple habitat types exist within the sampling study areas, and one of the representative species groups assessed includes members of the snapper family. Comparisons between current condition monitoring and previous 316(a) studies will address the conditions of the Administrative Order (FPL 2011 d). FDEP approved FPL's biological plan of study on August 18, 2011 (FPL 2011e). As a result of these studies, FDEP could impose additional requirements on FPL through the S1. Lucie Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit process.

24

7.2 Conclusions The NRC investigated the potential effects of the proposed EPU at St. Lucie Plant on 42 Federally managed species and their EFH near the site. The known distributions and records of the Federally managed species and the potential ecological impacts of operation on them, their habitat, and their prey base have been considered in this EFH Assessment. The NRC evaluated the proposed EPU operating conditions to determine whether the EPU would result in (1) no adverse effect, (2) minimal adverse effect, or (3) substantial adverse effect on Federally managed species and their EFH. Table 5 summarizes the expected impacts of the proposed EPU for each species. Many of the Federally managed species for the mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters have been collected in the coastal waters near the St. Lucie Plant.

However, the location of discharge diffusers paired with models of the thermal mixing zone under EPU conditions indicate change in far-field temperatures that would result in potential adverse effects on the various life stages of the Federally managed species, habitat, and forage species. The NRC staff concludes that the proposed EPU would result in no to minimal adverse effects on Federa"y managed species and their EFH in mid-Florida Atlantic coastal waters.

Table 5. Impacts on EFH Species from the Proposed St. Lucie EPU Common Name EFH Description (a,b) Expected Effect of EPU on FMP (Seecies Name) EFH Coral Hardbottom habitat in octocorals nearshore and Minimal Adverse Effect (Order Alcyonacea) offshore waters; HAPC within existing far-field HAPC within existing thermal plume, and small stony corals northward current portion may be influenced by (Order Scleractinia) thermal plume for increased mixing zone for EPU S1. Lucie Highly Migratory Coastal Pelagic Species Minimal Adverse Effect EPU increased thermal mixing Atlantic skipjack tuna Coastal waters for Tuna zone may affect small portion (Katsuwonus pe/amis) juveniles and adults of coastal water habitat and forage seecies Minimal Adverse Effects EPU increased thermal mixing Coastal waters for Swordfish swordfish (Xiphias g/adius) zone may affect small portion juveniles of coastal water habitat and forage sQecies Minimal Adverse Effect EPU increased thermal mixing longbill spearfish (Tetrapturus Coastal waters for Billfish zone may affect small portion pfluegen) juveniles and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species Minimal Adverse Effect EPU increased thermal mixing sailfish (/stiophorus Coastal waters for p/atypterus) zone may affect small portion juveniles and adults of coastal water habitat and forage seecies Minimal Adverse Effect EPU increased thermal mixing Large Coastal blacktip shark (Carcharhinus Coastal waters for zone may affect small portion Sharks limbatus) juveniles and adults of coastal water habitat and forage sQecies 25

Common Name EFH Description la,b) Expected Effect of EPU on FMP (Species Name) EFH Minimal Adverse Effect Coastal waters for EPU increased thermal mixing bull shark (Carcharhinus neonates, juveniles zone may affect small portion leucas) and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species Minimal Adverse Effect Coastal waters for EPU increased thermal mixing Caribbean reef shark neonates, juveniles zone may affect small portion (Carcharhinus perez!)

and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species Minimal Adverse Effect Coastal waters for EPU increased thermal mixing dusky shark (Carcharhinus neonates, juveniles zone may affect small portion obscurus) and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species Minimal Adverse Effect Coastal waters for EPU increased thermal mixing great hammerhead shark neonates, juveniles zone may affect small portion (Sphyma mokarran) and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species Minimal Adverse Effect lemon shark (Negaprion EPU increased thermal mixing Coastal waters for brevirostris) zone may affect small portion juveniles and adults of coastal water habitat and forage species nurse shark (Ginglymostoma Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect cirratum) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species sandbar shark (Carcharhinus Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect plumbeus) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species scalloped hammerhead shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Sphyma lewint) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species silky shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Carcharl7inus falciformis) neonates, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species spinner shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Carcharhinus brevipinna) neonate, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species tiger shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Galeocerdo cuvier) neonates, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species white shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Carcharodon carcharias) neonates, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species 26

Common Name EFH Description1a,bl Expected Effect of EPU on FMP EFH

{Species Name}

Small Atlantic sharpnose shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect Coastal Sharks (Rhizoprionodon terraenovae) neonates, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species blacknose shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Carcharhinus acronotus) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species bonnethead shark Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Sphyma tiburo) neonates, juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species finetooth shark (Carcharhinus Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect isodon) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage s~ecies Shrimp brown shrimp Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Farfantepenaeus aztecus) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species pink shrimp (Farfantepenaeus Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect duorarum) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species rock shrimp Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Sicyonia brevirostris) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species white shrimp Coastal waters for No Adverse Effect (Litopenaeus setiferus) juveniles and adults Not common or limited distribution in mid-Florida coastal waters Snapper.Grouper Blackfin snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Lutjanus buccanella) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species blueline tilefish Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Caulolatilus microps) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species goliath grouper (Epinephelus Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect itajara) juveniles and adults Not common or limited distribution in mid-Florida coastal waters.

27

Common Name EFH Description (a,b) Expected Effect of EPU on FMP (Species Name) EFH gray (mangrove) snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Lutjanus gnseus) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species greater amberjack Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (SenoIa dumen/J) eggs, larvae, EPU increased thermal mixing juveniles and adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species mutton snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Lutjanus analis) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species red porgy Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Pagrus pagrus) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species red snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Lutjanus campechanus) juveniles and adults EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species scamp Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Mycteroperca phenax) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species silk snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Lutjanus vivanus) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species snowy grouper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Epinephelus niveatus) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species speckled hind Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Epinephelus drummondhaYI) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species vermilion snapper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Rhomboplites aurorubens) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species Warsaw grouper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Epinephelus nigritus) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage s~ecies 28

Common Name EFH Description (a,b) Expected Effect of EPU on FMP (Species Name) EFH white grunt Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Haemulon plumien) larvae, juveniles and EPU increased thermal mixing adults zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species wreckfish Coastal waters for No Adverse Effect (Polyprion american us) larvae and juveniles Not common or limited distribution in mid-Florida coastal waters.

yellowedge grouper Coastal waters for Minimal Adverse Effect (Epinephelus flavolimbatus) juveniles EPU increased thermal mixing zone may affect small portion of coastal water habitat and forage species (a) SAFMC 1998 (b) NMFS 2009 29

Figure 1. Geographic Location of St. Lucie Plant Along the Florida Atlantic Coast ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 & 2 A TLANTIC OCEAN ST. lUCIE COUNTY MARTIN COUNTY Figure Source: FPL 2011 c 30

Figure 2. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Southward Currents

.. :II OJ AMIIEN' TEMPfIlATUIIE: .,",

to N :II :It OCEAN CURRENT 'pEE D 0_15 fP . . .OUTNULYI

• : ....." :It

It OISCIiAIlOf TEMPEIIATUIIE II."'

.. " . JO

.. . >II SUII'ACE ISOTHEIIM TIlMI'E"ATUIlIS

II ARE IN 0, AlOVE AMllfNT

. ]I SOUNDINGS IN FEET A' MEAN LOW WATER

It

,. ** ,. n JO SII

>>  :/ OJ Of

.. .r t1J

.. ,v~

. ~. .

n J1

• • , so

• • -" . i or Sol OJ

~ .f OJ

-M

It

It

. j'

" ~; ..

. . ** .. " c; . .

ll_"

It :1

~ 0, a 4J

. ** . .'~~ . 11 0

~

.... .. so 0 1000 000 000 aooo

_:::::oJ i

S**I, fA Ye,d.

Figure Source: Golder Assoc_ 2010b 31

Figure 3. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Northward Currents AIIIIIINT TUlPlRlYURI 11-"

,"uo N OCItAN CUIIRINT DISCUIIBr 1'IMPt:ltAYUIII 0,111 'PlINOftTIIIIILY' DISCHAlleE PLOW 100l,IIC'1I illNIT II PIICOICTIO AIlEA ElfCLOUD .., :

I-P 1111 I ACIEI.

8UR'AOE ISOT"'IIIII TEIIPIIIArUIIU lllE IN . , A.OVI AII"!IIT SOUNDINBI IN nET AT IIIEAN lOW WATEII

.. II 3.

.3 . .. .. (1J

,~

~,

., 34

~.

III II

..,.1 .. ..

~ ii

. . !III U

M I"

,. ,. "or. .

. ** 311

II

II

'1-(1---

~

II "i ** .

~,

u

.~

.~

• • .')~~ .,

M

., 51 0

I 1000 yo , OQO 6000

';=:')

S".I. I. Votllt Figure Source: Golder Assoc. 2010b 32

Figure 4. St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms Under Slack Currents N @~.

". n

.0 AIIIIlNT TUI"EAATUIU 87-'

,. .0

". OCUN CURRENT SPIED o , ""ITAG"ANTI l

i

". OIICKIoIII' TlIlPERIoTURE IIS-'

' 3t

.001.1 CF' CUNIT I)

DISCHARGE PLOW

~, H to OI.l C PI CUMIT II

.0 I'lIrOICTlD 'RU ENCLOSED IY :

'-I' 00 1144 C'CRU) 00 3t n 0*' Itl'CRU)

Of

". 0, IURFACE ,SOTKUII TlII'UIoTUIIII AilE 'N nOVE "IIIIENT

.. ** H SOU" Dt M.. IN 'fET AT IIIUN LOW WATER 3t

.0 3t XI

If 5S1!

os

If

., .. . CJ(I "

.. 'Sr' n_

• • '" :If

.t 1

u;.!

sa S

.. ~

so

!f. ..,

.. :If

• • I"

". n ..~

(J U

"-<0 -~--

.. ., ~

~. .. .. ** ...~ * ..

C;

., >I

~

• 0 1000 000 000 tIOOO

• • so I I FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCII! PLANT UNIT 2 SURfACE ISOTHERMS FOR ST lUOE tMlTS 1 AND 2

$lACK WATER COHDI TIONS FIGURE 5.1.6 r . nit Figure Source: Golder Assoc. 2010b 33

Figure 5. Composite Map of St. Lucie Discharge Surface Isotherms at 119°F(48°C)

Discharge temperature under all conditions; Pierce Shoal outlined in yellow Ambient Temperature 87-degree (F) o 5-degree (F) above ambient Ocean Current Speed 0.85 FPS (northerly) o 2-degree (F) above ambient Discharge Temperature Discharge Flow 119-degree (F) 1001.5 cfs Figure Source: Golder Assoc. 2010b 34

Figure 6. Location of HAPC Hard Bottom Habitat Near St. Lucie Discharge 41 41 44 39 QtAQ. '  ?

c.'!i:' :'!?

,;s1" 49

- ,$ Sf>

'3:)

38

~

+

34 SI) 34 44, L1

)~

-C' * ***.. 2 42 SEAMAP Nearshore Hard Bottom

_ SEAMAP Offshore Hard Bottom 35

8.0 References 16 U.S.C. 1802. United States Code. Title 10, Conservation, Chapter 38, Fishery Conservation and Management, Part 1802, "Definitions."

50 CFR 600. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 60, "Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions."

Alcock F. 2007. An Assessment of Florida Red Tide: Causes, Consequences and Management Strategies. Technical Report 1190, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, Florida. Available at

<https:lldspace.mote.org/dspace/handle/2075/2911 > (accessed 21 February 2012).

[EAI] Ecological Associates, Inc. 2001. Survey of Aquatic Environments Potentially Affected by the Operation of the St. Lucie Power Plant, Hutchinson Island, Florida. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Company, April 2001. ADAMS No. ML021430397.

Ecological Associates, Inc. 2000. Physical and Ecological Factors Influencing Sea Turtle Entrainment Levels at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant: 1976-1998. L-2000-78. Jensen Beach, Florida.

[FDEP] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2000b. Nonpoint Source Management Program Update November 1999. Division of Water Resource Management. Available at

<http://www.dep.state.fI.us/water/nonpointidocs/

319h/nps2000.pdf> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FDEPJ Florida Department of Environmental Protection). 2008. Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Central Atlantic Coast Region. Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems. May 2008.

Available at <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/

publications/index.htm> (accessed on 16 September 2011).

[FDEP] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2011 a. Notice of Permit Issuance.

State of Florida, Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit FL0002208 (Major). September 29, 2011.

ADAMS No. ML11301A205.

[FDEP] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2011 b. Coral Reef Conservation Program 2011 -- 2016 StrategiC Plan. Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas, Miami, Florida. Available at <http://www.dep.state.fl.us/

coastal/programs/corallpub/CRCP StrategiC Plan 2011-2016. pdf> (accessed 21 February 2012).

Florida Oceans and Coastal Council. 2009. The Effects of Climate Change on Florida's Ocean and Coastal Resources. A Special Report to the Florida Energy and Climate Commission and the People of Florida. Tallahassee, Florida. 34 pp. Available at

<http://www.floridaoceanscouncil.org/reports/Climate Change Report. pdf> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011a. Biological Profiles: Swordfish. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/DescriptiSwordfish/Swordfish.html> (accessed 9 September 2011).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 b. Biological Profiles: Blacktip Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/DescriptiBlacktip/Blacktipshark.html> (accessed 9 September 2011).

36

[FMNHJ Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011c. Biological Profile: Bull Shark. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descriptibullshark/bullshark.htm> (accessed 9 September 2011 ).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011d. Biological Profiles: Caribbean Reef Shark.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/GallerylDescriptiCReefSharkl CReefShark.htm> (accessed 9 September 2011).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011e. Biological Profiles: Dusky Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descriptiduskysharkl duskyshark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNHJ Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011f. Biological Profiles: Great Hammerhead Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descript/

GreatHammerhead/GHammerhead.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 g. Biological Profiles: Lemon Shark. Available at <http://www. flmnh. ufl. edu/fis h/Galiery/DescrjptlLemon Sharkl LemonShark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011h. Biological Profiles: Nurse Shark. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descriptinursesharklnurseshark.htm> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNHJ Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 i. Biological Profiles: Sandbar Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/DescriptiSandbarsharkl sandbarshark.htm> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011j. Biological Profiles: Scalloped Hammerhead Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/GalierylDescript/

SchammerIScaliopedHammerhead.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 k. Biological Profiles: Silky Shark. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descriptisilkysharklsilkyshark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 20111. Biological Profiles: Spinner Shark. Available at <http://www. flm nh. ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descriptispinnersharkl spinnershark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNHJ Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 m. Biological Profiles: Tiger Shark. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/DescriptfTigersharkltigershark.htm> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 n. Biological Profiles: White Shark. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descriptlwhitesharklwhiteshark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNHJ Florida Museum of Natural History. 20110. Biological Profiles: Atlantic Sharpnose Shark. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descriptl AtlanticSharpnoseShark/AtISharpnose.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011p. Biological Profiles: Blacknose Shark.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/Descripti BlacknoseSharklBlacknoseShark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

37

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 q. Biological Profiles: Bonnethead Shark.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/DescripVBonnethead/

Bonnethead.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 r. Biological Profiles: Finetooth Shark.

Available at <http://www.flmnh. ufl. edu/fish/Gallery/DescripVfinetoothsharki finetoothshark.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011s. Biological Profiles: Blackfin Snapper.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/DescripVBlackfinSnap perl BlackfinSnapper.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011t. Biological Profiles: Gray Snapper. Available at <http://www. flmnh. ufl. edu/fish/Gallery/DescripVGraySnapperl Graysnapper.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011 u. Biological Profiles: Mutton Snapper.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fiSh/GallerylDeSCriPVMuttonSnapper/

MuttonSnapper.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011v. Biological Profiles: Red Snapper. Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edulfish/GallerylDescripVRedSnapper/

Redsnapper.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011w. Biological Profiles: Goliath Grouper.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Galiery/DescripVGoliathGrouperl GoliathGrouper.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011x. Biological Profiles: Greater Amberjack.

Available at <http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/DescripV GreaterAmberlackiGreaterAmberjack.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011y. Biological Profiles: White Grunt. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/GallerylDescriptIWhiteGrunti WhiteGrunt.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011z. Black Band Coral Disease. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/coralldiseases.html#blackband> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011aa. White Band Coral Disease. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/corallWhiteband.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FMNH] Florida Museum of Natural History. 2011ab. Coral Bleaching. Available at

<http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/southflorida/corallcoralbleaching.html> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2001. Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389. Miami, Florida. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operatingllicensing/

renewal/applications/st-Iucie/stlucieapplenv.pdf> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2011 a. Letter from Eric S. Katzman, licensing Manager, st. Lucie Plant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

St.

Lucie Units 1 and 2; Docket No. 50-335 and 50-389; Environmental Protection Plan Report; Event Date: August 22, 2011; Unusual or Important Environmental Event - Reportable Fish Kill.

September 20, 2011. ADAMS No. ML11270A098.

38

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2011 b. Letter from Richard L. Anderson, Site Vice President, St. Lucie Plant to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk.

Subject:

St. Lucie Unit I; Docket No. 50-335; Reportable Event: 2011-001; Date of Event:

August 22, 2011; Unit 1 Manual Reactor Trip Due To High Condenser Backpressure Caused by Severe; Influx of Jellyfish into the Intake Structure. October 20, 2011. ADAMS No.

ML11301A071

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2011c. St. Lucie Unit 2 EPU Licensing Report, License Amendment Request Extended Power Uprate, Attachment 2. ADAMS No. ML110730282.

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2011d. St. Lucie Plant Biological Plan of Study. ADAMS No. ML110870943.

[FPL] Florida Power & Light Company. 2011e. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, Environmental Protection Plan, 316(b) Related Documentation. September 30,2011. ADAMS No. ML11306A010.

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011a. Marine Fisheries Information System 2005 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1071. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/sa/twater/fishstats/commercial-fisheriesllandings-in-f1orida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011b. Marine Fisheries Information System 2006 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1071. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial-fisheries/landings-in-florida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011c. Marine Fisheries Information System 2007 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1071. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial-fisheries/landings-in-florida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011 d. Marine Fisheries Information System 2008 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1094. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commerciaI-fisheries/landings-in-florida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011e. Marine Fisheries Information System 2009 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1103. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial-fisheries/landings-in-florida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWCJ Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011f. Marine Fisheries Information System 2010 Annual Landings Summary, Edited Landings Data through Batch 1103. Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/saltwater/fishstats/commercial-fisheries/landings-in-florida/>

(accessed 16 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011g. Red Tides in Florida.

Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/redtidelinformation/generallre d-tides-fl> (accessed 19 September 2011).

[FWC] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2011 h. Red Tide Current Status.

Available at <http://myfwc.com/research/redtidelevents/status/statewidel

1. regional> (accessed 19 September 2011).

Gilmore, R.G. 2001. The Origin of Florida Fish and Fisheries. Proceedings afthe 5~d Annual Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. pp 713-731. Available from http://procs.gcfi.org/details_view.php?dataID=1848 39

Gilmore, RG. 2009. St. Lucie County South Beach Project Initial Essential Fish Habitat Assessment of Potential Borrow Areas. Final Report. Available at <http://bcs.dep.state.fl.us/env prmt/st lucie/pending/0154626 South%20 Beach%

20 Restoration Dunes/001-JC/application/Attachment%20L %20-%20Fisheries%

20Information/2009-03-19%20ECOS%20fisheries%20report.pdf> (accessed 25 August 2011).

Golder Associates. 2010a. Revised Thermal Discharge Study in Support of RFI #1 Substantial NPDES Permit Revision Florida Power & Light St. Lucie Plant NPDES Permit No. FL0002208.

Prepared for Florida Power & Light, June 8, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101930526.

Golder Associates. 2010b. Substantial NPDES Permit Revision St. Lucie Plant Response to FDEP RFI #1. Prepared for Florida Power & Light, June 8, 2010. ADAMS No. ML101930526.

Hall, C.A.S., R Howarth, B. Moore, Ill, and C.J. Vorosmarty. 1978. Environmental Impacts of Industrial Energy Systems in the Coastal Zone. Annual Review of Energy 3:395-475. Available at <www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.

03.110178.002143> (accessed 21 February 2012).

Hueter, RE. and Tyminski, J.P. 2002. U.S. Shark Nursery Research Overivew, Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory 1991- 2001. Submitted to NOAAlNMFS Narrangansett, RI.

MML Technical Report 816. Available at <https:lldspace.mote.org/dspace/handle/2075/142>

(accessed 21 February 2012).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. Public Law 104-267.

Martin County Board of County Commissioners. 2011. Letter to Martin Seeling, FDEP from Kathy Fitzpatrick, Martin County. Re: Notification of two-year time extension for the St. Lucie Inlet Federal Navigation Project. . Available at <http://www.stlucieinlet.com/

dredging more 2.php> (accessed 16 September 2011).

Moser, F. and Leffler, M. 2010. Preventing Aquatic Species Invasions in the Mid-Atlantic; Outcome-Based Actions in Vector Management. Maryland Sea Grant Publication, College Park, MD UM-SG-TS-2010-03. Available at <http://www.mdsg.umd.edu/vectorworkshop/> (accessed 16 September 2011). '

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 42 USC 4321, et seq.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Final Amendment 1 to the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan, Essential Fish Habitat. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, Silver Spring, MD.

pp. 395. Available at <http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/EFH/index.htm> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011 a. Email from Jocelyn Karazsia to Ann Miracle re: EFH species for St. Lucie, July 21,2011. ADAMS No. ML12037A147.

[NMFSJ National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011 b. HMS Commercial Compliance Guide; Guide for Complying with the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, Sharks, and Bil/fish Regulations. Office of Sustainable Fisheries, Highly Migratory Species Management Division. Available at

<http://www. nmfs. noaa. gov/sfa/hms/Compliance Guide/

index.htm> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011 c. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics for East Florida from 1981 to 2011. Available at <http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/

st 1/recreational/gueries/catch/time series. html> (accessed 16 September 2011).

40

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003a. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. NUREG-1437, Supplement 11, Volumes 1 and 2. Washington, D.C., May 2003. Available at <http://www.nrc.gov/reading rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/supplement11/> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003b. St. Lucie Plant, Unit 1, Current Facility Operating License DPR-067, Technical Specifications. October 2,2003.347 p. ADAMS No. ML052790654.

[NRC] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2003c. St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, Current Facility Operating License NPF-016, Technical Specifications. October 2,2003.375 p. ADAMS No. ML052800077.

Raven, J., K. Caldeira, H. Elderiield, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, P. Liss, U. Riebesell, J. Shepherd, C. Turley, and A. Watson. 2005. Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Document 12/05. The Royal Society, London. June 2005. Available at

<www.scar.org/articles/Ocean ACidification(1}.pdf> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[REEF] Reef Environmental Education Foundation. 2010. Annual Report. Available at

<http://www.REEF.org/reef files/annuaI2010.pdf> (accessed 16 September 2011).

[SAFMC] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 1998. Habitat Plan for the South Atlantic Region: Essential Fish Habitat Requirements for Fishery Management Plans of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. October 1998 as amended. Available at

<http://www.safmc.netiDefault.aspx?tabid=80> (accessed 21 February 2012).

[SAFMC] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009a. Volume" South Atlantic Habitats and Species; Coral, Coral Reefs and Live/Hardbottom and Sargassum. April 2009. Available at

<http://www.safmc.netiEcosystemLibrary/FEPVolumelll tabid/628/Default.aspx> (accessed 16 September 2011).

[SAFMC] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009b. Volume" South Atlantic Habitats and Species; Penaeid and Deepwater Shrimp. April 2009. Available at

<http://www.safmc.netiEcosystemLibrary/FEPVolumellltabid/628IDefault.aspx> (accessed 16 September 2011).

[SAFMC] South Atlantic Fishery Management Council. 2009c. Volume" South Atlantic Habitats and Species; Snapper Grouper Complex. April 2009. Available at

<http://www.safmc.neUEcosystemLibrary/FEPVolumell/tabid/628IDefault.aspx> (accessed 16 September 2011).

41

M. Croom - i-no adverse effects to EFH for 2 species and minimal adverse effects on EFH for the remaining 40 species. The NRC requests your concurrence with our EFH Assessment determination within 30 days per 50 CFR 600.920(h)(2). If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact me at 301-415-2327 or bye-mail at Andy.lmboden@nrc.gov or Dennis logan, Aquatic Biologist at 301-415-0490 or bye-mail at Dennis.logan@nrc.gov.

Sincerely, IRA!

Andrew S. Imboden, Chief Environmental Review and Guidance Update Branch Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: Listserv Jocelyn Karazsia Biologist Habitat Conservation Division National Marine Fisheries Service c/o USEPA 400 North Congress Avenue, Suite 120 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 DISTRIBUTION:

E-MAIL:

PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRerb Resource DLogan BBalsam Almboden ADAMS Accesion No'.. ML12053A345 OFFICE ILA: RPB2:DLR PM:RERB;DLR RERB:DLR BC:RERB:DLR DLogan NAME liKing BBalsam jAlmboden (BBalsam for)

DATE 3/9/12 3/13/12 \3/13/12  : 3120112 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy J